- Reaction score
We have downsized the reserves before, in the 50s alberta, Ft McCloud, Caroline, and other small towns had detatched platoons and they were removed from the ORBAT.
MilEME09 said:We have downsized the reserves before, in the 50s alberta, Ft McCloud, Caroline, and other small towns had detatched platoons and they were removed from the ORBAT.
FJAG said:Small elements like troops or platoons generally depend on one or two really interested people to keep them alive. Without those they go into a death spiral.
Jumping on the Cadets tangent, on that note: that program has endured the same sort of HQ growth afflicting the rest of the CAF, with (and I'm not sure if the dynamic's the same on the Militia side) a slow increase in Class B mostly CIC positions, often filled by "career B" people, who seem to carry on more or less undisturbed by the 3-5 year rotation of national and regional Regular commanders.daftandbarmy said:This is not just the case with 'small elements', especially in the Class A world. I would argue that one of the reasons why our Class B, and the B stands for 'Bloat', has been necessary is to help risk manage performance where Class A inconsistency occurs.
Gunplumber said:Disciplinary? Where I work, the CICs dont give a damn about TI cards or even following the rules and nothing ever happens about it. Even leaving rifles, bolts and ammo in a cube van over night with no one around. It makes me sick. If things like that happend in the Reserves there would be charges.
If you are wearing a CAF uniform then you should do a FORCE test. Period. Its not up to National to make that decision, it is a CAF requirement.
I agree with you that there should not be a lot of Class B in the CIC, but there should be some, but a lot of what they are hiring is reminiscent of NDHQ. It needs to be cleaned up.
Brad Sallows said:Ambitious plans and ideas shouldn't prevent doing small things that can be done immediately at negligible cost.
Stop promoting to LCol and CWO at the unit level, and reduce promotions to Maj and MWO accordingly.
daftandbarmy said:Big holes in succession plans are already accomplishing this goal, to a certain extent.
dapaterson said:Recycling COs for second and third command tours in units where they lack specialist knowledge, and extending them for four or five years is also considered a viable COA.
dapaterson said:"Why would I collaborate with other artillery units to provide collective training when I can partner with my old infantry unit instead? That way we can train these gunners in proper infantry tactics."
This brigade has deployed to Iraq twice AS A BRIGADE on operational tours.
MilEME09 said:Sounds like when I hear combat units in the reserves say they don't need CSS. To be fair though, on a weekend Ex, they don't, due to the way our system works. Another part of our problem as a reserve force.
dapaterson said:But there does need to be institutional discipline. Forget to bring it? That's a 48 wait for it to show up - not a "do a quick run up to the base, grab it, come back". Cheating on planning and cheating on sustainment means the weekend succeeded - but the training reinforced behaviours that lead to catastrophic failure in real life.
The time constraints of a 30 practical hours for training model (like we have in the Res F) dictate the types of training which can be effectively delivered, and thus the capabilities and levels of proficiency we can reasonably expect. To my mind, that's proficient company-sized organizations which, when called upon, can be combined into battalion sized groups and deployed.
The CAF needs CSS. AND, it really needs CSS in the reserves. In the US there are 31 Active and 27 ARNG manoeuvre brigades (total 58) and 75 Active and 137 ARNG and USAR support brigades (total 212 both CS and CSS of which 64.6% are ARNG or USAR).
Looking at CSS, of its 17 divisional sustainment brigades, 7 are ARNG; of its additional 14 sustainment brigades, 12 are either ARNG or USAR. Accordingly of its deployable CSS capabilities, 61.3% is either ARNG or USAR.
The question which Ottawa seems to miss is that while we may not need CSS on a weekend ex, where will we find it if we ever do need to deploy in a serious fashion ... or maybe we'll just choose not to go and write off that 20 billion we've been spending every year.
American NG and Res units go through significant ramp-up training prior to deployments. Nothing wrong with building deployable units from employable companies as needed.
dapaterson said:Many support trades are intensive and training and in time required to maintain skills. Those more logically vest in a full-time component where there is greater RoI and greater ability to maintain those skills.
Res F =/= Reg F and should not attempt to; the differences must be understood when developing missions and roles to assign in various proportions to both components.
That concept, of course, shatters iron ricebowls in both components.