ATOF is Broken! The Managed Readiness System is Born!

[Infanteer]

I remember that was the rumored plan prior to September 11 and Afghanistan - rolling up all the 3rd Battalions into the 1st and 2nd.  I'm pretty sure if you use the search engine here, you can find some old discussions on that topic.

 

[KevinB]

I remember that was the rumored plan prior to September 11 and Afghanistan - rolling up all the 3rd Battalions into the 1st and 2nd.   I'm pretty sure if you use the search engine here, you can find some old discussions on that topic.

T'was not rumoured at all - it was fact.  Light was dead and the track toads where firmly in charge of more Cold War prep...

 

[McG]

I remember that was the rumored plan prior to September 11 and Afghanistan - rolling up all the 3rd Battalions into the 1st and 2nd.  I'm pretty sure if you use the search engine here, you can find some old discussions on that topic.

Even while 3 PPCLI was in Afghanistan, I heard the CLS referred to them as Mech Bns awaiting LAVs.  I'd never heard talk of dissolving the 3rd Bns.

At the heart of all this is (and I heard the CDS say it) a choice. Do you want fewer but more effective units or fewer infantry LCol positions?

This is not about preserving battalions.  Managed Readiness seeks to ensure that we have the elements to build BGs to deploy.  It identifies a rate that those BGs can be generated while still remaining sustainable.  Here is an idea of the types of BG that may be called on:

 

[CH1]

Gentlemen

Forgive me if I am reading or interpreting this thread wrong, & pls feel free to enlighten me further.

This almost sounds like (& forgive the analogy), like the forces are to be restructured into something resembeling small unit tactics on a larger scale.  Then everyone gets thrown into the sand box & told to play nice.

This is probably an over simplification.  The mix & match approach was tried years ago, & failed miserably, for some of the already eloquently stated reasons.

One of the little things I noticed, & maybe more so with small unit/section, is every body gets used to every body's weak & strong points.  They therefore move as "one".  When a new person or element was introduced, there seemed to be an awkward "gap" that entailed. Almost like throwing a geen grunt into a formation that has marched together on the parade square.  Every body is trained the same way to the same standard, but the new grunt is out of step & has to correct.

If my simple analogy is close, I think I would want to crawl further into my brain can.

The other comment I agree with, is the top loading that has been endemic, for years.  There has been too many ppl treating the military as a 9-5 job, using it to garner points for their curriculum vitae.  This is a practice that Canada has to kill.  We have to find other ways to attract & Keep the better ppl.

At any rate I've used up more than 2 cents.

Cheers

 

[Michael Shannon]

This is about nothing but preserving units.  Each arm has desperately tried to justify it's existing structure in the hope that the current farce will eventually change if they just hang on. I agree that a lot of effort has been put into justifying ad hockery but it's just staff officers trying to make the best of a bad situation given the limitations they have: no disbandments, no amalgamations and symmetry among the infantry regiments. 

  The people who fear disbandments are probably right in thinking once a unit's gone it's never coming back, but please don't complain about not having enough money to train when you are intentionally maintaining a swollen rank structure waiting for the day when recruits and money coming pouring in. The rationale for this sytem is supiciously like the justification for maintaining five divisons worth of militia infantry regiments.

 

[TCBF]

"The rationale for this sytem is supiciously like the justification for maintaining five divisons worth of militia infantry regiments.'

- Which I also happen to agree with. 

- We always have bean counters from Ft. Fumble on the Rideau coming around looking to disband UNITS.  Why don't we send people from those units to NDHQ and they can look for jam stealers and Keyboard kommandos to remuster to Cbt A?

We waste a lot of money long before it gets to those units.  The Army, Navy, and Air Force may be poor, but DND has bags of money it fritters away.

Tom

 

[McG]

This is about nothing but preserving units.  

Rather than a rant, why don't you connect the dots for me because I don't see how you've come to this conclusion.

When I look at the numbers, we have committed to maintaining 2 x BG on an operational footing indefinitely by rotating BGs through on six month iterations over a three year cycle, I see that this requires all 12 of the manoeuvre units that we have.   In order to sustain this cycle with few than 12 units, we would have to go to year long deployments or send the same unit every other year.   I don't think either option is sustainable with our small army.  I think we will be stretched to meet the readiness cycles as it is with 12 units and our current man-power.

. . . and this is without looking at the strategic reserve TF.

 

[Michael Shannon]

    The army has taken the number of units it wants and worked backwards to justify their existence.

      Units should go on operations every other year.  We are at war. I don't actually think the CF intends to recommend an Op tempo that would have 2 BGs out continuously but a CO should expect to take his unit on ops and they should train for that eventuality. The CO shouldn't be in the position of knowing he's out of the rotation. Ditto OCs. Unless you want to extend command tours for three years. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

      With a 2 year rotation you only need 8 units. I would suggest 4 light armour/mech infantry and 4 light/motorized.  Each with an integral engr sqn, mortar platoon etc. A Logistic Group, one arty regiment and one engineer regiment would provide extra support as required. Each type of unit reports to a "Group HQ" for force generation. No brigade HQs. Groups report to CLS.

      The result:  Minus 1 formation HQ, 4 maneuver unit HQs and CSS sub units, 2 Arty Regt HQ, 2 Engr Regt HQs, 2 Service Bn HQs  8
                      artillery gun & HQ batteries, 6 mech rifle coys, 1 combat support coy
                      Plus 2 engr sqns, 3 light armour sqns, 3 light rifle companies, 8 mortar platoons, 5 AA platoons, 8 assault pioneer platoons
                      No fleet management, mech units have their vehicles and can train as units
                      No commanders caught in the down side of the cycle
                      Strategic reserve exists as 6 maneuver units not 2
                     
    It would cause some angst but scraping the existing unit affiliations and simply having numbered units, perhaps 1-4 Cavalry and 5-8 Commandos would in the long term be simpler. The cavalry units should probably be western based to take advantage of CMTC, Suffield and Shiloh. The Commandos, except perhaps for one in BC (Comox?) should be in the east near Halifax, Shearwater etc.
                     
     

     

 

[PPCLI Guy]

     The army has taken the number of units it wants and worked backwards to justify their existence.

Ummm- evidence?

     

Units should go on operations every other year.  We are at war.

In a general sense, I agree with this

I don't actually think the CF intends to recommend an Op tempo that would have 2 BGs out continuously

That is exactly what is intended.

but a CO should expect to take his unit on ops

Why?

and they should train for that eventuality.

Granted

The CO shouldn't be in the position of knowing he's out of the rotation. Ditto OCs.

Agree that it sucks for the individual (and occasionally for the Unit), but life is like that - it sucks.  It sucked when I lost my Rifle Coy (and gained Adm Coy) just before deploying, and it sucked when I left that Coy just before it deployed again.  But that is not sufficent cause to revamp the optempo management process.

Unless you want to extend command tours for three years. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Probably not a good thing.  i personally think that 18 and 30 months is the answer.

     

With a 2 year rotation you only need 8 units. I would suggest 4 light armour/mech infantry and 4 light/motorized.  Each with an integral engr sqn, mortar platoon etc. A Logistic Group, one arty regiment and one engineer regiment would provide extra support as required.

And when pers get out due to high tempo?  How do we fit in introduction of new kit, career courses, postings etc in a cycle that tight?

Each type of unit reports to a "Group HQ" for force generation. No brigade HQs. Groups report to CLS.

Are you not concerned about the span of control?

     

The result:  Minus 1 formation HQ, 4 maneuver unit HQs and CSS sub units, 2 Arty Regt HQ, 2 Engr Regt HQs, 2 Service Bn HQs  8
                      artillery gun & HQ batteries, 6 mech rifle coys, 1 combat support coy
                      Plus 2 engr sqns, 3 light armour sqns, 3 light rifle companies, 8 mortar platoons, 5 AA platoons, 8 assault pioneer platoons
                      No fleet management, mech units have their vehicles and can train as units
                      No commanders caught in the down side of the cycle
                      Strategic reserve exists as 6 maneuver units not 2

 

And an unsustainable force package
                     
   

It would cause some angst but scraping the existing unit affiliations and simply having numbered units, perhaps 1-4 Cavalry and 5-8 Commandos would in the long term be simpler.

Again, in a general sense, I agree.

 

[McG]

I don't actually think the CF intends to recommend an Op tempo that would have 2 BGs out continuously ...

That is exactly what the former CLS told the government we could do, and as CDS he is bringing the two TF per year concept to the CF.

Units should go on operations every other year.

It sounds good, but would be unsustainable.   Where do you fit the 4 month career courses (and any other 4 month course requiered to ensure proper skills in the BGs)?   Who fills individual tasks while the units will not have the available manpower?   With no strat res and such a buisy cylce, are you ready to let BC burn & Manitoba swim because the army has nothing to support?   Do you not think this would result in an attrition that is even less sustainable that what we face now?   I see that PPCLI Guy voice most of my thoughts before I've had a chance to post, and one point in particular: you still have not proven that Managed Readiness was built to justify 12 manouvre units.   I still belive it was developed to clearly define our maximum sustainable OpTempo and to commit to having troops available to meet that OpTempo if called on by the government.

. . . & for those interested, many of the "better force structure" and "better deployment tempo" ideas of been looked at in depth in these:
Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems
What would your army look like - 15 years from now?
Deployment Rates/Durations  
Engineering Regiment Breakdown  
Light vs Medium forces 
Modular Manoeuvre Battalion 

 

[Michael Shannon]

Do you think high op tempo leads to unwanted attrition? I can see four or five tours in Bosnia sitting at the same desk as soul destroying but it seems to me that a lot of people want to go on tour, especially to somewhere new and challenging. Isn't that what good soldiers join for? I know one officer who did 5 tours in Bosnia but it seems that he was the victim (?) of the posting cycle and the formation of a armoured BG with his new rifle coy attached. He didn't quit. It appears that despite Iraq while US Army recruiting is down retention is up. I don't think a high op tempo is necessarily bad for retention. There are other factors in play.

    I don't recall meeting anyone who went away a lot with the same unit. The distribution of tours is individually uneven and I don't see how forming ah hoc TFs will make that better. Large cohesive units might actually reduce individual op tempo. Saying 1VP goes overseas every three years is pointless if it provides a company to 2 other TFs during the in between years.

          I think that cohesive units may make individual career management easier. Fewer units will free up NCOs for posting to schools and cut individual taskings. Cohesive units will take less time for pre-deployment training and that time could be used for courses, leave etc.

          I know what the CDS has said. I just don't think the CF due to log issues will maintain 2 battalion sized TFs on operations simultaneously for any length of time. Are any planned? Besides he doesn't decide where the CF goes, the PM does.

          The strategic reserve in my system can be any unit not deployed or just back. That's a minimum of four units. That's considerably better than we have or will have. The actual number of troops available for disaster relief is about the same with perhaps a few more in my system (presuming we have hired privates with the savings from cutting senior officers).

          The span of control is 4 at Group and 7 at unit. A WW 2 Cdn Inf Bn was 6 and they weren't digitized.

          Finally, I think it is important that COs command on operations to ensure that the army is run by people with operational experience at every level and that every CO takes great interest in building a cohesive team rather than resign himself to force generation.

         
                     

         

 

[McG]

Do you think high op tempo leads to unwanted attrition?

At a certain point, yes.  Consider in one 24 month cycle, you need room for a 6 month deployment, two or three months for IBTS up to lvl 6 validation, 4 months for career courses (and some non-career courses that provide essential specialist skills), and another month or two for unit directed field training.  That is a 14:24 ratio of deployed time (operationally or on trg) to time at home.  This can be averaged to 7 months every year away from home.  Add DomOps and task, and soldiers will never be home.  Eventually, your OpTempo would kill the army.

Saying 1VP goes overseas every three years is pointless if it provides a company to 2 other TFs during the in between years.

I agree that this is one of the faults in the Managed Readiness System.

Finally, I think it is important that COs command on operations to ensure that the army is run by people with operational experience at every level

So, you would be one of those that believe only manoeuvre officers should command above unit level?  Engr, Arty, and CSS COs rarely (if ever) command their units overseas.  I'd prefer to see command tours extended to three years, but I've heard arguments based on succession planning as to why this is apparently not possible.

I know what the CDS has said. I just don't think the CF due to log issues will maintain 2 battalion sized TFs on operations simultaneously for any length of time. Are any planned? Besides he doesn't decide where the CF goes, the PM does.

We have had this much and more deployed in the past (think UNPROFOR).  Yes, the government decides what we will deploy.  However, the CDS has told them that they can ask for "X" and we will provide and sustain it. 

 

[Michael Shannon]

    Sappers could command one of the maneuver units. Engr sqns are integral afterall. My units are all arms affairs.

      I think you're a bit long on the estimates for being away from home for most of the units. Very few people go on 4 month long career courses and most units can conduct all of a QL4 etc on base. Edmonton lacks ranges but even then you can whip out to Wainwright for the week and be back on Friday. Cohesive units should also take less time to get to deployable status. Part of the question is when does your previous training actually stale date. My system should leave units far more in "game shape". 

      That said if it averaged out to 5 months away annually while posted to a unit I'd live with that. That's four months on courses etc othe first year (and not necessarily consecutively) and 2 months of exs and the tour the next. Even then I thinks thats long if the unit's training plan was optimized.