Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[PuckChaser]

Not even remotely close to the SIP. 5800 people is about 1500 less than the entire recruiting targets for this entire year. Are you referring to 5800 short of our approved staffing levels for total members in the CAF?

Yes, it's directly from the article. A journalist doesn't understand the nuance of SIP vs approved staffing levels. The math for CA signalers hitting SIP this FY is worse the last time I checked for January's year to date total.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukraine Built a $50B Defense Industry in Four Years. Here’s Why Exports Matter

Ukraine’s defense industry has grown dozens of times over since the start of the full-scale invasion.

united24media.com

Here's hoping our DIS is as productive as Ukraine's. Unusual to make money when your under attack.

 

[Underway]

Yes, it's directly from the article. A journalist doesn't understand the nuance of SIP vs approved staffing levels. The math for CA signalers hitting SIP this FY is worse the last time I checked for January's year to date total.

Yah, they increased the SIP. Overall the total number of signalers over last year is higher, but because of the SIP increase the percentage is lower. Its really hard to recruit for signals if it isn't SIG TECH, IS TECH or LINE TECH.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Yes, it's directly from the article. A journalist doesn't understand the nuance of SIP vs approved staffing levels. The math for CA signalers hitting SIP this FY is worse the last time I checked for January's year to date total.

Its worse. It looks even worse when you look at the number of pers we have lost.

Yah, they increased the SIP. Overall the total number of signalers over last year is higher, but because of the SIP increase the percentage is lower. Its really hard to recruit for signals if it isn't SIG TECH, IS TECH or LINE TECH.

SIG Tech is unsalvagable at this point, because we are losing techs faster than we can replace them. IS Tech is slowing down, but its an easy sell, because it has a civilian equivalent we can explain to people coming through the door. Line Tech is going to be hurting soon, as we look to transfer more complex tasks from Sig Tech and IS Tech to Line Techs.

 

[YZT580]

There is a piece of vital infrastructure here in Vancouver, that is highly exposed and vulnerable and damage to it could have significant effects. A bit of fencing and some other specific add on's would reduce the risk of a successfully sabotage attack. I pointed this vulnerability out to some "experts" during one of our disaster exercises, but other than being uncomfortable discussing it, nothing ever happened. Sadly typical of our head in the sand approach.

There is a lot of other vital infrastructure out there that would benefit from a bit of hardening.

Unless there is a line in someone's budget to cover it, it will not get done and it requires someone fairly high up to get in into one of those lines. Those same people are far removed from the nuts and bolts of security and probably never hear of the deficiencies.

 

[Seyek]

Its worse. It looks even worse when you look at the number of pers we have lost.

SIG Tech is unsalvagable at this point, because we are losing techs faster than we can replace them. IS Tech is slowing down, but its an easy sell, because it has a civilian equivalent we can explain to people coming through the door. Line Tech is going to be hurting soon, as we look to transfer more complex tasks from Sig Tech and IS Tech to Line Techs.

I keep hearing about problems with the Sigs world - what's going on over there that's such a problem? Are there reasonably ways of correcting it and getting the trades back on track?

 

[Ludoc]

I keep hearing about problems with the Sigs world - what's going on over there that's such a problem? Are there reasonably ways of correcting it and getting the trades back on track?

Those are great questions but too big to answer fully in a thread about budgets. The short answer is the CAF has spent decades siphoning resources away from Sigs (and other support trades). The poor training, lack of equipment, and shitty leadership have caused us to bleed soldiers for a long time. It has finally caught up to us where the CoC can't push it's head in the sand/sweep the manpower shortages under the rug. Unfortunately it may be too late to do anything.

There are not enough pers to do the jobs required (one of the Sigs trades, at the Pte/Cpl level, is staffed at a little over 50%, another at just over 30%). Even worse there aren't enough experts to teach the next generation how to properly employ the kit we have. There has been so much "make do, get it done" for so long that even we don't really know how to do our job properly.

All of that makes people not like the job and not stay around.

It deserves a way more in depth conversation but this thread is probably not the place for it.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I keep hearing about problems with the Sigs world - what's going on over there that's such a problem? Are there reasonably ways of correcting it and getting the trades back on track?

- The need is higher across the CAF than the throughput we have for training Signals pers.

- Branding is a problem, as industry in Telecommunications and Information Technology don't use the word "Signals" anywhere within their nomenclature. Its beeing looked at in the Occ Review to see if we can line up better with industry/academia to have people know its the same field, just in khaki.

- Pay will remain a problem, regardless of overall increases or spec. Not solely because industry pays out the ass for these people, but also because the Public Service does as well. PIPSC is the union that bargains for IT-0X positions, and there is a pretty solid cross over between the work we ask uniform members to do and the PS equivalents that get paid 20% more.
And that also includes solely doing the tech stuff without sleeping in a hole from time to time.

 

[Ludoc]

Branding is a big problem. If we aren't selling ourselves to the public why would we expect them to be interested in us and want to join us?

What is a Sig Op? To a regular person that doesn't mean anything. Our trade names should be evocative of what we do so people off the street can immediately grasp what we do without needing an explanation. They understand what a Vehicle Tech is, what a Weapons Tech does, who knows what a Sig Tech does?

the change from Comms Research to Sig Int (as much as I hate to give those guys any credit) was smart. It frames the first conversation someone has about that trade and lets people know a bit about it, enticing them to click on the trade description on the recruiting website.

 

[FJAG]

There are not enough pers to do the jobs required (one of the Sigs trades, at the Pte/Cpl level, is staffed at a little over 50%, another at just over 30%). Even worse there aren't enough experts to teach the next generation how to properly employ the kit we have. There has been so much "make do, get it done" for so long that even we don't really know how to do our job properly.

The artillery has faced this issue several times. Both the air defence specialty and the surveillance and target acquisition specialty had been "depopulated" several times over the last 70 years where literally only one or two instructors in gunnery or the assistant instructors in gunnery at the school were being sent on courses in the UK to learn the craft. In each case, as AD units or STA subunits were reformed, it took years to build up the necessary level of knowledge and experience to grow enough field officers and senior NCMs. The STA field has been building since around 2005 and while small is employable. The AD field is only now starting to develop. It will take years yet.

The whole thing is dependent on priorities. As resources shrink, the CAF ends up throwing some capabilities under the bus in order to save core functions. Unfortunately when the aim is to field only one battlegroup at a time infantry is saved, but even there they threw mortars, anti-armour and pioneers under the bus. It takes priorities, a healthy allocation of PYs and time to save a faltering specialty.

Branding is a big problem.

You're very right there. The issue is not only being relevant to the CAF's mission but also being seen to be relevant.

One of the last commanders of our army's AD branch told me that the kiss of death for air defence was being located in Moncton and Gagetown and rarely being seen by the brigades across the country. With the temporary employment as part of the LdSH's direct fire unit experiment back in the early '00s, they simply weren't seen by the army in general and therefore their relevance wasn't obvious to the developing leadership of the day. What they did see were the AD's airspace coordination centres which survived throughout Afghanistan and are now being retasked as air defence cells in 4 Regt (GS).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Branding is a big problem. If we aren't selling ourselves to the public why would we expect them to be interested in us and want to join us?

What is a Sig Op? To a regular person that doesn't mean anything. Our trade names should be evocative of what we do so people off the street can immediately grasp what we do without needing an explanation. They understand what a Vehicle Tech is, what a Weapons Tech does, who knows what a Sig Tech does?

the change from Comms Research to Sig Int (as much as I hate to give those guys any credit) was smart. It frames the first conversation someone has about that trade and lets people know a bit about it, enticing them to click on the trade description on the recruiting website.

This is exactly the reason 00168 Supply Technician changed to 00168 Material Management Technician.

Personally, I would drop the Technician and just be Material Management. But that's just me.

 

[Ludoc]

EW has much of the same problem. Like AD we all know it is important (in the abstract) but we never train with it. So we don't see the value it brings. Not bringing enablers to collective training events not only atrophies our ability to employ them in the short term it sets up a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude when the Army moves pers around or makes funding priorities.