CF Forming "Yellowknife Company" of Loyal Edmonton Regiment

[tabernac]

Adding LCols into the calculation wouldn't exactly hurt my case that the reserves aren't unusually top heavy compared to the rest of the forces. 

How's this for a little anecdote. Last year at the Battle of the Atlantic Parade, HMCS NONSUCH paraded 35-40. 12 of them were officers. That's pretty top heavy. And something tells me that echos the reality in the RegF.

 

[Monsoon]

How's this for a little anecdote. Last year at the Battle of the Atlantic Parade, HMCS NONSUCH paraded 35-40. 12 of them were officers. That's pretty top heavy. And something tells me that echos the reality in the RegF.

The BoA is generally in the first week of May, after the university students that make up the majority of a naval reserve division have left on summer training. Even larger units with an active class "A" strength of 120 or more seldom parade more than 40 or 50 on the BoA. And how many of those "officers" were untrained JOUTs? I know for a fact that NON isn't overborne with trained officers; try closer to the under half-dozen range - with the highest rank being LCdr Cdr.1

Perhaps that echoes the Reg F reality.

1 - Correction: I see that NON is one of the few NRDs to have a Cdr as a CO, his having previously spent 12 years as a LCdr on class "B" in Halifax, Esquimalt and Ottawa.

 

[tabernac]

Well last I looked, Cdr P****** was in charge. With the XO and StdsO, LCdr V** *********, both LCdrs, with 4 2-ringers plus the Padre, another 2-ringer. Plus the Subbies.

 

[Monsoon]

Well last I looked, Cdr P****** was in charge. With the XO and StdsO, LCdr V** *********, both LCdrs, with 4 2-ringers plus the Padre, another 2-ringer. Plus the Subbies.

Really? Lucky them. But that doesn't even reflect the norm in NAVRES, let alone the Reg F.

Consider also that CO is in his last year in the postion and that the XO will likely become the CO (without promotion, unless he tops the merit board for LCdrs) and the StdsO would likely become the XO (unless he just gets out). Suddenly the "top heavy" unit doesn't seem quite so brass-intensive. NRDs don't promote into positions.

 

[Long in the tooth]

"Permanent Army Reserve"?  There's an oxymoron.  Chuckles.

 

[dapaterson]

Adding LCols into the calculation wouldn't exactly hurt my case that the reserves aren't unusually top heavy compared to the rest of the forces. 

Sigh. Ever compare Reg to Res in the Army, and the tasks they are assigned?  Reserves have fewer senior positions to fill, yet nearly comparable numbers of senior floppers around.

And while I'd be happy to reduce the number of Reg F LCols and Cols as well, I'd rather clean my own house first.

(Step one: AOC DS - drop to Major, and have as mandatory pre-command employment).

 

[Kirkhill]

The smell is gone.  The Mohawk and "The Glens" Regiment both remain.

And with it the jobs that support a population that can support the SD&G.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Reg F strength has never been down to 50K; perhaps around 58K at that time.

Investigate first, talk second.

Just remembering numbers as reported in the popular press.  I did a bit of research.

A 2002 public survey done by to determine perceptions of the military.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/menu/consult/docs/update_e.pdf

As a second concern, many respondents objected to the 60,000 figure for full-time members, given the number of people who are currently away on missions, just returning, training for departure, medically unfit, and on various kinds of leave. Representative comments ranged from “we’re lucky to have 55,000, on a good day” to “we are sitting closer to 50,000 personnel right now, and that will only get worse in the next few years”.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE:  2001.09.25
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Digests/v04n100-199/v04-n136.txt

The effective strength of the Canadian <military> has quietly slipped to around 53,000 personnel and is expected to plunge even lower in the next six months.

The "trained effective strength" of the Canadian Forces will hit 50,684 at the end of March 2002, according to projections done earlier this
year by the military's personnel branch and released to the Citizen. The number represents those sailors, aviators and soldiers who could
actually be deployed, according to <military> officials.

In public, federal politicians and generals claim the <military>
is around 59,000 strong but that figure includes personnel who, while still technically on the books, have retired, are away on long-term
sick leave, are absent without leave, or serving time in Canadian Forces jails.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A quote from Steven Harper - 2004

http://vote.onlinedemocracy.ca/postnuke/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=214

"Defence is simply not a priority for the Liberals, and it has not been for over 30 years,” said Harper.  A Conservative government would immediately inject $1.2 billion into the Department of National Defence, and would gradually increase that to an additional $1.6 billion annually by the end of the first term. As well, the Conservatives would gradually increase the strength of the military by 20,000 personnel.  The Canadian Forces have about 52,000 personnel, but the authorized strength is 60,000. Harper said he realizes bringing the Forces up to 80,000 will take time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a small sample.  The gist of it is that authorized strength remained at 60,000 and the military establishment stuck with this number or very close too it.  It’s just that nobody including parliamentarians believed it.  I searched each strength from 50,000 to 59,000 and found multiple hits for most of them from reasonable sources.  Can anyone say with reasonable assurance how many people are truly in the military on any given day and why do I see a number as high as 10,000 ineffective?  I understand recruits undergoing training but are there other categories such as retirees kept on the books?

 

[Michael OLeary]

This is a small sample.  The gist of it is that authorized strength remained at 60,000 and the military establishment stuck with this number or very close too it.  It’s just that nobody including parliamentarians believed it.  I searched each strength from 50,000 to 59,000 and found multiple hits for most of them from reasonable sources.  Can anyone say with reasonable assurance how many people are truly in the military on any given day and why do I see a number as high as 10,000 ineffective?  I understand recruits undergoing training but are there other categories such as retirees kept on the books?

If someone retires and has a residual leave entitlement, they remain "on the books" as a member of the Regular Force until they have served out that leave.  At one time, that could be a considerable amount of accumulated leave and it was not unusual for someone retiring at 25 or 30 years to have hundreds of days built up. 

Those other categories can also include those in hospital, those on long-term medical situations awaiting decisions on whether they can continue to serve or not, maternal/paternal leave, post-graduate studies, officers in university training programs (RMC and civilian universities), anyone in jail, etc., etc., etc. 

Any query asking how many people are in the Regular Force, and how many of those are "effective" is a momentary snapshot. With so many potential daily changes, what difference does it make if a news report says there are 55,837 effective, vice 56,000?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Sounds like someone is picking fly shit out of pepper

 

[PhilB]

Since when did media articles and political quotes (when the politician being quoted was in opposition) become hard fact. Check your sources and their validity, next we may as well start quoting Wikipedia as gospel fact.  : All I have to say is Dennis....SUM UP!

 

[dapaterson]

This is a small sample.  The gist of it is that authorized strength remained at 60,000 and the military establishment stuck with this number or very close too it.  It’s just that nobody including parliamentarians believed it.  I searched each strength from 50,000 to 59,000 and found multiple hits for most of them from reasonable sources.  Can anyone say with reasonable assurance how many people are truly in the military on any given day and why do I see a number as high as 10,000 ineffective?  I understand recruits undergoing training but are there other categories such as retirees kept on the books?

Sigh.  There are lies, damn lies and statistics, and lies, damn lies, and strength reports.  Much of the information you receives depends on the question you ask.

There is a Reg F ceiling, which is different from the Trained Effective Establishment, which is different from the Part 2 Trained Effective Strength, which is different from the number of full-time CF members... in short, ask a different question, get a different answer.

Much as with artillery one needs precision to ensure the proper munitions are delivered on the proper location, when discussing Reg F strength (or Res F strength, for that matter) one needs precision to ensure (1) you are using comparable figures and (2) you know what you're talking about.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

All I have to say is Dennis....SUM UP!

I didn't make up the 50,000 number. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Still ...... picking fly shit out of pepper

 

[Michael OLeary]

Dennis,

You seem to be here trying to generate grass-roots military support for what must be a political initiative to succeed.  If you look closely you will see that there has been little excitement among the "troops" for re-arranging the Titanic's deck chairs (i.e., creating new units) when we all see bigger issues that deserve attention (from organizational disasters of overlapping headquarters, to lack of individual soldier equipment).  More units without more soldiers, equipment or money simply means a thinner slice of those resources for each unit with which every CO then has to try and achieve the same training objectives.  Your desire to see a new unit reconstituted in Northern Alberta may seem to be be an honourable objective, but in reality it is not necessarily advantageous to the Reserves or the CF.  By all means, beat your drum, but you are wasting your time and our collective patience beating it here in this manner. If, considering the number of times you have been corrected on factual errors and pursued tangential arguments which don't support your central objective, you think that posting on Army.ca is essential to your own learning curve, then I suggest you pick one (and only one) thread for all of your comments on this topic.

We welcome factual debate that has a purpose and sticks to the point.  These random tangents only start to come across as trolling behaviour and that will lead to the Warning System which you are aware of through the Conduct Guidelines you agreed to on joining the site.

 

[R933ex]

Going back to Tonys first statement, when I was with the Flight 2000-2002 we were averaging 6-8 class As and a few more class Bs, several of them were usually Eddies attached to 440 for the Mission Support Flight (primary taskings GSAR, Crash Guard, setting up mods etc) currently there is a very small presence at the squadron, so it will be interesting to see if the unit develops.

 

[PhilB]

Denis not intimating that you made things up, you are using poor sources, to back up a poor, mis-constructed argument which, as Michael pointed out, is not supported by the majority of troops on here.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Dennis,

You seem to be here trying to generate grass-roots military support for what must be a political initiative to succeed.

I have been building my political bridges for many months and realize that politics is the ONLY way to succeed. I knew this before I started and have clearly stated it in my correspondence with politicians.  I had no pretensions that there would be any grass-roots military support and can't comprehend such a thing.  I thought there might be some local support and there is some.  I first posted here aiming at a local audience.  I don't know if the measure of success is to have unanymity.  The only measure of my success will be success.

Maybe I'll stick with the history threads for a while.  My intention here has not been to be disruptive in any form.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have been building my political bridges for many months and realize that politics is the ONLY way to succeed. I knew this before I started and have clearly stated it in my correspondence with politicians.  I had no pretensions that there would be any grass-roots military support and can't comprehend such a thing.  I thought there might be some local support and there is some.  I first posted here aiming at a local audience.  I don't know if the measure of success is to have unanymity.  The only measure of my success will be success.

Maybe I'll stick with the history threads for a while.  My intention here has not been to be disruptive in any form.

Good plan, because I don't think you're making any converts here. Not now, at any rate. Careful you don't wear out your welcome in the History threads too.

 

[PhilB]

To be honest, being a member of the brigade that your proposed unit would fall under, I think your idea is disruptive. Like others have pointed out it will take money away from MY, and others, training budget, for what? What possible operational, logical reason is there for your proposed unit?