Command Styles in the Canadian Navy

[MARS]

I meant to post this link in this thread but I maxed out my allowable number of characters (20,000).

It is a rather lengthy read, but Section 2 provides an interesting comparision of the culture differences between the 3 elements and the resultant Command styles applicable to each.  The principal authors know what they are talking about.

Enjoy,

MARS

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I guess they didn't have time to write a shorter report. Normally I stop reading when I see the terms "RMA" and "network-centric warfare", but I bashed on regardless as they had "Breaking the Phalanx" as a source and I just re-read it after ten years so I was curious to see what they had to say.

I agree with their outline of the differences between the services. I really think that it is time to drop the idea of the unified CF (common BMQ, BOTP etc) but instead focus on working together on tasks at higher levels when there is a real need to have multiple services involved.

I was very impressed to see their point that imported concepts need to evaluated carefully from a cultural context. In the 90s the Army, at least, seemed to make sprinkling German words into our doctrine as our Schwerepunkt (ironic pause). What works for one officer in one culture may not work for another officer in another culture. Going back to the last point I suppose that the same holds for services, as services have unique cultures of their own.

There were some very intereting comments on the OPP/MDMP and how we teach them. I think that planning can be our friend, but we need to stay focused on outcomes and not necessarily the process. I was a student on a US staff course and they brought in real commanders to be the commanders. I find that plans which have the commander's DNA on them early tend to be easier to get to the execution phase (your mileage may vary). Those in which the commander is not genuinely involved tend to get warped and there seems to be lots of wasted effort.

Thanks for digging that up.

 

[dapaterson]

I too had misgivings when reading the report - though they get much right, when there's a typo on the cover page my ears prick up.  And when a report written by a retired naval officer gets the name of a class of ships wrong, I'm more dubious about their scholarship and conclusions (page 54, footnote 158).

Some interesting content, I'm just concerned that the minor typos could be indicative of greater errors in domains where I have little or no knowledge.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

a retired naval officer gets the name of a class of ships wrong

What page is this on?

 

[Occam]

What page is this on?

And when a report written by a retired naval officer gets the name of a class of ships wrong, I'm more dubious about their scholarship and conclusions (page 54, footnote 158).

 

[Monsoon]

Some interesting content, I'm just concerned that the minor typos could be indicative of greater errors in domains where I have little or no knowledge.

Meh. "Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels" vs "Minor Coastal Defence Vessels" is a mistake any senior regular force officer might make - especially one that retired before they came online. In any event, that's the project name - the ships are properly called the "Kingston class". But I wouldn't fault anyone for making that mistake either.

 

[dapaterson]

I would fault them if I paid them a considerable amount of money to make a report.  Minor mistakes undermine your credibility (such as the inability to spell "contract" correctly).

 

[MARS]

But I wouldn't fault anyone for making that mistake either.

I would, but only serving, fellow MARS Officers.  After all, we do have a MARCORD that governs this. (10-2: Ships Standard Identification System)

Para 1 (d) states:

"KINGSTON Class General Mine Warfare Vessels: (To be referred to as Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV) in national correspondence only.)"

They get the NATO designator "MM".  It's no big deal overall, but it is part of our bread and butter.  And it drives me a little nuts.

If we were to have ever built a second class of patrol frigates, they too would likely have been Canadian Patrol Frigates, but you wouldn't want your starboard lookout to simply report a "CPF" down whatever bearing - you want the Class name (if not the ship name) so you have the proper idea of her capabilities.  Why the "M" in MCDV within our circles?  Really, is there some sort of airborne or land-based Coastal Defence Vessel I am unfamiliar with?  A sign of a small navy, I guess.

Again, just something that bugs me when I have idle time on my hands...now back to my next Staff College paper.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ouch