• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CRCN Message on the Steward Occupation Town Hall (Steward trade elimination)

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,252
Points
1,260
Yes, that was the concern for my Brother's spouse. It's one thing to enter the CAF training system fresh, it's a totally different thing to re-enter the system, with all its warts and inefficiencies, with family commitments, established roots, etc and uproot that entirely for a song and a prayer.

Unfortunately I think a number will choose the exit stalls unless they are shown that a good plan exists to retain and retrain them.

And there in lays the issue. The RCN can have all the plans it wants, but other branches aren't beholden to the whimsical whimsies of the RCN. I think the RCN is hoping most choose hard sea trades.

Log for example will dictate how members can remuster into our ranks. And I can't imagine Log telling new incoming former STWs that they won't face the probability of being posted away from the coast.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,061
Points
1,260
And there in lays the issue. The RCN can have all the plans it wants, but other branches aren't beholden to the whimsical whimsies of the RCN. I think the RCN is hoping most choose hard sea trades.

Log for example will dictate how members can remuster into our ranks. And I can't imagine Log telling new incoming former STWs that they won't face the probability of being posted away from the coast.
I can see it already:

RCN loses X number of Stewards.

NPF, etc adds X number of employees whose job descriptions are shockingly similar to those of Stewards.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,599
Points
1,040
Aren’t both of those trades staffed at ~70%? I don’t think there are many extras floating around
Season 4 Premiere GIF by This Is Us


Also, 'People first, mission always'. Don't think about that either and try and figure out how that makes sense.

In fact, just don't think, the RCN is better that way. Soon we'll become the Nav, because that way there is no 'Y'

A large part of my days is the 'But Y though?' meme.

Edit; oscillates between;
Ytho GIF

and
Face Palm No GIF
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,060
Talked to my Brother's spouse last night.

She is a Steward. They were caught completely offguard by this and were very surprised. Especially because they had just had an occupation meeting about all the changes they were going to be making to the trade and what the future of the trade looked like.

That sums up the CAF quite succulently doesn't it.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
The way it's going, Flight Engineers in fixed-wing aircraft.

...and no, despite some people's taunts, thanks to the Maritime world, ACSOs aren't going anywhere. :sneaky:
I could see a way that ACSOs could disappear, but I don’t think either the AESOp or Pilot occupations would enjoy picking up those seats…
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,284
Points
1,360
I could see a way that ACSOs could disappear, but I don’t think either the AESOp or Pilot occupations would enjoy picking up those seats…
If I was still in, I wouldn’t be overly fussed with (still) no ACSOs. 😉

(at the green/black tactical level)
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,252
Points
1,260
Just wondering if any of the other trades have looked around and wondered 'Who's Next?' ;)


Monday Night Raw Reaction GIF by WWE

They tried supply back in the late 90s with ASD but it wasn't a success.

I think if you made Loadmaster its own trade you could probably amalgamate what's left of Traffic with TN and Sup.

But that would be one stupid big trade.

Perhaps give the heavy equipment side of TN to Cbt Eng or CE ?
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,558
Points
1,010
If I was still in, I wouldn’t be overly fussed with (still) no ACSOs. 😉

(at the green/black tactical level)
Not picking up your point. ACSOs in the Maritime World are tacticians, primarily. That job would have to be done by pilots. In MH specific role, if ACSOs were removed, the tactical decision making would move entirely up front to the pilots, but a second AESOp would have to be added to run the backend. It could be done, but I am not too sure anyone would be very happy about picking up the reams of staffwork no one seems to notice that we do to keep Sqns and Wings functioning…
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Just wondering if any of the other trades have looked around and wondered 'Who's Next?' ;)


Monday Night Raw Reaction GIF by WWE
There are lots of discussions on NavComs. Not to eliminate them but redefine their role. Do you make them network/comm techs, do you roll them into NCIOP trade and other things like that. Right now there is no formal network training for them, and that's becoming an issue as its all OJT.

Personally, I'm in the give them network training camp. We need some serious cyber security and network expertise from the operator side, not just on the Tech side.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Not picking up your point. ACSOs in the Maritime World are tacticians, primarily. That job would have to be done by pilots. In MH specific role, if ACSOs were removed, the tactical decision making would move entirely up front to the pilots, but a second AESOp would have to be added to run the backend. It could be done, but I am not too sure anyone would be very happy about picking up the reams of staffwork no one seems to notice that we do to keep Sqns and Wings functioning…
Random unrelated question. Do you think an Air Det needs an Aerospace Engineer? My experience with the Cyclone is a poor ACSO gets to shoulder all the NATO/CAN OPDEF-related paperwork, management and briefings (and a poor CSE PHVI gets to help them!). Perhaps not for a HFX but the JSS has two helo's and can do some 3rd line maint.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,479
Points
1,090
There are lots of discussions on NavComs. Not to eliminate them but redefine their role. Do you make them network/comm techs, do you roll them into NCIOP trade and other things like that. Right now there is no formal network training for them, and that's becoming an issue as its all OJT.

Personally, I'm in the give them network training camp. We need some serious cyber security and network expertise from the operator side, not just on the Tech side.
Funny you mentioned that, I was just chatting with a Chief on Tuesday about the Combat Trade Re-org. And yes the NAVCOMM trade is being considered for a more defined roll and cyber is one of them.

Like everything else, more to follow.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,284
Points
1,360
Not picking up your point. ACSOs in the Maritime World are tacticians, primarily. That job would have to be done by pilots. In MH specific role, if ACSOs were removed, the tactical decision making would move entirely up front to the pilots, but a second AESOp would have to be added to run the backend. It could be done, but I am not too sure anyone would be very happy about picking up the reams of staffwork no one seems to notice that we do to keep Sqns and Wings functioning…
Sorry SKT, my qualifier may have been to vague. As a green/black rotary guy, I’ve never seen an ACSO aside from when I invite friends over for dinner. 😉
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
Funny you mentioned that, I was just chatting with a Chief on Tuesday about the Combat Trade Re-org. And yes the NAVCOMM trade is being considered for a more defined roll and cyber is one of them.

Like everything else, more to follow.
Cyber the threat de jour. CSE is undergoing our trade review and cyber keeps coming up.

My thoughts on the issue are simple. The RCN needs blue cyber (defensive cyber). Cyber defense equipment, considerations in ship design, training, procedures, and experts. It should reside within CSE Dept (technical/hardware) and NAVCOM (policy/procedures). It should be organized like the Signature Management Organization with the CSEO as head and other organizations report to the CO through them. The reason for that is that the CSEO has the technical knowledge and is a HOD.

It could be an NWO IMO perhaps but they don't have the tech background and they are not a HOD either.

CELE and SIGS already do the Cyber Red stuff (offensive cyber). It's in their coursing and training. CELE organizes the CFCD on the ship and if there needs to be an offensive cyber capability then it should be an add-on package with people and equipment that comes with that Det.

There is frankly no reason that the RCN needs to get into offensive cyber held within the organization. Seat at the table for sure to explain what our needs are, but we don't have to hold the core capability.
 
Top