Despite recent discharges, Forces say recruiting on track

[284_226]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

From http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/542805.html

Despite recent discharges, Forces say recruiting on track

By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The military’s top human resources manager says the Canadian Forces will hit its recruiting targets, despite a high number of medical discharges.

The military will have 70,000 full-time members by 2010, Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile, chief of military personnel, told the Senate veterans affairs committee on Wednesday.

"We are going to meet our growth targets and we’re on track at the moment," said Pile.

Last year more than 25,000 recruiting applications were filled out and the military enrolled over 10,500 men and women into full- and part-time service.

The full-time figure of over 5,800 recruits is in line with the Defence Department’s plan to enlist a total of 13,000 new regular soldiers, sailors and aircrew. In addition, the Forces wants to add 10,000 members to reserve units.

One of the hurdles faced by the military is the increasing number of medical discharges because of a policy requiring all full-time members to be available for service overseas; members can be mustered out if they’re too ill or unable to serve on a deployment.

The issue is becoming even more critical because of Canada’s role in Afghanistan, where more than 200 Canadian soldiers have been wounded and from which countless others have returned home with post-traumatic stress and other problems.

Pile denied that the mustering-out policy is blunting the Forces’ ability to meet its goals.

"This is, of course, is a balance between the desire of the member to stay in the Canadian Forces and the requirement for the Canadian Forces to meet its mission requirements," he said.

The policy is flexible, Pile insisted, with discharges sometimes being postponed as long as three years so the member can transition into a civilian job.
quote continued below

Are these numbers truly accurate?

Given:

• The current strength of the CF is 62,000, according to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp
• The CF is losing >1000 members/year due to medical releases
• Depending on the source, the 13,000 additional reg force members were supposed to be over 5 years - meaning by 2011
• the 5800 new recruits every year is offset by medical releases, forecast and unforecast attrition  (Does anyone have historical values for what our attrition rate is?)

In 2000, 557 people were let go from the Canadian Forces on medical grounds. The number began to rise in 2002, after the country became heavily involved in the war in Afghanistan, and now totals about 2,000 in almost five years. There were 1,067 medical releases last year alone.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny suggested the deployment policy didn’t make sense when the army, navy and air force are facing manpower crunches and critical shortages of trainers.

"When you know you’re short a lot of people; when you know you have targets to hit if you’re going to grow over the next period of time, is there not some logic in at least deferring" the policy of requiring all members to be deployable, asked Kenny.

The principle has served the Forces well and shouldn’t be changed, Pile replied.

Yes, it's served the Forces so well that we're releasing 31 year old members with 10 years experience and a history of kidney stones, in favour of enrolling 29 year old recruits with no experience and a history of kidney stones.

Can't question that logic.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

in favour of enrolling 29 year old recruits with no experience and a history of kidney stones.

I just know that I am going to live to regret this, but- you can prove the statement you just made, right?

 

[284_226]

I just know that I am going to live to regret this, but- you can prove the statement you just made, right?

Now why would you regret asking?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49373.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53217.0.html

 

[Trinity]

I heard a presentation from someone at CFLRS who said they will
be putting 7000 new recruits through a year for the next few years..
I think next 5 years.. but ... I forgot..

 

[284_226]

I heard a presentation from someone at CFLRS who said they will
be putting 7000 new recruits through a year for the next few years..
I think next 5 years.. but ... I forgot..

Without knowing the attrition rates, my guesstimate would say that's a more realistic number in order to reach the target advertised in the budget.  I don't think RAdm Pile's numbers quite match the government's target, though - but I'm open to correction.  I think attrition from all sources is higher than the article alludes to, especially when one considers the large "bubble" of personnel around the 19-23 YOS (years of service) range.

 

[geo]

At present they have St Jean jammed to the rafters,
LFQA Training centre and pert much all the schools are going full tilt
The CF has begun hiring former members of the CF to teach basic courses AND some specialty stuff where we are thin on the ground...........

Yeah - we've got our hands full right now.

 

[284_226]

At present they have St Jean jammed to the rafters,
LFQA Training centre and pert much all the schools are going full tilt
The CF has begun hiring former members of the CF to teach basic courses AND some specialty stuff where we are thin on the ground...........

Yeah - we've got our hands full right now.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt you.  The real question is:  Does "jammed to the rafters" equate to a 75,000-strong force in 2011?  (assuming the figures above are correct, and I checked several sources to try and ensure that they were)

 

[geo]

Hiring the troops and training them is one thing
Adequately equipping Brigades is another thing altogether

With managed readiness programs, fighting vehicles are rotated thru units within each brigade so that they can have their turn at using the current/modern stuff they will use on deployment.  Because they don't have access to it all the time, troops DO NOT develop an expertise in the it's use.  They may become profficient but they don't become experts....

 

[hank011]

Hiring the troops and training them is one thing
Adequately equipping Brigades is another thing altogether

With managed readiness programs, fighting vehicles are rotated thru units within each brigade so that they can have their turn at using the current/modern stuff they will use on deployment.  Because they don't have access to it all the time, troops DO NOT develop an expertise in the it's use.  They may become profficient but they don't become experts....

We could always train with the older six wheeled series vehicles in the meantime...oh...I forgot, we gave them away to the AU Did we have so many LAVIII's that we didn't need them??? Seriously, why did we do that???
I personally would love to drive any SMP vehicle...sadly I'm Air Force and (despite what the DM and CDS think) we dont drive green stuff of any description so dont get the training. To tell you the truth...I recently fired a C-7 with a scope for the first time in 18 years, the Air Force doesnt believe in scopes :blotto:. I got mortar gloves from supply the other day but dont actually plan to lay brick...I fooled them! :-\

 

[dapaterson]

I have absolutely no reason to doubt you.  The real question is:  Does "jammed to the rafters" equate to a 75,000-strong force in 2011?  (assuming the figures above are correct, and I checked several sources to try and ensure that they were)

Remember, 75K (Reg F) referes to total strength, not trained strength.  Using usual metrics, I'd guess that the trained strength will be on the order of 67K (+/-), as you need to account for the Basic Training List (usually 12-15%), Med holding lists and other such pers who are paid, but are not militarily employable.

Of course, saying we'll get the recruiting numbers is one thing.  Getting the required occupational mix within that intake is quite another...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While I understand the need to improve fitness levels, wouldn't be better to keep them in less critical jobs until they can meet the standards or can be replaced? Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?

 

[Bert]

That is the general case.  Members, for reasons they become medically or physically unfit, are placed
in a medical category and exempted from the CF Express, BFT, MOC and medical standards. They may
still serve in their day to day job.  For a period of time, they continue on a medical rehabilitation and
assessment process to promote recovery and discern whether they will be able to meet the CF medical
and fitness standards.  At the end of this process, members will leave the Med Cat or begin a medical
release process.  Special knowledge and circumstances may factor in some cases.

 

[dapaterson]

While I understand the need to improve fitness levels, wouldn't be better to keep them in less critical jobs until they can meet the standards or can be replaced? Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?

In theory, we have training, base and HQ positions which provide some releif from deployments.  If all those positions are filled with miltiary pers unable to deploy, you are forced to rely on the same people again and again for your deployments.

It's a balancing act where there is never a perfect solution.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?

This is a good point. We are releasing people who have the detailed knowledge of closing with and destroying the enemy and have special knowledge that cannot be recovered if we release them. It takes a good 10 to 15 years to train a good specialist. After being wounded they are released, 55 to 75 million dollars of training gone! It is ridiculous.

In one case I can say that the lose of that knowledge caused the CF to not have anyone left in the Army that had the specialized training to teach the next  course. During the last course they could not complete the field portion due to  that specialty being now gone from the force. It would be easy to say let them be Sup Res and call them back as is needed to train but no way they wont. It is frustrating to watch the slow demise of the skill.

Wounded and sitting on the side lines. So I guess the comments above could be a bias rant. I'm sorry for that.

 

[armyvern]

After being wounded they are released, 55 to 75 million dollars of training gone! It is ridiculous.

And this statement is absolutely ridiculous. None of us (that includes you) are that important or special.

Facts please?

 

[3rd Horseman]

What is ridiculous the release or the cost of training? 
I would suggest that the figure is rather conservative for a specialist combat arms soldier. As for the navy or the airforce in particular a pilot the numbers are much higher. Just look above at the soldier who started the thread or yourself add up the cost the CF has incurred in training yourself. The number is very large unless you dont think your trade is worth that. ;D

Edit typo

 

[armyvern]

What is ridiculous the release or the cost of training? 
I would suggest that the figure is rather conservative for a specialist combat arms soldier. As for the navy or the airforce in particular a pilot the numbers are much higher. Just look above at the solder who started the thread or yourself add up the cost the CF has incurred in training yourself. The number is very large unless you dont think your trade is worth that. ;D

3rd Your numbers are right out of it. Period. Your figures are rather conservative numbers? So where's your facts and figures to back up your numbers?? That's quite the inflation rate you've been living with since you got out isn't it?

 

[3rd Horseman]

As the Librarian you must see me scrambling around the bookshelves pulling the cost analysis reference books for training.  ;D

 

[Petard]

3rd horse, shot PM over

 

[3rd Horseman]

Petard,

  Shot out 5 ...pm inbound