Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[Eye In The Sky]

.....or sleeping bags. I wonder if they'll have to hot bag it in Mali?

or the shortage of NCDs in Halifax recently (in the past 13 months) - a Navy base.

or the basic inability for aircrew to get flight suits for over a year and not until, the last I heard, Nov of this year for a contract to be awarded.  direction given out at morning brief lately;  people with really thread bare, torn, worn etc flight suits they can't get exchanged are to take pictures, that the Sqn's are to send to the Air Div.  One of my B Cats was recently unable to get an issued flying knife "because there aren't any".  Our orders state "shall fly with ISSUED flying knife".  I could go on...but, flight suits are part of our ALSE (Aviation Life Support Equipment) and one of the mandated dual-layers we are required to fly in.  The day I have thread-bare uniforms, I'll be letting my CofC know I am unable to fly because of insufficient equipment.

Or the numerous attempts for the Cdn Army to get....combat (worthy) boots.  When there are numerous companies who make completely suitable and serviceable boots;  Danner, Matterhorn, Magnum, Bates....but the GoC makes us reinvent the wheel to produce a wheel that doesn't roll true.

And....http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-dnd-equipment-funds-1.4683606

Feels like 20 years ago...next will be stories of the Reserves saying "bang! bang!" in training when they can't even get blanks. 

 

[Remius]

Or the current shortage and recall of rucksacks...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

One area where we COULD focus, and where it makes sense IMHO, is the CBRN stuff. It's a skill and capability that we don't really maintain effectively throughout the CF, I don't think, and it's a good match with the potential needs of municipalities.

But even that one capability would consume all of our training time to keep up the courses, skills and training required, and the infrastructure/ kit demands would be daunting.

CRT - Chemical Recce Teams, NBC Survey tasks...etc.  Back in the day when I was PRes Armd Recce in the early 90s, NBC/CRT tasks were part of the handful of tasks the Armd Recce Sqns trained in.  We also trained 2 nights a week and 2 weekends a month back then, and NBC Sur/CRTs were a secondary task.  It was part of my 6B years ago as well, everyone had to pass a NBC/CRT trace as either the Tp Ldr or Tp WO.  We trained on the kit, the TTPs, etc on the Recce Crewman course, QL3, 6A.

Definitely a doable task, and one proven in the past the PRes units could maintain a skillset in.  Not sure if the Reserve zipperheads are still playing in that sandbox these days.

 

[daftandbarmy]

CRT - Chemical Recce Teams, NBC Survey tasks...etc.  Back in the day when I was PRes Armd Recce in the early 90s, NBC/CRT tasks were part of the handful of tasks the Armd Recce Sqns trained in.  We also trained 2 nights a week and 2 weekends a month back then, and NBC Sur/CRTs were a secondary task.  It was part of my 6B years ago as well, everyone had to pass a NBC/CRT trace as either the Tp Ldr or Tp WO.  We trained on the kit, the TTPs, etc on the Recce Crewman course, QL3, 6A.

Definitely a doable task, and one proven in the past the PRes units could maintain a skillset in.  Not sure if the Reserve zipperheads are still playing in that sandbox these days.

And, although I have no idea if this is a good fit, aren't the TAPVs potentially suitable as NBC recce vehicles? I assume they can be 'over pressured'?

 

[dubble]

Feels like 20 years ago...next will be stories of the Reserves saying "bang! bang!" in training when they can't even get blanks.

Just throwing this out there, but that exact situation happened to me on my DP1 - Infantry but a few years ago.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's not that there aren't reasonably priced guns available. That's never been the problem.

The problem is that the Reg F arty leadership has never taken its head out of it's butt to properly treat the reserve side of the branch seriously. It's always been an inconvenience as can be seen from the fact that some 50 years ago we took the diversity and capability out of the reserve artillery (locating, field, medium, even self propelled) and made them a vanilla brand of 105mm C1 towed which really had no war role at all. We've had a half century of basically the same gun (upgunned slightly to C3 and we now how well that worked out) with minor tweaks for gun tractors, radios and fire direction computers. The 105's are a dead end training aid and nothing more.

The fact is our leadership has never properly advocated or explored ways to improve the arty reserve capability. We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves.

[cheers]

A 105mm with the same sights as a M777 and basically the same fire control systems as the reg force, then you can work them into the existing batteries. have some travelling 155 with teams to familiarize Reserve arty troops with the M777, in regards to setup and loading drills. A shrunken M777 in 105mm would be a good training gun. The C1-C3 has been a good gun for the reserves as it has been incredibly robust.
As I recall when we became a Ops task battery, we ended up with 2 CP's each with a Milpac computer and lasers for our OP teams. the only thing we lacked was encrypted comms, myself and one other guy were Nestor qualified.

 

[mariomike]

I was an MSE Op in a Service Battalion.  Transportation Company did the mandatory NBCW training. Perhaps not as much as some units. It was not something we specialized in.

One area where we COULD focus, and where it makes sense IMHO, is the CBRN stuff. It's a skill and capability that we don't really maintain effectively throughout the CF, I don't think, and it's a good match with the potential needs of municipalities.

But even that one capability would consume all of our training time to keep up the courses, skills and training required, and the infrastructure/ kit demands would be daunting.

I could have taken the voluntary Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear training with the city, but for the $425.00 annual premium ( back then ), it was not something I was particularly interested in.

Especially after what a friend who had been sent to Three Mile Island as an observer told me.

Class A training is one thing, but how enthusiastic would the average reservist be about voluntarily responding to a real-life CBRN call downtown?

If it was that serious, reservists who were members of the emergency services would likely already be there.

 

[FJAG]

A 105mm with the same sights as a M777 and basically the same fire control systems as the reg force, then you can work them into the existing batteries. have some travelling 155 with teams to familiarize Reserve arty troops with the M777, in regards to setup and loading drills. A shrunken M777 in 105mm would be a good training gun. The C1-C3 has been a good gun for the reserves as it has been incredibly robust.
As I recall when we became a Ops task battery, we ended up with 2 CP's each with a Milpac computer and lasers for our OP teams. the only thing we lacked was encrypted comms, myself and one other guy were Nestor qualified.

As I said the C3 is a training aid and we'll never take it to war.

I'm strongly of the view that reservists should have a weapon system that they can go to war with. Simplest example is that Canada needs (or at the very least should have) a multiple rocket launcher system. In the US there are 3 Active Duty FA Brigades and 8 National Guard FA Brigades equipped with HIMARS. A perfect solution--several brigades for immediate deployment and a lot more for follow up deployment. You don't need them every day but when you do need them you'll want people trained on them and ready to go. They're a perfect reserve role as they do not require a complex infrastructure -- just firing units, logistic support and basic maintenance.

Strangely enough, the US Army also entrusts M777 and M109A6 Paladin self propelled battalions to the National Guard and deploys them when needed.

I'm sure someone will bring up the issue that all these things are resource heavy. And they are. But here's the big point. What's the use of paying any money for a reserve force that's without the equipment and skills to go to war without lengthy training and equipment procurement cycles. Effectively we have a Reg F arty establishment that can't be grown (but maybe partially augmented and nothing more). Our reservists are a wasted resource (but they get to wear Divisional patches - just brilliant)

:brickwall:

 

[Petard]

Actually, training on the C3 or LG1, IMO, is not the main issue, it is at least a start on the basics
Reg F units have taken upon themselves to build on this baseline. For example 2 RCHA has shipped some of their M777 to armouries across Ont so P Res units can get trained on at least the basics, and confirmation live fire happens in Petawawa, using some of that Regt's ammo allotment

The training of STA Dets, on the other hand, hasn't really progressed too far, yet.

The main problem with this latest idea is that available training days are maxed out as they are, there's no room to jam anything else in there.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And, although I have no idea if this is a good fit, aren't the TAPVs potentially suitable as NBC recce vehicles? I assume they can be 'over pressured'?

Not sure actually.  Not having worked an AFV with an overpressure system, I'd guess that they have a air filtering system as well.  Some  of the heavy metal types might know, the Leo 1 had a overpressure/BNC system IIRC (I remember hearing some of the Germany guys talking about how the NBC fan was a decent 24 cooler).

If so, they could be good for the mounted aspect;  I wouldn't waste something like that on a dismounted team task (probably a Capt Obvious statement).

 

[MilEME09]

The fact they are asking what is essentially a deployable sub unit, but not changing any other rules and regulations means this is not going to work well at all, while it is great to say we will deploy a gun det or a CSS combined platoon from the PRes, how many bodies can actually commit? there are way to many questions in my opinion about how this process might work, and frankly most of them don't have answer's or good ones at that. You'll ask for a platoon and get maybe a section at best for an EX, and even less for deployment I will guess. Then there is the question of integration with Reg F elements and what that would look like. Pretty sure when a section+/- shows up when a Company commander is expecting an extra platoon thing will go sideways against the reserves.

 

[Rifleman62]

Pretty sure when a section+/- shows up when a Company commander is expecting an extra platoon thing will go sideways against the reserves.

Inform the Coy Comd that the remainder are LOB's. :nod:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thinking about the other side of the coin, how often have people complained 'the reserves have no role or goal from the Army etc';  now, they are doing it (not perfectly, but perhaps a step in the direction of improvement...too early to tell IMO) and people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater already.

Any chance at all this is an improvement from the status quo?  And if it is, what comes of this can be improved more, and so on as the next few years go on?

 

[FJAG]

This brings me back to my prime reserve force hobby horse. Our problem is that we have a volunteer-once regular force and a volunteer-twice reserve force.

The Regs volunteer once to enrol and after that are subject to orders postings etc as the CF requires. The Res, on the other hand volunteer twice: once to enrol and thereafter volunteer every time they deploy, go on exercise or even show up on a parade night. That is a fundamental flaw.

Our system could be (and should be) refined to have at it's heart a volunteer-once reserve. Once enrolled training and deployments should be mandatory and enforceable. Without that reservists will always be viewed as marginally useful when it comes to operational roles. Harjit! Come see me. Have coffee. We'll talk.  ;D

:cheers:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Curious - how would your version of the Res accommodate (or would it accommodate) things like university exams, *family member sick*, civie job schedule conflict, etc?  Would you stick to the current system for NES?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Thinking about the other side of the coin, how often have people complained 'the reserves have no role or goal from the Army etc';  now, they are doing it (not perfectly, but perhaps a step in the direction of improvement...too early to tell IMO) and people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater already.

Any chance at all this is an improvement from the status quo?  And if it is, what comes of this can be improved more, and so on as the next few years go on?

The right op tasking for the reserves is being ready to augment the Reg F on exercises and operations as individuals and sub sub units.Probably like we have been doing since Yugo.
.
However, this new tasking proposes we ‘replace’the Reg F support. Pls at the unit level.

 

[FJAG]

Curious - how would your version of the Res accommodate (or would it accommodate) things like university exams, *family member sick*, civie job schedule conflict, etc?  Would you stick to the current system for NES?

Okay.

1.  Let's start with the basic issue which is that on enlistment the regulations must call for a term of service that must be completed. There should be no six month or immediate release by either the regular or reserve force. The US offers various terms of enlistment of 2 or more years. The NG even has a one year "Try-One" enlistment. The key is offer choices and then hold the individual to their commitment.

2.  The initial enlistment would include a major basic training component based on the school summer vacation during which the individual would be qualified up to and including their basic military skill be it gunner, infantry, or tradesman.

3.  Training during the non summer months would be limited to one weekend per month focusing on individual refresher training. There would be no additional training or administration during the month for Class A reservists. All year-round unit administration or maintenance would be conducted by full time reg or Class B type members.

4.  Annually there would be a two-three week exercise to practice at the sub-unit/unit level.

5. Advanced/Career course would only be given to people who agree to such additional training (and possibly a further period of elistment).

6.  At the end of any given enlistment period the individual would be released unless he/she agrees to reenlist for a new specific term and the unit agrees to keep the individual.

7. I would consider longer term enlistment periods (such as eight or nine years) for the Reg F where after a given period of time (say 4 years) the individual could elect to serve out the remainder of his/her enlistment period in a reserve unit.

8.  Current NDA provisions permit reservists or units to be put on active service by order of the Governor in Council. I would devolve that power on the MND which would give him/her the opportunity to mobilize reservists/reserve sub units/units for given operations etc.

9.  Employment protection laws need beefing up to support both monthly training, annual training and activation situations. Failing to attend training or failure to meet a troop movement would become chargeable as an AWOA
(or possibly desertion) under the NDA vis a vis reservists.

To answer your specific questions: under the above regime, university exams would not be an issue as training is only on weekends or summer vacation; sick leave or family sick leave would be at a CO's discretion the same as in the Reg F; civvie job schedule should not be a major issue as all training periods are condensed, are scheduled a year in advance and attendance is protected by legislation; NES doesn't exist. If the member does not show up he is charged as an AWOA and punished accordingly. Chronic absence could be subject to mandatory bad conduct release with consequential federal (and maybe even provincial) employment consequences.

The key here is to emphasize that the individual is fully committed for the enlistment/re-enlistment period (both regular and reserve) he has committed to and because all basic training is completed shortly after enrollment, the individual and sub unit/unit is therefore more capable of operational taskings.

As an aside, I also see the overall structure of the reserves to change significantly. There would be far fewer units but with each unit having an establishment for a full battalion/regiment (and, in fact authorized to recruit a certain percentage above establishment to cater for attrition). Large cities like Toronto might have only two or three battalion size units in total while a province like Manitoba might have only one battalion size unit in total with one  sub unit split between Brandon and Portage.

In addition since I see that each unit would also be equipped to establishment, there would be an increased full time staff component to cater for routine equipment maintenance.

Do I see that the reserves might go down in size. Maybe. But wouldn't 15,000 deployable reservists be preferable to 30,000 undependable ones. In addition there would be a certain increase in numbers from trained Reg F people choosing to serve out their enlistment terms in a reserve unit.

That's it in a thumbnail.

:cheers:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Question (I don't dislike what you said....just thinking here);

I am a 33 year old, university educated person with full time employment.  I talk to a reserve unit recruiter and I am interested but am wondering if the initial training can take place over 2 summer, because of 'reason X and Y.  Birth of child...etc etc.

Currently (or they used to be able to), RESO or other entry Officers were able to do their required Phase training over more than 1 summer.  Would this still be possible?

 

[FJAG]

Like I said, the above was a basic framework and while I could go into making detailed policies and procedures for every eventuality, I'm not about to do so because we're just spitballing here and anyone who could really make a difference isn't on this board anyway.

On a theoretical level I think that we need to rethink and revise a number of career oriented processes to simplify and make them deliverable. I personally think that we make all of our courses too long because 1. we include too many "should knows" and "could knows" as "essential knowledge"; and 2. we leave too much slack time on courses. In addition numerous career training modules should also be made deliverable through distance learning components which could be compensable upon successful completion.

I would think that for officer training it should work basically the same as for OR recruits, in other words the BOMQ component should be run up front so that immediately after completion the individual is able to function as a 2nd Lieutenant in their unit. I think that this might well vary between classifications so that some could achieve that status in one summer while others take two. Easy enough while the candidate is at university but perhaps more difficult for the example that you give. My bottom line is that the enlistment period should be such that if an option  or need for module-based, multiple-year training is required then the enlistment term should be such that it extends a minimum of two years at the unit after training is completed.

While I knew once how RESO worked back in my day, I'm out of the system for too long to know exactly how RESO works these days. I recall the old MITCP system which worked in several (I think three) two-week blocks for gunners. I think that's entirely inadequate as it turned out individuals who were simply not sufficiently competent to do their jobs. I think in a reserve structure that is designed to deliver better trained and deployable reservists and reserve units, we cannot afford to have them led by poorly trained officers. I think that on the true "must knows" for an officer in a given classification there can be no compromise.

:cheers:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Despite neither you nor I being the ones who can 'create change', maybe those who can will read your posts. 

I like the idea of tightening up the reigns coupled with the legislation to protect people's civilian employment.  Yes, we might lose some people or some people who may have signed up might say "no thanks", but I think the loss of quantity would be made up for with the increase in quality. 

My only addition would be to have it in policy that full time students would be given some leeway during exams;  we'd want to recruit and retain people who are actively educating themselves.  I know when I was Res years ago, many of our NCMs and Jnr Officers were university and college students.  I'd prefer to see it in policy because despite good intentions and all, my experience says there are some Reserve COs who don't always...colour inside the lines.