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

[Jed]

Maybe it's a combination of both?

I ask because I'm starting to wonder if we aren't just setting our PRes up for failure. Minimal trg time, minimal funding, lack of equipment etc. Is it possible there are some trades that currently exist in the PRes that simply should not be there?

Good question.  On the matter of reserve Engineers: There is never enough of this force capability in peace or in war. Engineer roles and tasks are equipment intensive and are often 'in support'. This means they need to work with Combat Arms, Logistics, and the full spectrum of CMBG sub units.

If the Res force was to cease fulfilling this role then our forces would never be able to spool up in time to be competent and effective. On the other hand how do they learn their job without the other sub units to train with?

Maybe the Reg force should be plus size manned to provide more robust training to only the most needed units in the Res force?  I'm sure arguments can be made for any and all elements and branches of the military but someone should make a realistic priority list.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Maybe the Reg force should be plus size manned to provide more robust training to only the most needed units in the Res force?  I'm sure arguments can be made for any and all elements and branches of the military but someone should make a realistic priority list.

Except that there are few Reg F units in the same geographical area as reserve units, except in Edmonton AFAIK.

The big opportunity is to synch reserve training with Reg F exercises, and align reserve Bde training plans with Reg F requirements for augmentation. DAG green? You get to go on the awesome Reg F ex. DAG Red? Try again next year.

The current 'two solitudes' approach is wasteful in more ways than one.

 

[a_majoor]

Except that there are few Reg F units in the same geographical area as reserve units, except in Edmonton AFAIK.

The big opportunity is to synch reserve training with Reg F exercises, and align reserve Bde training plans with Reg F requirements for augmentation. DAG green? You get to go on the awesome Reg F ex. DAG Red? Try again next year.

The current 'two solitudes' approach is wasteful in more ways than one.

The big issue in this approach is the chaotic nature of "planning". How many tales of woe have we heard as people are lined up for an exercise or course, make provisions with their employers, family and vacation time only to be told at the last second "oh, sorry, the course/exercise/etc. has been changed to timeframe "x". This is frustrating for both sides, as the prospective candidate/augmentee is out of not only their planned military employment, but also most likely civilian vacation time and possibly even wages. Few people would be stupid enough to try that twice. As for the Forces, they are now scrambling to get minimum manning, find augments and otherwise picking up the mess they created.

Infanteer has constantly pointed out the chaotic nature of even our internal planning (high readiness, managed readiness and APS cycles are all out of sync with each other), so maybe we need to fix that first; then there will be a stable environment where Reserve augmentation will be a painless process for everyone.

 

[Haggis]

The big opportunity is to synch reserve training with Reg F exercises, and align reserve Bde training plans with Reg F requirements for augmentation. DAG green? You get to go on the awesome Reg F ex. DAG Red? Try again next year.

Sounds a bit like Op REINFORCEMENT.

One of the challenges in DAGging GREEN for Reservists is that in many locations sp bases will not do many of the things a Reservist needs to DAG GREEN (i.e. vaccinations, PHAs, dental exams, I cards) unless they have a tasking message.  You can't get a tasking message until after you DAG GREEN.  The workaround for this is for the Reg F mounting formation to waive certain DAG requirements for Res F participants if the exercise or training is to be held in Canada.

 

[dapaterson]

The workaround for this is for the Reg F mounting formation to waive certain DAG requirements for Res F participants if the exercise or training is to be held in Canada.

The other workaround would be for Health Services to fulfil their mandate...

 

[Haggis]

The other workaround would be for Health Services to fulfil their mandate...

One requires resources.  The other does not.

A wide variety of DAG requirements can be waived for contingency operations (for both Reg F and P Res).  The same is not true for routine operations.  But if a routine operation is being conducted in Canada it should be possible to scale back the DAG requirements to the minimum required for a contingency operation thus saving both time and money while making more troops available for the operation.

 

[dapaterson]

One requires resources.  The other does not.

A reallocation of resources.  There are plenty of things done in the CAF and DND that are not core to the mandate.  Ensuring solider readiness is core.

 

[a_majoor]

Or maybe some thought should be put into the process of doing a DAG.

I DAG'd 3 times to get from Kingston to Meaford for JOINTEX 15. While I understand that doing a DAG is also part of the training for the clerks, who designs a process that can't be done quickly and efficiently with just one pass? And this isn't the only time. I spent more time and did more paperwork to go to Harrington Lake as part of the G8 Summit meeting than I did to go to Afghanistan the year before.

The system seems to be more about process than actually accomplishing anything.

 

[dapaterson]

People don't trust each other, so a DAG done in one place means you'll DAG again in a second place, and then again in a third place; sort of like doing BFTs before the 2010 Olympics.

Internal institutional trust is lacking, and little Napoleons introducing their own opinions vs real requirements is another ongoing problem.

 

[PanaEng]

Internal institutional trust is lacking, and little Napoleons introducing their own opinions vs real requirements is another ongoing problem.

Best quote of the day!!

have a leftover halloween smarty  :nod:

 

[Haggis]

....sort of like doing BFTs before the 2010 Olympics.

and

Internal institutional trust is lacking, and little Napoleons introducing their own opinions vs real requirements is another ongoing problem.

Leads to having the rucksack weights second-guessed by JTFC HQ staff after the march.

 

[Mortar guy]

Morning all,

I am a longtime lurker here but always enjoy reading this thread. Some of the things written here should be thrown into the Infantry Newsletter to generate Corps-wide debate in the RCIC. There are too few PRes articles in the Newsletter, and there are too many topics that need daylight, for this not to happen. If anyone wants to dive in, PM me.

[\paid political advertisement ends]

MG

 

[daftandbarmy]

Morning all,

I am a longtime lurker here but always enjoy reading this thread. Some of the things written here should be thrown into the Infantry Newsletter to generate Corps-wide debate in the RCIC. There are too few PRes articles in the Newsletter, and there are too many topics that need daylight, for this not to happen. If anyone wants to dive in, PM me.

[\paid political advertisement ends]

MG

You mean... you mean... you mean that someone actually cares about what we reservists think?

Really?

Must be a slow news day

 

[Mortar guy]

Well "care" is a strong word.

I just figured that with so many reservists in the RCIC, there's bound to be one or two who can piece together a coherent sentence.
[

MG

 

[dapaterson]

Well "care" is a strong word.

I just figured that with so many reservists in the RCIC, there's bound to be one or two who can piece together a coherent sentence.
[

MG

So, more than in the Reg F, then...

 

[Kirkhill]

That didn't take long.... :christmas happy:

 

[Journeyman]

I'm still Googling "coherent"  -- it's kind of the opposite of "incontinent," isn't it?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm still Googling "coherent"  -- it's kind of the opposite of "incontinent," isn't it?

Yes, but drier

 

[medicineman]

Yes, but drier

I'm still Googling "coherent"  -- it's kind of the opposite of "incontinent," isn't it?

Depends on the amount of drool leaking out...

MM

 

[daftandbarmy]

Depends on the amount of drool leaking out...

MM

Speaking of drool, I have just read the first edition of the Infantry newsletter and I think I want a LAV 6 and a TAPV now. It's an irrational and completely impossible to achieve desire, I know, but Xmas is just around the corner so who knows.

The Commandant needs to lighten up a little though. 'Closing with and destroying' is a lot of fun; too bad he makes it sound so much like a sacred duty, or something less enjoyable than brassing things up with a C6 fired from the hip.