Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

[284_226]

More on the backpedalling.....

Now see, that burns my butt.  The Government didn't backpedal, and DND didn't backpedal.  The media took a quote from the CDS that said:

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else,"

"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"

And, from that, the media morphed it into meaning that anyone wearing a uniform was fair game.  I don't think that's what the CDS intended to convey, and based on the briefing we got from the AF CWO last week, it appears the CDS dumbed down the terms he used for the media just a little too much.  The AF CWO sure didn't seem all that surprised at the media misinterpreting it, though.

 

[Petard]

Now see, that burns my butt.  The Government didn't backpedal, and DND didn't backpedal...  The media took a quote from the CDS that said:

And, from that, the media morphed it into meaning that anyone wearing a uniform was fair game.  I don't think that's what the CDS intended to convey, and based on the briefing we got from the AF CWO last week, it appears the CDS dumbed down the terms he used for the media just a little too much.  The AF CWO sure didn't seem all that surprised at the media misinterpreting it, though.

but isn't this the same CWO that gave you the info that:

It seems strange because it is strange.  As I mentioned in my previous post...

There was a briefing yesterday by the Air Force CWO at Shearwater, and he assured all those in attendance that the media is reading far more into this than what the CDS stated.  He stated that the "re-roling" will be done on artillery and armoured personnel, and not to any other trades. He was quite emphatic that little Johnny who joined up as a Sonar Op, Boatswain, ATIS Tech, AVS tech, or any other Air Force or Navy trade will not be heading off to Battle School.

Is the CWO right on this and the media missed it by focusing only on the Navy and Air Force?
My point being is it appears the door is still open on drawing in Artillery and Armoured soldiers.
And unlike what some of the comments from I-6 and others would lead you to believe, I would say the Artillery is in a high demand situation right now and can't afford this

 

[284_226]

Is the CWO right on this and the media missed it by focusing only on the Navy and Air Force?
My point being is it appears the door is still open on drawing in Artillery and Armoured soldiers.

Based on what he said, that was the entire scope of the program from the get-go.  I think the media saw an opportunity to extrapolate and ran with it.  Of course, this is the same media that reported a successful medevac from a container ship off the coast of Nova Scotia using a Hercules helicopter this past weekend.

And unlike what some of the comments from I-6 and others would lead you to believe, I would say the Artillery is in a high demand situation right now and can't afford this

You may be right.  I'm not terribly familiar with the state of the Arty trade right now.  But, I'm inclined to believe that re-roling anyone to infantry is at best only a marginally shorter process than training them specifically to be infantry from square one.  May as well train them for the role from the beginning than mess with career progression issues related to re-roling later on down the line.

 

[SoF]

Jiminy jillikers radioactive man . That certainly wasn't a fun thread to read but I'm glad that the situation has a been addressed. I highly respect the work the grunts do but it's just not for me.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

There is no talk of re-roling those personnel who are already trained - and certainly not from the equally stressed comabt arms.  Rather the intent is that pers currently in the early training stages (ie BMQ or SQ and whatever the purple equivalents are) will then move on to BIQ, vice Aire Tfc Tech trades training (or whatever trade they thought they joined for). 

This is called a) serving at the Queen's pleasure, and b) an appropriate focus for an Army, if not a country, that is at war.

 

[tasop_999]

Bottom line here, and I think that many people are dancing around the issue, is that Afghanistan is turning into a longer commitment than we are able to handle.  The previous government (yes, the same one who starved the CF into an anorexic shell of a military) committed us for a year.  The five year commitment seems to have been made without much thought as to how to sustain it.  I know that this is not the case and that there are plans in place, but the optics of it are really bad and the press knows it.  

I think that Afghanistan is a worthwhile mission and those people over there have lived with the legacy of post-colonial war for so long that we need to be there.  Here is my solution and I am sure that there are a few people who will disagree with me, but hey we are in a democracy.

1.  Continue the mission as is for the next year to two years.

2.  During that two year period place the most significant effort since the Korean War on selling this mission to the Canadian public.  Coupled with this is an intense recruiting blitz and an actual effort on the part of the recruiting system to ramp up and process some new people.  That fact that we need bodies is not new...we just need them now.

3.  Continue rebuilding the CF.  We are in a terrible state in all branches of the CF: there are constant manning issues, delays in equipment, and delays in training which make it difficult to maintain readiness.  It is time that the famine stops and that there is real money put back into equipment.  The Army has benefitted from alot of the latest cash due to Afghanistan, and rightfully so, but the other two branches are needed for sealift and strategic and tactical airlift for the Army.  Promises made need to be kept, not caught up in government red tape and BS for another 15 years.

4.  Bring a couple new regiments worth of infantry into the permanent mix of the regular force.  More people means more capability and this means more boots on the ground and fewer tours for those who don't want a repeat of seven tours in Bosnia.

5.  Finally, once we have achieved a true joint force concept (ie not having to rent an Antonov or charter a civie cargo ship to move our kit) our other branched are truly ready to make a significant contribution to supporting the Army in Afghanistan.

I know alot of this is already underway through CF transformation, but there are some items like equipment purchases which take entirely too long.  Streamlining the procurement process will go a long way to remedy the current state of affairs.

If we just sit back and continue the mission as is there will be a significant rise in attrition rates, domestic opposition to the war will grow, and Afghanistan will become Canada's quagmire.  I believe that Canada needs to be there, but there needs to be more of an effort on planning for the next four years.  Hopefully success will follow and that country can finally have some peace after so much war.

 

[GAP]

Those are valid points, half of which will not happen for a variety of reasons.

The present commanders seem to be taking a pro-active approach to the deployments and given enough time, material and leeway will succeed above past rotos. I really think there is light at the end of the tunnel, now if someone does not block it, it will work out, but it won't be easy.

 

[tempest77]

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.

"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"

Taken from;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html

Wow.  Am I reading this right?  I 've seen multiple threads pop up about this all over army.ca recently and I have to say that I am quite disappointed with what I just read.  I havn't actually accepted a job offer yet and I'm still in the "processing" stage.  However, I AM STRONGLY CONSIDERING NOT JOINING THE FORCES after reading above quoted text.

I am interested in becoming a NavComm and I've devoted a lot of time on my own learning the skills of the trade.  I've learned Semaphore, International flags and Morse Code.  A+ and Network+ curriculum and some other misc. things that directly relate to this trade.  I don't know how many hours I've spent learning all of this, but after reading that little blurb in an article tonight "We'll re-roll the people in the training system right now AND possible commitment of 2-3 YEARS??!!!", I'm asking myself "Do I really have to be an infantry soldier?!"


"Screw that!" I'm thinking.


I really dislike the idea of being infantry.  I chose Navcomm because it's on a ship!  Something I've always wanted to do.  I like the sea.  Last I checked, Afghanistan was VERY landlocked!  I don't understand why I would have to waste a couple years of my life doing a trade I hate, only to be 2 years behind in training after I complete this re-rollment! 

This may seem more of a rant, however I actually would like my question to be addressed and clarified.  Will all new recruits have to become infantry?  Even people who chose a Navy or Air force trade?


Here's a big question for all the new hopeful recruits... If knowing you would HAVE to be infantry for a couple of years, would you still go through the process and join the Armed Forces or would this deter you from signing up, knowing you can't do what you originally wanted to do?



Mods, I request this topic not be locked or moved as I'd like to see this thread focused on the new recruitment aspect of this article only.

 

[aesop081]

You obviously havent read everything that been going on lately and missed the MNDs comment in the house.....


Dont worry, the lock will come

 

[Trinity]

WTF

You put a better spin on things than reporters do

The title of the article is called "Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor"


Your thread is called  "navy, air force recruits will serve"

You took the most selective quote possible, ignoring the BULK of the article.

That is trolling at its best.. if not selective stupidity and outright lying.

Someone should be introduced to the warning system (other than me :)

from the same article

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.

Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.

"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."

O'Connor was responding to reports that the Department of National Defence was considering the option of "re-roling" troops, which means using members from other services of the Canadian Forces in infantry roles.

 

[Michael OLeary]

This may seem more of a rant, however I actually would like my question to be addressed and clarified.  Will all new recruits have to become infantry?  Even people who chose a Navy or Air force trade?

Please pay attention to the following - YESTERDAY'S COMMENTS BY THE DEFENSE MINISTER SAID IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Until formal policy is published directing re-rolling of any trades, it is only a discussion point.

See this post - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-466891.html#msg466891

Clear enough based on the available information?

Mods, I request this topic not be locked or moved as I'd like to see this thread focused on the new recruitment aspect of this article only.

Please do not try and dictate the path of the thread.

 

[ProPatria Mike]

You would be surprised how many who believe the infantry is, as you say, not for them.


                         

 

[Navy_Blue]

I'm not suggesting we send navy people into the heat of combat but there are people within the navy that can preform tasks to relieve the work load put on our well trained combat troops in theater and allow them get out after the bad guys.  Of the hundreds of people who have re mustered from combat arms (add in bos'n and boarding party members for the experience in small arms) you could easily find a list of 300 people in the navy who are suitable.  Take away older unfit members, people who run to the padre and the "oh my back hurts" guys and you have yourself down to a list of 30+ switched on individuals (that's like a platoon+).  These people could do allot of the Molly Made stuff around the camp and releave the real army guys too what they do best.  Give them a ten week round of workups and away you go.  

I didn't join the navy because I was week or unfit.  I wanted a trade and I truly miss my time in the res infantry.  

If they told me I was off to AFGN after my course I wouldn't run and hid I would stand up dust off my combat boots kiss my family goodby and do what I am told no questions no complaining.  I think (hope) there would be a few more like me too.  :warstory:

 

 

[Sub_Guy]

There pretty much is no reason why a Navcomm could do the same job as a SIGOP in Afghanistan, that would assist in the "one" tour to Afghanistan plan that someone in Ottawa mentioned.

I read through the posts and I get this image of Army fellas laughing at us sailors, they throw the old "Soldier first" at us.  Hey we will do what ever we are told, but this whole thread was foolish, to sit there and think that our entire CF would be mobilized for this mission is pure silliness.  The thought of having one soldier do "ONE" tour is just as silly, it will no happen like that, you need experience, IMHO you can't send FNG's over there every 6 months, you need guys with experience, the kind of experience you only get from being over there.  Also it would have been political suicide if such a proposal went forward.

I have heard this statement made at various outlets, "how hard would it be to give a sailor a weapon and tell him to stand there".  It isn't hard to tell him that, but that statement says to me that some people have no idea what our guys are doing, or how they prep for a mission, there is much more to this mission.  There is more to this mission than a bunch of kids driving around in LAV's drooling over the vast fields of pot (I bet the Vandoos are itching to go!)

As for the infantry, that job is NOT for me.  Not at all.  I have a brother who is RCR, I respect his job, I know how much he puts into his job and the training involved.  Some people think that Infanteers are fellas who couldn't get anything else, well that's not the case these guys give 110% all the time.  His thoughts on the Navy, not for him, not at all, throw a sub into the mix and he thinks I am a retard......

 

[ProPatria Mike]

Well, if it is going to happen, I have a suggestion.

Send women sailors and airmen.

Im serious, things are supertense there, or will be once again once the snow melts. The guys on the line will find great comfort in seeing a non-burqua'd Canadian woman when they come in from beyond the wire and it will make those trips to the MIR, dental , stores or the mess hall at least a bit more bearable.

This is not a sexist remark, btw. I medically remustered into the Dental Corps and served with some damn fine women before releaae, in fact, Im certain some have already deployed.

 

[Petard]

To PhilB, I somewhat suggested something similar earlier but as MCG pointed out to me here:

Petard,
Have a look here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48605.0.html

drilling down into that other thread, and the other thread within it, it quickly becomes obvious it's a thornier issue than what it appears to be.

None the less if the message is the holding Pl's for Arty and Armoured DP1 are going to be combed for infantry volunteers, and I haven't actually seen that happen yet, but if it does then I would make a couple of assumptions from that.
One is that the only logic behind drawing them from a holding Pl is that they've already done St Jean and they'll arrive a bit sooner for Inf DP1 than those just getting to the recruiting centre.
Secondly, if the first is true, then the problem really is that urgent and the Artillery better start planning to draw even more from the reserves than they have already. Not sure about the Armoured but they can't be much better off, maybe worse. Either way a more deliberate method of sustaining reserve force augmentation needs to be developed too, if there really is a plan afoot to take from the Reg force holding Pl's.

 

[boondocksaint]

Wow.  Am I reading this right? 

"Do I really have to be an infantry soldier?!"

I really dislike the idea of being infantry.

Question #1, No, you arent reading it right.

Question #2, No, it is a privelage to serve in the Infantry, noone is guaranteed a spot, you earn it.

Note #3, I dislike doing up my bottom button, but  being in the Infantry is one of the few things in the world that gives me pure satisfaction.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Note #3, I dislike doing up my bottom button, but  being in the Infantry is one of the few things in the world that gives me pure satisfaction.

We have to do up our bottom button???  When did that start? 

Next thing you know, we will not be allowed to wear black toques...

 

[armyvern]

We have to do up our bottom button???  When did that start? 

Crap, how convenient...I got nailed for that today by one of my troops. Must buy him a beer. I'll wait until the Men's Junior Ranks Christmas Dinner...it's cheaper!! 

 

[aesop081]

Next thing you know, we will not be allowed to wear black toques...

Crap, how convenient...I got nailed for that today by one of my troops. Must buy him a beer. I'll wait until the Men's Junior Ranks Christmas Dinner...it's cheaper!! 

You guys crack me up    :rofl: