HMCS Montréal part of navy trial to experiment with reducing crews

[dapaterson]

As I recall, Army Support Restructure cut the number of troops providing service in the support units, and increased the number of LCols and CWOs in the support HQs.

 

[Kirkhill]

If we can't maintain a paid service Reserve Force to "PML" numbers, I am not sure how we'd ever get 'unpaid volunteers' into the fold.  Canadians are patriotic, sure.  Mostly during the National Anthem at hockey games and in beer tents on Canada Day, etc. 

I just don't see the average Canadian willing to be an unpaid 'member of the military' in any shape or form.  I also think any kind of 'unpaid volunteer' group should be separate from the CAF.  Mostly because of the 'A' in CAF.

My thought is that people could be attracted by actually offering them training and experiences that their regular lives don't supply them.  The money that goes into paying people to show up on Wednesday nights could be funneled into ammunition on the ranges.

We have people paying to go shooting/skiing/parachuting/off-roading.  What happens if the government paid for them to learn those skills in exchange for their services?

I think it can work.  I know as a youngster, gainfully employed in the civilian world, I was not overly concerned about the beer-money that my militia service warranted.  I joined to learn to be a soldier and do soldier stuff.  And I enjoyed myself doing it.  My biggest disappointment was not getting to do as much shooting and field work as I would have liked.

I used to be a skier - and it cost me fortune.  Then I joined the militia and they paid me to enjoy myself.  And all that was asked was that I make myself available should the need arise.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Hum! Hum! Are we still talking about HMCS MONTREAL's crew reduction experiment ???

I seem to recall another thread in the Army section that deals with reforming the Militia, but I could be wrong.  :-\

 

[Kirkhill]

We got here by way of discussing possibilities for more effective utilization or Reserves in all three/four/five/whatever services. 

The Molitia has indeed been endlessly debated. 

Are there no better options for the NavRes?  Small boat operators?  Weapons operators?  Sailors that can be dispatched to add capabilities only when the circumstances require?

 

[Baz]

Hum! Hum! Are we still talking about HMCS MONTREAL's crew reduction experiment ???

I seem to recall another thread in the Army section that deals with reforming the Militia, but I could be wrong.  :-\

You are correct, but everyone of these threads do this, mainly because everyone is facing the same problems.

Would you like to hear how 12 Wing can only provide X dets, and the Navy isn't happy because they need more?

 

[Lumber]

Hum! Hum! Are we still talking about HMCS MONTREAL's crew reduction experiment ???

I seem to recall another thread in the Army section that deals with reforming the Militia, but I could be wrong.  :-\

Ahem... HMCS MONTRÉAL...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hum! Hum! Are we still talking about HMCS MONTREAL's crew reduction experiment ???

I seem to recall another thread in the Army section that deals with reforming the Militia, but I could be wrong.  :-\

Good point, but I think the 'informal brainstorming' that happens when we look at these problems are beneficial enough to go thru the pain.  :2c:

It was mentioned that maintaining a strong reserve component could be the solution to the problem, which lead to the sidetrack.

So, question to get back on track with the thread title...is the NAVRES able to backfill positions now on short notice if a CPF needs to top up pers for a deployment.  If not, is there a way it can be improved so they can?  Is the NAVRES funded and trained properly to backfill Reg Force sailing billets?

From an outside view, I think the NAVRES/Reg Force RCN is similar to the Armour Corps;  the equipment isn't the same, so the trg and pers capabilities/skills aren't the same and hard to do quick-fills without training.  There are as many differences as there are similarities so the Res Force Armd Corps is not the desired 'reserve' the Reg Army would like it to be.

Thoughts?

 

[Lumber]

Good point, but I think the 'informal brainstorming' that happens when we look at these problems are beneficial enough to go thru the pain.  :2c:

It was mentioned that maintaining a strong reserve component could be the solution to the problem, which lead to the sidetrack.

So, question to get back on track with the thread title...is the NAVRES able to backfill positions now on short notice if a CPF needs to top up pers for a deployment.  If not, is there a way it can be improved so they can?  Is the NAVRES funded and trained properly to backfill Reg Force sailing billets?

From an outside view, I think the NAVRES/Reg Force RCN is similar to the Armour Corps;  the equipment isn't the same, so the trg and pers capabilities/skills aren't the same and hard to do quick-fills without training.  There are as many differences as there are similarities so the Res Force Armd Corps is not the desired 'reserve' the Reg Army would like it to be.

Thoughts?

In some cases yes, in other cases, no.

From what I've seen, there are three levels of trades comparability between the RCN and the RCNR.

At the top are trades that are designed to be the exact same, and who get the almost the exact same level of training and qualification. These are the most easily transferrable. Trades in this category would include, IMO, Bosn and RMC Clerk, Cook, Supply Tech and Nav Comm. This is the largest of the three categories, so overall, yes I think the NAVRES is prepared to backfill positions and support the "one navy" concept.

The second level are those who are designed to be the exact same trade, but through various factors do not received the same training, and therefore you couldn't just drop one of them onto a CPF and have him fill his role. These trades are MARS, LogO and NCIOP. A fully qualified MARS officer in the reserve can't be employed as a watch keeper on a CPF. An NCIOP with 400 days at sea on MCDVs can't do the job of an NCIOP because he has no experience with CMS or the radar suite. The nice thing about this level is that if these people are already trainined in the core skills, it would just take a few weeks of OJT for them to become fully capable on the new platform. Likely though, before they could become officially "qualified", theyd have to do a whole bunch of conversation courses.

The third level are those RCNR trades that have absolutely no comparison to the RCN: Director of Music, Musicians, and MESOs. You really can't employ them on RegF ships, except maybe as WOD...

Oh and I left out IntO, because I don't even know what the hell IntOs do in the RCNR...

 

[dapaterson]

In some cases yes, in other cases, no.

From what I've seen, there are three levels of trades comparability between the RCN and the RCNR.

At the top are trades that are designed to be the exact same, and who get the almost the exact same level of training and qualification. These are the most easily transferrable. Trades in this category would include, IMO, Bosn and RMC Clerk, Cook, Supply Tech and Nav Comm. This is the largest of the three categories, so overall, yes I think the NAVRES is prepared to backfill positions and support the "one navy" concept.

The second level are those who are designed to be the exact same trade, but through various factors do not received the same training, and therefore you couldn't just drop one of them onto a CPF and have him fill his role. These trades are MARS, LogO and NCIOP. A fully qualified MARS officer in the reserve can't be employed as a watch keeper on a CPF. An NCIOP with 400 days at sea on MCDVs can't do the job of an NCIOP because he has no experience with CMS or the radar suite. The nice thing about this level is that if these people are already trainined in the core skills, it would just take a few weeks of OJT for them to become fully capable on the new platform. Likely though, before they could become officially "qualified", theyd have to do a whole bunch of conversation courses.

The third level are those RCNR trades that have absolutely no comparison to the RCN: Director of Music, Musicians, and MESOs. You really can't employ them on RegF ships, except maybe as WOD...

Oh and I left out IntO, because I don't even know what the hell IntOs do in the RCNR...

There are Reg F bands on both coasts, so Res Musicians can augment the Reg F very easily.

As for IntOs: No one knows what IntOs do in the RegF or ResF, so it sounds like they're a perfect fit!

 

[FSTO]

Intelligence Officers don't even know what they are doing! Mainly because there is a massive Intel civil war in the halls of Ottawa and the IntO's at the coal face have been forgotten about.

 

[Baz]

Intelligence Officers don't even know what they are doing! Mainly because there is a massive Intel civil war in the halls of Ottawa and the IntO's at the coal face have been forgotten about.

Ah, Int and ISR: now I remember one of the reasons I got out... unfortunately it followed me to my new job

 

[Stoker]

In some cases yes, in other cases, no.

From what I've seen, there are three levels of trades comparability between the RCN and the RCNR.

At the top are trades that are designed to be the exact same, and who get the almost the exact same level of training and qualification. These are the most easily transferrable. Trades in this category would include, IMO, Bosn and RMC Clerk, Cook, Supply Tech and Nav Comm. This is the largest of the three categories, so overall, yes I think the NAVRES is prepared to backfill positions and support the "one navy" concept.

The second level are those who are designed to be the exact same trade, but through various factors do not received the same training, and therefore you couldn't just drop one of them onto a CPF and have him fill his role. These trades are MARS, LogO and NCIOP. A fully qualified MARS officer in the reserve can't be employed as a watch keeper on a CPF. An NCIOP with 400 days at sea on MCDVs can't do the job of an NCIOP because he has no experience with CMS or the radar suite. The nice thing about this level is that if these people are already trainined in the core skills, it would just take a few weeks of OJT for them to become fully capable on the new platform. Likely though, before they could become officially "qualified", theyd have to do a whole bunch of conversation courses.

The third level are those RCNR trades that have absolutely no comparison to the RCN: Director of Music, Musicians, and MESOs. You really can't employ them on RegF ships, except maybe as WOD...

Oh and I left out IntO, because I don't even know what the hell IntOs do in the RCNR...

From what I can see and I have much experience in this area is that the reverse could also be said with some regular force trades coming to the MCDV's. What we are seeing is that many regular force personnel cannot cope with the extra responsibility and making do with less philosophy that is business as usual on the Kingston Class. After a period of time the regular force personnel will get used to the differences of the class, this is similar if a reserve goes to a bigger ship.

Being a CPO2 MESO I am considered to be the equivalent of a Cert 2, and can CT to a PO1 Cert 3 trainee. As soon as I get my Cert 3, I automatically endorse to my Cert 4. That being said a regular force personnel must go through the certification process on the Kingston Class just the same as we would have to go to a bigger ship. Lots of differences between the classes to be sure however achievable with time and training.

 

[Underway]

No.  We do not.  What's the source of your numbers?

Recruiting Group tracking everyone we recruited through basic.  Average pass rate at St. Jean was about 65% to a maximum of 75% 2009 to 2012.  Thought now that I think about it was probably "did not completes" vs straight up releases from basic.  That would probably improve the numbers if you take out fitness, injury and pers issues. [/end thread hijack]

 

[mariomike]

Average pass rate at St. Jean was about 65% to a maximum of 75% 2009 to 2012.  Thought now that I think about it was probably "did not completes" vs straight up releases from basic.  That would probably improve the numbers if you take out fitness, injury and pers issues.

See also,

Canadian Forces Basic Training Attrition
July 2011