Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Spec pay won’t make a difference if the other side offers 140k.

And bonuses, and home every night

 

[Furniture]

You'd think they would of atleast be given sprc pay though

My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I wonder how many are coming in with skills the CAF desperately needs? Like air crews, pilots, marine engineers, etc...feel like we would want to fast track those individuals. Maybe even offer expedited citizenship for those that serve?

Pilots are aircrew; CAF/RCAF aircrew trades are pilot, ACSO, SAR Tech, Flight Engineer and AES Op.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

AMOR is imperfect but important. Org design across the enterprise is important too - since we do little lateral entry, rank pyramid is important to have healthy promotion ratios - to select out.

The classic example was Int Op wanting more MCpl than Cpl, more Sgt than MCpl. WO at least was smaller than Sgt - but greater than Cpl.

That's been mostly fixed, but stupidity like "A Cpl can't brief a Col" needs to be stomped out - hard - whenever it recurs.

My trade is suffering now because the pyramid was forced.

I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.

I've been saying recently; the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self". For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.

 

[Furniture]

I've been saying recently; the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self". For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.

100%

The CAF/GoC has shown it's colours, and I'm done giving more than I get back.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I've met a few in my "new" branch...

I've had a couple of people try to take on my briefings. I gave them as polite of a "f**k-off" as I could muster, and proceeded to conduct the brief myself. I may not be great, but I at least understand what I'm talking about better than most people in the room.

Well, there was the one time you told me there was no risk of a thunderstorm, with a CB clearly visible 10 NM off the port bow.

I forgive you

 

[CBH99]

The top as in the CDS? MND? PM?

In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…

That’s because he admires them so much…

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2416976891

 

[dimsum]

I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.

Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

in WW2, the yanks had a 1:6000 GOFO:soldier ratio, in 2017 the US military had about 1:1400 ratio, while the ADF is currently running a 1:180 ratio. The US army is about half a million personnel, they have recently had their GOFO number reduced to 220, which is only 15 more than what we have in the ADF, which numbers less than 60000 full time. We are currently employing nearly 10 times the number of flag officers vs the US army. Clearly, the rank bloat at the higher levels goes beyond needing experts in key areas.

 

[kev994]

To be fair to the CAF, we are held hostage by TB...

Apparently TB considers our crappy, ill-fitting uniforms as part of our overall compensation package, so they won't bump pay without taking something else away.

They can have my DEU back if it’s worth a couple %.

 

[OldSolduer]

In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…

I fully agree. The PM was the one that said he admired China. I took that as a warning but it seems that the chattering class went gaga over it.

 

[KevinB]

Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

Just because someone else is worse doesn’t make the CAF situation with GOFO’s reasonable.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF. Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces. Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.

 

[GR66]

They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF. Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces. Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.

Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....CSAF

 

[FJAG]

Sure, there are definitely some cases where we can look at the civvy world and say "close enough for government work".

The problem is, we don't offer anything competitive enough to draw most of the civvy collage people we want... To the average 20-30 year old, a pension after 25 years isn't much incentive when compared against more take-home money now, and no silly military BS.

Maybe one of the mistakes is that we have a service model where want everyone to stick around for 25 years. Maybe its good enough if the bulk stays for 3 or 4 years full-time and another 5 years part-time.

Make the incentive that we provide one group with adventure while they are youth (I'm thinking the usual infantry and so on) and the others a paid for education in a civilian trade and some experience with a full period of summer employment to make some cash. Target high school students by paying tuitions for colleges and universities but pay them a salary only when they attend their military skills conversion courses in the summer. Enforce "obligatory service" provisions for several years of pay-back and then incentivise re-enlistment for further terms of obligatory service.

If turnover is a fact of life, then learn to live with turnover. Not everyone needs to stay the full course. We only need the vast number of middle and senior managers that we do because we have built a constipated system that needs them. Even as it is, in an infantry battalion (from an establishment a few years out of date) we have 594 all ranks of which 519 are of the rank of sergeant and below. That feeds 36 NCMs of the rank of WO and above. That means that you only need to keep 7% of the base to generate the NCM leadership needed within a given battalion. Let's double that to 15% to keep a reasonable ERE base. The trouble is that we've created an artificially high ERE base within our numerous headquarters above brigade level that takes leadership away from the battalions and converts them into middle management for marginally useful administrative functions. To compound things we have created a system where it is nigh on impossible to bring skilled retirees back to the colours in time of need.

We need to massively prune the tree, reduce that ERE need and then ensure that line units--the real defence outputs--are properly filled by young and still interested and motivated troops. And yes - that applies to the officer corps as well. We have to stop looking at the careerist as our role model and develop a system of how to still make use of those that leave the CF for a civilian career.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....CSAF

Is “Forces” too aggressive though? What if that word makes some people and/or non-people sad or uncomfortable?

 

[Good2Golf]

Maybe an immediate annuity (still prorated to YOS) should have changed from 20 to 15 years, not to 25?

 

[GR66]

Is “Forces” too aggressive though? What if that word makes some people and/or non-people sad or uncomfortable?

CSAC? Canadian Semi-Armed Conveners?

 

[dimsum]

Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....CSAF

Until the not-so-recent past, we were the "Canadian Forces"...