I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,686
- Points
- 1,260
I think the money and benefits is really good, its the threat of posting, losing spousal employment and possibility of financial ruin because of useless geographical relocation. Build more base housing and stop posting people.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,404
- Points
- 1,260
I don’t know that that factors into our recruiting problems. Certainly affects retention. Quite frankly money talks and some kind of retention / resigning bonus or benefit would make sense.
- Reaction score
- 7,182
- Points
- 1,310
I would also say there are far too many hoops to jump in that process to make it viable to most applicants. Add to that the fact that CEMS is disqualifying more folks than it should, especially P Res applicants, we can't be hurting that bad for people right?
That's the kicker right there. If there is a legitimate need for someone to fill a position, put it out to the community first, find someone looking to get posted, post them. If someone wants to stay put, let them. If they stall their career, that's a choice they have made that may be beneficial to their family. I have a few soldiers that have spouses that make more than they ever will working as teachers, doctors, lawyers etc. The CAF is their hobby and they certainly can walk away if they're on the posting list.
"Where else are you going to go?" Isn't as big of a threat anymore when our troops are far better educated and marketable than in previous generations. You're not a pariah in Canadian society anymore because you did a 5 year stint in the CAF, you're an asset.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,295
- Points
- 1,010
Two things I note in that article.
First, the recruiting system still comes up with that crazy notion that the CAF has the mission of "defending our values". It is not, never has been and never will be part of the mission. The CAF defends the Sovereignty and the interests of Canada - Period. It may be that it is in our national interest to defend certain values (democracy, for one, inviolability of international borders for another, but not freedom of religion or equality before the law, for instance), but we defend them because it is in our national interest.
Second, and I think this one is funny: The elimination of binary uniform and appearance choices gives every member the freedom to "chose the uniform that makes them most comfortable". Wouldn't that always be the combat uniform for everyone, except pilots? I know my naval combat was my most comfortable uniform.
First, the recruiting system still comes up with that crazy notion that the CAF has the mission of "defending our values". It is not, never has been and never will be part of the mission. The CAF defends the Sovereignty and the interests of Canada - Period. It may be that it is in our national interest to defend certain values (democracy, for one, inviolability of international borders for another, but not freedom of religion or equality before the law, for instance), but we defend them because it is in our national interest.
Second, and I think this one is funny: The elimination of binary uniform and appearance choices gives every member the freedom to "chose the uniform that makes them most comfortable". Wouldn't that always be the combat uniform for everyone, except pilots? I know my naval combat was my most comfortable uniform.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,542
- Points
- 1,160
Fond memories of being the unit Recruiting Officer in 1980, in a Reserve unit, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.
Everyone thought we were going to go to war with Russia and we recruited dozens of (slightly misinformed) walk ins.
Within a month we had filled up the parade square with new troops, many of them already uniformed and enrolled in basic training that we ran right out of the armory. Minimal red tape was involved, of course.
And this was during an era when, post-Vietnam, being in the military was really not well thought of.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,686
- Points
- 1,260
Still too many dinosaurs that assume everyone wants or needs to aspire to be a CWO for the sake of postings, moves and single-spouse incomes.
- Reaction score
- 7,182
- Points
- 1,310
Not just dinosaurs, mate. The CFRG still holds the belief that anyone walking through the door is a 25-Lifer, possibly the next CDS/CAFCWO, so we better make sure they pass muster.
The reality is that if we recruited a 5 year person to plug holes, we have more selection to decide which one is going to be the CDS/CAFCWO based on their experience within the CAF and not their "potential" walking through the door.
If someone is fine staying put at the Cpl/Capt level, that frees up a billet for someone who is looking to climb up. We can't keep recruiting the way we always have and expect different results when they're not working.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,542
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile, in the UK, similar recruiting issues:
Absolutely. This is just one of many assumptions being made by out of touch people.
Our system is antiquated and hasn’t modernized. We aren’t targeting the right demographic the right way with the right messaging.
Add to that our antiquated method of posting and human resource management and we have so many issues that fixing just one won’t cut it. Everything thing needs an overhaul.
Also we are getting outflanked by everyone else.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,088
- Points
- 810
Yet the USMC hit its 2022 recruiting targets, and its well on track to hit its 2023 recruiting and retention targets.
Would be interesting for the other US services and western military’s to look at why that is.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,723
- Points
- 1,260
With this I agree. Not everyone nor should everyone aspire to be a CWO or CDS.
The career Corporal, MCpl or Sgt fulfills needs that require expertise in their particular area.
The Tpt Sgt, the Stores Cpl and mundane but absolutely necessary are just two examples
- Reaction score
- 7,182
- Points
- 1,310
"But we must recruit everyone. Because everyone wants to join. And we must be reflective of the larger Canadian population...."
Short of conscription...that will not be a reality.
Fully agreed
We are getting outflanked because of the point above
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,404
- Points
- 1,260
If you want to see how out of the touch the CAF is at teaching people just take a look at how bad and sloppy our social media teams are.
Todays recruits aren’t grabbing brochures from a stall, they’re checking instagram and snap chat. Our image production on there is the actual first impression we make and quite frankly it is a poor one. We need to up the “cool” factor by a lot.
"Reducing barriers"In other news, and shocking no one. We’re bleeding people and can’t get more in.
Military recruitment down 35%, blames tight labour market
Military recruitment experienced a significant decline of 35% last year, according to records. royal military college According to Blacklock’s Reporter, a fedewww.westernstandard.news
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,295
- Points
- 1,010
Markppcli, I hope you meant "at reaching people".
ButI agree.
Also, if you look at the US, they have in many regions (read smaller towns and states) a tradition almost of joining for a short stint (say three to five years) before going to college/university/community college, or just to get experience on the C.V. because they now qualify for G.I. bill school funding. It's not abad idea to follow suit. After all, it has been mentioned that todays youth does not expect to work in the same place for more than a few years.
There would be nothing wrong with having a fairly large number of people serving say, about five years, then get some benefit and leave, if it means that the platoons, sailors and air people lower ranks are full. If only a small percentage then elects to stay on for the long haul, that would be OK.
ButI agree.
Also, if you look at the US, they have in many regions (read smaller towns and states) a tradition almost of joining for a short stint (say three to five years) before going to college/university/community college, or just to get experience on the C.V. because they now qualify for G.I. bill school funding. It's not abad idea to follow suit. After all, it has been mentioned that todays youth does not expect to work in the same place for more than a few years.
There would be nothing wrong with having a fairly large number of people serving say, about five years, then get some benefit and leave, if it means that the platoons, sailors and air people lower ranks are full. If only a small percentage then elects to stay on for the long haul, that would be OK.
- Reaction score
- 8,329
- Points
- 1,160
In other news, and shocking no one. We’re bleeding people and can’t get more in.
Military recruitment down 35%, blames tight labour market
Military recruitment experienced a significant decline of 35% last year, according to records. royal military college According to Blacklock’s Reporter, a fede
Do I discern a pattern?
Nobody likes to hear it but the reality is that if a professional defence is to be mounted then more will have to be done with less, in this case less/fewer bodies.
And that means exploiting machines where possible and reducing crews where possible.
Fewer GIBs. More UAVs. Smaller ships crews.
One major advantage of the Subs
15 CSCs = 15x 210 = 3150 sailors
15 KSS III = 15x 50 = 750 sailors
A reduction of 2400 pensions.
Cost of CSC?
UK Batch 1: £1.31 billion (2022) per unit (est.)
UK Batch 2: £4.2 billion (2022) for 5 units (est.)
Australia: A$35 billion (2018) for 9 units + ToT (est.) = 4 BAUD each approx all in
Canada: CA$69.8 billion (2019) for 15 units + ToT (est.) = 4-5 BCAD each approx all in
Cost of KSS III?
| USD $900,000,000 per submarine |
Or, broadly speaking, the cost of a KSS III is the same as a CSC.
Both give you diplomatic presence kudos. Both give you the ability to destroy targets under the water, on the water and on land. Both give you the ability to maintain constant surveillance in all three of those domains. Both are adaptable to Multi-Domain Operations.
But the KSS III only requires a quarter, 25%, of the number of sailors at sea.
And finding sailors, or anybody else for that matter, is apparently a problem.
Not to mention that 35%, a third, of the budget goes towards paying and pensioning the people conducting the defence. People that despite being one of the best paid forces in the world are still leaving and replacements are still not coming through the doors.
Life in a submarine is more of a trial than that in a frigate?
Even if you hired two crews per boat so that sea days were cut in half you would still save half the manning requirements of the CSCs and free up either/or 1650 bodies/pensions.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,404
- Points
- 1,260
I think you’re getting the wrong message. Our recruiting system is getting applications it’s just taking far too long to process them. The Brits have shifted to a third party civilian contract for their recruiting and it’s been a dismal failure.
- Reaction score
- 22,090
- Points
- 1,260
Which will require more bodies…
- Reaction score
- 19,050
- Points
- 1,280
Which offices get the clerks, Supply Techs, Med Techs, etc?
Similar threads
- Article
