Lets find out what you think

[Ex-Dragoon]

As you can we have 2 very divergent views on what should be more important to the Navy. Let us know what you think.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670.0.html

 

[Cloud Cover]

I voted for the equipment, as long as it's not British equipment. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

*snicker* Although their Type 45 destroyers look like a nice piece of kit, I would prefer German.

 

[Gino]

I object to the entire poll.  It makes it seem like these items are mutually exclusive.  It is possible to strike a balance.  Obviously, operational effectiveness comes before people and traditions.  However, you might just find that you can't achieve the first one if you forget the other two.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think it is possible to set out objective criteria for setting priorites. Adding "Royal" to the Navy is not going to put a single sub on the bottom with a giant hole in it, or deliver a green guy in fighting order to theatre.   

 

[FSTO]

Equipment fails if you have no people to run it.
People fail if they have no leadership
Leadership comes from remembering the people and deeds who led the ones who now lead you.

FSTO deep thought for the day.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Your words FSTO? If so well said.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Equipment fails if you have no people to run it.
People fail if they have no leadership
Leadership comes from remembering the people and deeds who led the ones who now lead you.

All true, but still can come back to equipment (LOL- "psychic" sinking notwithstanding!! Remember this?)

 

[Neill McKay]

I think it is possible to set out objective criteria for setting priorites. Adding "Royal" to the Navy is not going to put a single sub on the bottom with a giant hole in it, or deliver a green guy in fighting order to theatre.   

By the same token, it's not going to prevent the purchase of a single round of .50 cal ammunition either.

 

[rifleman]

I object to the entire poll.  It makes it seem like these items are mutually exclusive.  It is possible to strike a balance.  Obviously, operational effectiveness comes before people and traditions.  However, you might just find that you can't achieve the first one if you forget the other two.

I have to agree with Gino, this is not a good poll. Because we wouldn't have a problem with recruiting sailors if the navy could bring back, the Press Gangs - a fine naval tradition. Then we could give them subs with holes in them. We could just get more sailors next Saturday night

 

[TAS278]

We have been "short-handed" in the navy since i joined and the only thing I ever hear anyone really complain about is operational equipment. We have proved over and over that our lack of warm bodies doesn't impede our performance. It is actually quite fitting if you look at our world contributions as compared to our country size.

This is one of those topics where you really can't isolate a solution. We have issues in all of those areas and it is hard to look at one with out looking at the others. Not mention the multiple levels of equipment replacement. When one refers to equipment, do you mean replacing parts and pieces or getting all new equipment? With brand new things we will need many more operators. We seems to be having so much trouble now with keeping people in after their first contract.

75% of the people I joined with are now released. And all for the same reason; (This is not my opinion but I can see their point) Ships that sail for 10 out of the 12 months of the year and then do it all over again the next year. Their is no bonus to sailing like that except that you get so much operational experience you can see it coming out of your ears. We end up burning guys out quicker then we can get them in. 

As for me, I love the service and am very proud to be apart of this team. But I believe with better direction and a common goal we will start to see more of what we need and want

 

[Sheerin]

boy, that psychic was wrong!

okay sorry...

*wanders back into the darkness*

 

[Navy_Blue]

TAS Said it.  Coming from the same ship its a reality.  MSE and CSE have allot of empty shore billets @ FMF right now I heard upwards of 40.  Those billets are our time away from the ship. We don't have a sea to shore ratio any more.  People get posted the mog or FMF and get called out on critical manning msgs.  Those are supposed to be our shore posting to let us recoup from our 6+ months at sea for years at a time.  Instead your finding allot of smoking boots where sailors used to be.  Of 4 people posted east from my QL3 I might soon be the last.  The other 7 on the course were posted west.  Only 3 left of the 11.  That is some kinda losses not to mention expense training.

As far as the RCN thing goes there is a certain romance to the name that Canadian Navy lacks.  Our navy helped make history is WWII and it was called the RCN.  The name "Royal Canadian Navy" puts us closer to a Naval tradition that started all our naval traditions and lets us honour its history.  However in this time and with the situation our navy is in right now; its a topic much more suited to be discused closer to the centennial in 2010.  Sorry guys renaming our outfit is a bottom of the barrel priority.

 

[Phrontis]

I have to agree with Gino, that the question is loaded wrongly.  The three things are important parts of the whole.  The equipment is like the skeleton, the people are the muscle and brains, and the customs and traditions are the soul of the body-naval.

(I think that analogy got away from me a bit there.)

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

We have been "short-handed" in the navy since i joined and the only thing I ever hear anyone really complain about is operational equipment. We have proved over and over that our lack of warm bodies doesn't impede our performance. It is actually quite fitting if you look at our world contributions as compared to our country size.

This is one of those topics where you really can't isolate a solution. We have issues in all of those areas and it is hard to look at one with out looking at the others. Not mention the multiple levels of equipment replacement. When one refers to equipment, do you mean replacing parts and pieces or getting all new equipment? With brand new things we will need many more operators. We seems to be having so much trouble now with keeping people in after their first contract.

75% of the people I joined with are now released. And all for the same reason; (This is not my opinion but I can see their point) Ships that sail for 10 out of the 12 months of the year and then do it all over again the next year. Their is no bonus to sailing like that except that you get so much operational experience you can see it coming out of your ears. We end up burning guys out quicker then we can get them in. 

As for me, I love the service and am very proud to be apart of this team. But I believe with better direction and a common goal we will start to see more of what we need and want

Agreed, Ops Tempo and Ship/Shore ratio is a huge problem.
Very hard on family life, love life...well life in general if you want to have one.
That's why I re-mustered 25 years ago.....some things never change.

 

[Sailing Instructor]

To 'fix' the 'inherent problems' of the poll question, why doesn't everyone list their choice (pers, equip, trad) along with the particular situation in which they think it is the most important?  Obviously, this negates the use of the polling software but it does, I think, solve the problem.

I will add one note: 'customs and trads' are not things that can be bought and sold like 'equip' & 'pers.'  You can elect to rule them out or enshrine them (i.e. regulate their use, plan occasions for their use) but they cannot be made by the support of parliament, as can the other two. 

PS.  Let's be sure not to specifically mention that 'royal' debate as there is a more suitable thread for that.

 

[Phrontis]

Perhaps Sailing Instructor has something there, although it still strikes me that it's like asking whether arms or legs are more important to a person.

Of course, fundamentally what is a Navy but a collection of personnel who serve in and support a number of ships?  So clearly equipment and personnel are critical.  Put that way, customs and traditions seem by definition to take third place.  But I'd argue that they are an essential element in a healthynavy, and are ignored and/or messed with willy-nilly to the cost of morale, esprit de corps, and therfore ultimately, fighting efficiency.

I joined the Navy about a quarter of a century ago (my bones creek as I type), in the dark days of "rust out".  We did a great deal with what we had, but it was embarrassing internationally to show up with our 3"50 guns and Mark 10 mortars in the age of missiles.  It was heart-breaking, and I'd hate to see us go back to a situation like that regarding equipment.  Besides which, if we are potentially going to send our sailors into harm's way, they deserve the best equipment that can be provided.

The way we treat our personnel has greatly improved over the last couple decades as well.  But if we hope to attract and retain good people, we need good personnel policies.  Otherwise, every time the economy improves, a lot of people will jump ship and go back to the private sector.

To answer the question then, I reckon I'm siding with the order: equipment, personnel, traditions.  But I wouldn't want to be in a Navy that didn't place a strong emphasis on all three.

 

[Gino]

Perhaps Sailing Instructor has something there, although it still strikes me that it's like asking whether arms or legs are more important to a person.

Of course, fundamentally what is a Navy but a collection of personnel who serve in and support a number of ships?  So clearly equipment and personnel are critical.  Put that way, customs and traditions seem by definition to take third place.  But I'd argue that they are an essential element in a healthynavy, and are ignored and/or messed with willy-nilly to the cost of morale, esprit de corps, and therfore ultimately, fighting efficiency.

I joined the Navy about a quarter of a century ago (my bones creek as I type), in the dark days of "rust out".  We did a great deal with what we had, but it was embarrassing internationally to show up with our 3"50 guns and Mark 10 mortars in the age of missiles.  It was heart-breaking, and I'd hate to see us go back to a situation like that regarding equipment.  Besides which, if we are potentially going to send our sailors into harm's way, they deserve the best equipment that can be provided.

The way we treat our personnel has greatly improved over the last couple decades as well.  But if we hope to attract and retain good people, we need good personnel policies.  Otherwise, every time the economy improves, a lot of people will jump ship and go back to the private sector.

To answer the question then, I reckon I'm siding with the order: equipment, personnel, traditions.  But I wouldn't want to be in a Navy that didn't place a strong emphasis on all three.

Put far better than I could.  A round on me.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Perhaps Sailing Instructor has something there, although it still strikes me that it's like asking whether arms or legs are more important to a person.

Of course, fundamentally what is a Navy but a collection of personnel who serve in and support a number of ships?  So clearly equipment and personnel are critical.  Put that way, customs and traditions seem by definition to take third place.  But I'd argue that they are an essential element in a healthynavy, and are ignored and/or messed with willy-nilly to the cost of morale, esprit de corps, and therfore ultimately, fighting efficiency.

I joined the Navy about a quarter of a century ago (my bones creek as I type), in the dark days of "rust out".  We did a great deal with what we had, but it was embarrassing internationally to show up with our 3"50 guns and Mark 10 mortars in the age of missiles.  It was heart-breaking, and I'd hate to see us go back to a situation like that regarding equipment.  Besides which, if we are potentially going to send our sailors into harm's way, they deserve the best equipment that can be provided.

The way we treat our personnel has greatly improved over the last couple decades as well.  But if we hope to attract and retain good people, we need good personnel policies.  Otherwise, every time the economy improves, a lot of people will jump ship and go back to the private sector.

To answer the question then, I reckon I'm siding with the order: equipment, personnel, traditions.  But I wouldn't want to be in a Navy that didn't place a strong emphasis on all three.

Very well said!

 

[Rhibwolf]

I too agree that the structure of the poll creates exclusivity, but the suggestion to comment on all three has merit:
Phrontis' statement about equipment rust out, while not (yet) exactly valid with our current class of ships, is not so very far from being a reality shortly.  We are only just now moving away from the "talking" phase of replacing the AORs, and I shudder to think where we will be in the FFH/DDH replacement scheme when JSS hits the water.  Traditionally, we as a Navy have let our fleets suffer through rust-out before we do anything about it.  We came out of WWII with a large fleet (third largest they said, although most of it was ready for razors shortly thereafter) and let it dwindle rapidly.  The coming of the Steamers gave us decades of laurels to rest on until the FFHs came along.  Now, 15 years or so into this class, there is nothing in sight that looks like a replacement.
This is not the way a world class navy should plan.  Successfull fleets of yore, IGN, RN, USN, etc, have worked on approximately a 20 year cycle, where obsolescent/obsolete ships were paid off and replaced (in full) within 2 decades.  In these day of increasing modernity and rapid technological advances, this cycle needs to be shortened. 

I wont tie in people to this, as I think the problem of people extends from mast to keel throughout the mob.  We are short at all levels. period.  We are being asked to do more, with less, ever more frequently.  With the stand up of the new command structures, JTF (a to p), etc, the old MARLANT/PAC structures are being bled white.  The economy is strong, and it is difficult to bring people in, especially in to an increasingly technological environment.  We are in an exciting time for sure, and I venture to say that in 5 yrs or so we will have gone through the drought of pers, but if we dont take care of the few people we have now, we wont have anyone to lead and teach the newcomers, and we might have "rust out" at the personnel level too.