Mobilization is Dead....

[CH1]

There has been a number of very good points raised in this thread.  The one point overlooked is the political desire.  The Regs & ResF have been structured since the 1st big scheme, to support each other.
There is somewhat out dated regs for the call up of ResF, right down to job protection.  Until political will takes the structure, blows a century of dust off it, & updates it, we are stuck with the sadly decaying RegF & ResF structure.  Kudos to Gen. Hillier, for having the balls to stand up to the politicians, & trying to bring our military status current.  Unfortunately though, these 5 & 10 year plans always fall prey to a small bunch of near sighted, deaf, self serving individuals.

It is interesting that in my travels south of the border, that the most common example cited by current & past US military is the Avro Arrow fiasco.  They have great respect for our military, even though  $10 hookers are treated better by our government.

At any rate there is a great need to re-organize & re-equip our military to bring it into the 21st century.
Personally I think it should start with a RDF, then SSF/SOG, then the main echelons.  The ResF should be an integral part so Trg would only reqire several weeks before integration.  Regt's & Btn's would have to be brought up to manned strength instead of paper strength.  Also we would have to get past the stage of the wheels fell off the ML & pass the rifle, scrounge the ammo.  It means that for every operational piece of eqt, 2 more were sitting spare. (what happened to the EMO lines?)

As for Urban warfare, this used to be part of the syllabus & needs to be brought back.  Asymetrical warfare how ever needs to be expanded.  In short the spokes have to be put back into the wheel.
Here we end up back at political expediency.

cheers

 

[a_majoor]

We already fund reservists to the tune of 2,000$ a year max for post secondary education. The problems are; they are only around for an average of 4 years, and most of them are working towards degree programs which qualify them to be officers - and we have more than enough of those. Most militia units are understrength in terms of enlisted pers and overstrength in the Officer dept.

In addition to this, would the 2 week trg cycle be truly mandatory? Would the call - out system be enforced? If you change all of the rules then maintain the status quo, things are not really fixed.

And before you ask, yes I do know what a university education costs (been there, done that)

If we want to have a valid reserve force for 21rst century operations, then yes, a lot of changes need to be made. University or special education to create "strategic corporals" should be offered without a tie in to commissioning, since we want this knowledge at the coal face. Manditory call-ups for refesher training should also be part of the package, along with job protection/employer incentive programs.

What we need to look at is a Regular Force which is capable of doint the expeditionary force tasks at short notice, and a Reserve force which can stand up "SSF" units of whatever size is deemed appropriate to cover the Area which the Reg Battlegroup is deployed, and to do the follow on missions after the initial deployment (branches and sequels planning). As Infanteer has pointed out, there is no time at first raise soldiers and equipment, but as history is demonstrating yet again, we need the ability to be in it for the long haul.

Modern military equipment has a range of operation in regards to heat/cold, dust, dry/wet, shocks and general, durability that is an order of magnitude better than an XBox in every category. A lot of support equipment is fairly off the shelf but war fighting equipment isn't. Ammunitions, integrated fire control systems, battlefield information systems, vision systems and the training and tactics to employ them effectively takes a lot of time to develop and manufacture.

I will not deny this (and the Xbox was probably a poor example), but even somewhat ruggedized devices such as Panasonic "toughbook" laptops or Garmin "RINO" handheld radio/GPS receivers are orders of magnitude cheaper than conceptually similar devices like TCCCS. As we start delving deeper into "4GW", it will be these sorts of devices and the controlling organizations which will become far more important than firing platforms. I suspect the Israelis are pioneering this form of warfare, where cultivating informants and dispatching snipers to "take out" terrorist leaders becomes the normal way of operating. The main point is the entire supply and procurement system is quite dysfunctional. I can understand that it takes 10 years to make a $1 billion dollar Halifax class frigate, but why does it take 10 years to issue "Cloth the Soldier" uniform items?

 

[pbi]

most of them are working towards degree programs which qualify them to be officers - and we have more than enough of those. Most militia units are understrength in terms of enlisted pers and overstrength in the Officer dept.

Really? What units would those be? I wish we had that problem in our CBG! Generating and retaining officers is one of our biggest challenges. And, even if we could do that, the system provides nowhere near the training vacancies we require, even at our depleted state.

Cheers.

 

[GO!!!]

I would argue that your biggest challenge is to train and retain soldiers, not officers. The "coal face" is an apt analogy.

As to the units that are overstrength in officers in 1 CMBG - try all of them. Before you scoff, how many Lt.s command a platoon of 18? OCs with Companies of 65? There is plenty of management - and a severe shortage of troops. In addition to this, what is the attrition rate for officers at the end of their contract? Is it as high as their troops?

Canada as a nation maintains an officer to enlisted ratio of 1 to 3. In WW2 it was 1 to 7 and there were a million Canadians in uniform! We are top heavy.

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

Although PBI knows that I've argued the "too many officers" line before, I need to correct your numbers.

The CF is 1:4 - including the Air Force, which can tend to skew the ratio.

One reason why I think we need to cut back on Officers is to increase the time in command.  The most important time (IMHO) for an officer is the time he spends under the tutelage of SNCO's while as a commander of small units (Pl - Coy); it seems to me that a smaller Officer Corps means more command spots for the existing leaders (and thus more PY's for extra troops).

 

[Infanteer]

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04autumn/elhefnaw.pdf

Interesting article on the ability of the United States to mobilize from an economic standpoint - I think this furthers my point in the original thread that financing and supporting structures (beyond planning) for National Mobilization is a waste of resources....

 

[GO!!!]

Perhaps a system in which prospective officers were required to demonstrate leadership capacity by being MCpls first would solve this problem. An "up or out" policy (US) or a competition for commands - even at the small unit level would likely thin the ranks quite quickly.

As for my numbers, they are from 1994, and 1:3 or 1:4 still puts us at one of the worst ratios on the planet.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, looking at the 1997 Minister's Report (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/minister/eng/benchmark/bench_intro_e.htm#stats) we are about the same as the Aussies.  The Brits and the Dutch have a higher ratio.

NCMs per Officer
Australia:  3.8
Canada:  3.6
Italy:  11.6
Netherlands:  4.8
Sweden:  1.6
United Kingdom:  5.6

I'm curious what the United States has.  As well, I think it would be interesting to see how many Officers are in operational roles and how many are doing other things (same with the troops, I guess).

 

[retired@23]

From Tomahawk6

To make the Canadian reserves more effective reservists need job protection if they are mobilized. The law needs to be changed to allow for limited mobilizations of entire reserve units. If this were available the active force might not be as taxed as they have been.

This law should not be created. I have spoken with Americans who are in the reserves. If they are currently looking for work they leave off the military Status and grow there hair some. "if it comes down to hiring one of two people who are pretty much equal, one is in the reserves one is not, the one who is not in the reserves gets the job." especially if it is a small company where everbody wares many hats. They cant afford to have you away for training and vacation and sick days and . . . .

If there was mobilization than job protection would be covered in the act of Parliament, or in an order in council. 

That is my rant.