More sailors needed for Canada's warships

[GAP]

More sailors needed for Canada's warships
Matthew Fisher, Mideast Correspondent ,  Canwest News Service Published: Sunday, July 27, 2008
Article Link

ABOARD HMCS IROQUOIS, Indian Ocean -- About 800 Canadian sailors are now patrolling the politically turbulent waters near Iran and Pakistan. But mustering crews to man warships near global flash points has increasingly become a nightmare for navy planners in Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Ottawa.

They have 8,000 sailors on their books and jobs for 8,600.

"We are understaffed. There is no doubt about that," said Commodore Bob Davidson, the Canadian commander of Task Force 150 - a multi-national flotilla in the Indian Ocean that includes the Halifax-based Iroquois and well as Esquimalt, and the B.C.-based HMCS Calgary and HMCS Protecteur.

"We are looking at being short by about 300 people per coast and that is not insubstantial."

To put warships to sea the navy must routinely "borrow" sailors from other ships. For example, 108 of the Protecteur's current company of 260 sailors were not normally assigned to the supply and refuelling ship, but had been attached for the current 196-day around-the world mission.

"The quiet ships are going light," Capt. Brendan Ryan, the Iroquois captain, said. "We ask ships in the yard how many people with specific skills they have on hand. That is how we manage this."

The navy's other critical shortcoming is that its destroyers and supply ships are older than most of the sailors on-board. The Sea King helicopters on their flight decks are even older and often unavailable because of chronic maintenance issues.

Since being commissioned 36 years ago, the Iroquois has sailed more than one million kilometres, which is the equivalent of circling the globe 27 times.

Given their age, Canada's three destroyers should be replaced about now. But as they still have world-class missile defence systems that allow them to sail into harm's way, it is probable the destroyers won't be retired for another seven or eight years. However, because it takes so long after funding is approved to build warships, it will likely be several more years after that before the destroyers are finally replaced.
More on link

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

While recruiting new blood in so is retention. Until they figure something out to make sailors want to stay our numbers will continually decline.

 

[blacktriangle]

Have to agree with Ex Dragoon, the military doesn't do that great of a job of keeping up the interest. I'd go sail right now if someone asked me too, only because I'm so bored doing what I do now...

 

[geo]

More sailors needed for Canada's warships
More airmen needed for Canada's expanding air capabilities
More soldiers needed for Canada's Army

That's the problem with an economy that is, oddly enough, booming - against all expectations.

 

[Navy_Blue]

This was talked about a week or ago in the shop.  Why not allow our senior people to effectively retire, draw the pension that belongs to them and remain in the billets.  This would give senior experienced people a substantial raise that would cost the CF nothing.  They would not have to pay into the pension system or receive any of our normal benefits except the health care provided on base.  That would be allot of money.  It could be case by case and could potentially retain people for 5+ years allowing the CF to catch up.  They are already doing it by rejoining the reserves after they retire anyways.  Why shouldn't we (Reg Force) try and keep them?  As younger people progress and get promoted they can be released service no longer required.

They do this on civi street with nurses for example allowing them to retire collect a pention and be rehired as part time.  Most times they get full time hours (if they want) because they are so short. 

Do the math:  Your pay + what you pay in pension and benefits + the 40% to 50% you collect in pension = $$$

Your a chief or PO1 in a billet you really don't mind being in.  Your 20 years is up and you can do the same job for BAE, CME, Lockheed Martin, or any other contractor but most times not for a whole lot more money.  Would you stay with this kind of deal?

I think this could keep a few around long enough to get things sorted out.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

This was talked about a week or ago in the shop.  Why not allow our senior people to effectively retire, draw the pension that belongs to them and remain in the billets.  This would give senior experienced people a substantial raise that would cost the CF nothing.  They would not have to pay into the pension system or receive any of our normal benefits except the health care provided on base.  That would be allot of money.  It could be case by case and could potentially retain people for 5+ years allowing the CF to catch up.  They are already doing it by rejoining the reserves after they retire anyways.  Why shouldn't we (Reg Force) try and keep them?  As younger people progress and get promoted they can be released service no longer required.

They do this on civi street with nurses for example allowing them to retire collect a pention and be rehired as part time.  Most times they get full time hours (if they want) because they are so short. 

Do the math:  Your pay + what you pay in pension and benefits + the 40% to 50% you collect in pension = $$$

Your a chief or PO1 in a billet you really don't mind being in.  Your 20 years is up and you can do the same job for BAE, CME, Lockheed Martin, or any other contractor but most times not for a whole lot more money.  Would you stay with this kind of deal?

I think this could keep a few around long enough to get things sorted out.

I think to a certain extent this is already done.  I know at least one instance where a Mcpl served plenty of time in reg force, took the pension, switched to reserves, and just teaches BMQ most of the year.  Now, I doubt this practice is especially widespread, but could certainly serve as a good stopgap measure.

 

[SweetNavyJustice]

Who knows, with the CANFORGEN released today stating the updated (and navy heavy) list of trades with hiring bonuses - maybe in the next few years things will ease up.......  Not likely!

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Reason I skipped joining  the navy was because it didnt seem as exciting as the other Elements. It seemed to have better food, more formal uniforms,better  living conditions than  the army, but the army, despite the dangers, and less than stellar field conditions, seem to be right in the thick of problems and see excitment, and I think the excitement and being right in the thick of the action attracts a lot of people. It just isnt money and benefits. Like, if the navy offered more money, I would still probably go to the army

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Reason I skipped joining  the navy was because it didnt seem as exciting as the other Elements. It seemed to have better food, more formal uniforms,better  living conditions than  the army, but the army, despite the dangers, and less than stellar field conditions, seem to be right in the thick of problems and see excitment, and I think the excitement and being right in the thick of the action attracts a lot of people. It just isnt money and benefits. Lik*e, if the navy offered more money, I would still probably go to the army

Hate to tell you but your statement is based in generalization, opinion and not facts. Every element has its downtimes and its "Holy Sh*t" periods. As for money all elements have trades that offer more money (specialist pay) not to mention the various enviromental  allowances.

I have been bored in the Navy and the Army but its what you make it.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

I think the navy needs to be realistic about what it can expect in terms of retention.  Perhaps the "worst" scenario is where someone joins, spends 6-12 months on BMQ/PAT/NETP, then 1.5 doing their QL3, only to get another 2.5 years of service, as they have released and found civilian work with their navy funded educationa dne xperience.  While this isn't a complete waste of resources, the navy is getting a minimal return on a significant time investment.  On the other hand, Getting people to stay 20+ years, while ideal, just isn't as reasonable anymore (at least for technical trades (I think)).

Though I have nothing to back this up, I'd imagine that trades with fewer civilian applications might have fewer retention issues (at least, retention issues motivated by economic reasons):  the oilpatch isn't exactly screaming for NESOPs or NCIOPs.  I've mentioned this before (and have nothing but anectodal evidence to back this up), but the Naval Reserve might be a significant source of untapped manpower.  I know plenty of shads (myself included) that just don't really want to take 6 months off our civilian jobs to sail on a few fishpats and do a few MARS IV courses.  On the other hand, if the reasonable opportunity to do six-eight months in a Persian Gulf tour or Standing Nato Fleet Atlantic stint arose, I can imagine a few reservists (again, myself included) jumping at the opportunity.  I know that crewing the MCDVs is NAVRES' job, but since NAVRES acknowledged that international operations should take a higher priority...

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Well, from what I've read and heard the navy dosent seem to do a whole lot, action wise.  They seem to participate in war games, patrolling, odd drug seizure/rescue, etc Is it true they havent seen combat since the Korea conflict ? Theres often some truth to some generalizations too. Navy just seemed dull to me, my dad didnt have anything nice to say about it, but again, you're right, its just an opinion(mostly). But seeing as im someone joining the forces, and the thread is why recruits are lacking, thought Id give my two cents

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well, from what I've read and heard the navy dosent seem to do a whole lot, action wise.  They seem to participate in war games, patrolling, odd drug seizure/rescue, etc

...and just what part of this don't you think is "action"?

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Dosent seem as exciting as the army, nor does it seem you're doing as much aid as the army. The patrolling is the largest componenet of the threee and that seems dull

 

[aesop081]

Dosent seem as exciting as the army,

I spent alot of time bored out of my skull sweeping the unit lines while i was in the army.........

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Yeah, but the army is at ground zero on the  major conflicts

Personally, I find sweeping kinda fun, lol

 

[aesop081]

Yeah, but the army is at ground zero on the  major conflicts

It is at this moment.........5 years from now could be a different story.

Personally, I find sweeping kinda fun, lol

Fun like a funeral.

 

[Sub_Guy]

nor does it seem you're doing as much aid as the army. The patrolling is the largest componenet of the threee and that seems dull

Sure you are not face to face with the people you are helping, but the Navy does quite a bit.  World trade depends on the security of the ocean without a secure ocean there is nothing, the navy conducing its boring patrols is doing much more than many think.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Such as...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2715

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/78684.0.html

 

[Neill McKay]

Sure you are not face to face with the people you are helping, but the Navy does quite a bit.  World trade depends on the security of the ocean without a secure ocean there is nothing, the navy conducing its boring patrols is doing much more than many think.

To expand that a bit, much of the navy's value comes in just being there.  Without a shot being fired on either side, a warship charging into view makes a powerful statement.  More than one ship has been saved from attack by pirates by the very sight of a warship arriving on the scene.  Similarly, parking one or more warships off the coast of a country is certain to be noticed by the government and can have a strong influence on what it does.

 

[geo]

Pirates are oportunists and thieves.
Any show of force - be it in the air or on the sea will discourage even the most enthusiastic pirate.... but I see your point