• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation

The RCN has its old rank titles and executive curl back. What should be the next step for the CF ra

  • Nothing. The current rank system works, so leave it alone.

    Votes: 118 57.6%
  • Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.

    Votes: 41 20.0%
  • Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.

    Votes: 9 4.4%
  • Copy the UK rank system - it is the prototype anyway.

    Votes: 17 8.3%
  • Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Create a whole new Canadian system.

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • Total voters
    205

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,216
Points
990
Properly speaking, the Sea Kings should belong to the Fleet Air Wing- part of the Navy. (Just like how the Griffons and future Chinooks should be Army Aviation.

The SCF is much like a parrot in a Monty Python sketch - some claim it's colourful and lively, but it's really dead.  Bereft of life.  It's snuffed it.  The Big Honkin' Ship is a prerequisite for the SCF, and that's dead in the water.

Jointness is key; different environments give differing amounts of lip-service to jointness depending on the mood of the commander that day.  Ideally, we'd see Army and AIr officers posted to staff positions in MARLANT and MARPAC (at the Capt/Maj rank levels); and MARS and MARE officers posted into Brigade and Area HQs - then posted back to sea.  That's how to inculcate and improve jointness.  Going on a course as a Capt(N)/Colonel or FO/GO does nothing for jointness.

But maybe I'm just ornery...
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
506
Points
990
SCF isn't quite dead yet. It's more like the "Bring out your dead!" serf in Holy Grail. I think you may see more movement after we get back from Afghanistan in 2011.

Maybe I am being optimistic, but never say never when it comes to Canada and its armed forces.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,216
Points
990
I would say that we're probably two decades away from any such capability.  Little movement before 2011 - I agree.  More definition work taking us to 2015 or so.  Going through Canadian industry means no contract let to build a BHS or two until 2018; hulls in the water 2023; outfitted 2025; training for elements independently starting 2023 or so; combined training 2027 working off the platform, initial operating capability 2028.

Of course, that assumes that such a project is affordable within the current capital plan, and that the new equipment the Army will need before then is affordable within the capital plan, and that the Cyclones come on line by 2028.  I'd guess that the thrid assumption is the most likely - and the way things are going, even it isn't 100% yet...

 

Engineer

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FTSO

Maybe I was too brief, maybe you read what you wanted to read.  Anyway, I don't support everyone being "Army".  I support everyone being in the same unifiorm.  I don't care which one.  Sure, let's all wear a double-breasted tunic.  Don't care - so long as we are all the same. 

Again, it's the mindset / attitude that needs to change before we can truly make strides as a unified force.  It's the separate service mindset and culture which pits the 3 elements against each other.  The view should be that the CF gets a new jetty in Halifax, the CF gets the JSS, the CF gets the MAU, the SCF, the C-17s, the Leopards, FMF CB renovations, etc, etc  Right now there is too much resentment and fear of one another.  Until the elements can sacrifice there own priorities for teh greater good of the CF, the infighting will continue.

As a member of a "purple" branch, my original point was that the distinctive uniforms divide us, whereas they should do just the opposite.

Chimo!
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
506
Points
990
Even within the same environments there are civil wars that are more vicious then the wars between Army/AF/Navy. In the early 60's there was a huge battle between Naval Air, Surface Officers and Submariners over resources and new ship programs. The infighting more then likely directly caused the demise of Bonnie, General Purpose Frigate and weakend the Navy's position in regards to unification. Within the Air Force, I constantly hear a refrain from the Shipborne Air Detachments that the Fast Air guys run the show and don't care about rotary wing. It goes on and on.

Over the years since 1945 there has been tentative steps towards jointness, (Maggie ferry troops and supplies to the Suez is a case in point) but there has always been something get in the way of us taking the next step. Another problem is the lack of direction from the government of the day. Hellyer's attempt was more a move to rise his stock in the Liberal party vice making the CF a joint operation. He did it in such a hamfisted and brutal way that he sowed the seeds of this particular issue for the foreseeable future. If our government could come together (amongst the Libs and Cons and maybe even the NDP) and come up with a policy with hard policy targets that won't be changed every time a government changes then maybe the 3 elements could get together and do some realistic long-term planning to improve our joint capabilities.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
I think we need to move toward an attitude more like the US Marines where ships, aircraft , vehicles are purchased for the good of the single service - the Marines.  In canada we spend way too much time and effort working against each other trying to compete for scarce resources at the detriment of the other services. 
And don't forget who sails and maintains those ships for the MArines....its not the USMC, its the USN. USMC F18 Squadrons do not fly off Wasp class amphibs, they fly off Nimitz class carriers. They fly CAP to protect USN ships in addition to supporting USMC assets. The USN and USMC have no problems working together wearing different uniforms, why should we? Come aboard a Canadian navy ship sometime and you will see all 3 elements working for the good of the CF.
 

Neill McKay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Engineer said:
I support everyone being in the same unifiorm.  I don't care which one.  Sure, let's all wear a double-breasted tunic.  Don't care - so long as we are all the same.

We tried that already once, and it didn't work out.  Trying it again won't do any good.

Have you noticed that no other country of any consequence has done it?  The most powerful military forces in the world recognize that different environments call for different operating cultures, and that heritage and tradition are important elements of military service.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
N. McKay said:
We tried that already once, and it didn't work out.  Trying it again won't do any good.

Everyone in Double-Brested tunics?  When did we all do that?  That may be .........Kool.......Forward thinking........Trend setting.......Futuristic..........Fashionable..........Kool.........Black tunics........Grey pants.........Grey tunics........Black pants.......bring back bell-bottoms........RETRO!
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
397
Points
980
Engineer said:
We have made great strides on the support world, where we have one organization, one force (CANOSCOM) supporting every operation or deployment.  Now the "operators" need to understand the potential synergy of everyone pulling on the same end of the rope. 
You should note that the same thing has been done on the operational side with every domestic operation falling under CANADACOM and every international operation falling under CEFCOM.  The only exception to this is some CANSOFCOM operations.  Operations are joint.  The ECSs are not the lead for any operation.
 

Recce41

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ArmyRick said:
My take would be this (very british but a touch canadian)

Pte
Pte (trained QL4/5) Shevron
LCPL Shevron plus leaf (Example Inf Sect 2IC)
CPL 2 x shevrons plus leaf (Example Sect Comd)
SGT 3 x Shevrons plus leaf (Example PL 2IC)
WO Crown (Example CQMS)
MWO Same as now (Example CSM)
CWO same-same


As for the leafs, thats how is was to be but was changed before it came to be.
I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).

Ummm.... what does the rank badges have to do with the age of our section commanders ??
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Recce41 said:
As for the leafs, thats how is was to be but was changed before it came to be.
I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).

Let's see?

NATO          CURRENT              OLD              BRITISH                                    USA

OR1              Pte (R)                                                                PVT (NO HOOK)
OR2              Pte (B)                                                                PVT  (1 HOOK)
OR3              Pte (T)                                L/Cpl                        PVT 1st Class
OR4                Cpl         -   L/Cpl                                              Specialist  -  Cpl               
OR5              MCpl        -     Cpl                  Cpl                        Sergeant       
OR6                Sgt        -     Sgt                  Sgt                        Staff Sergeant
OR7                WO   -     Staff Sergeant  Staff Sergeant                Sgt 1st Class
OR8              MWO        -     WO 2              WO2                        Master Sgt    -    First Sgt
OR9              CWO        -     WO 1              WO1                        Sergeant Major  -  Command Sgt Major  -  Sgt Major of the Army



Does it really make much difference now?

 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
After all these years, I feel this rank thing is a "non issue"

It's been done & 98% of all those in the service have grown up with the current rank structure.
the 2% & I have adapted & have gotten used to it.
 

Mountie

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
George Wallace said:
Let's see?

NATO          CURRENT              OLD              BRITISH                                    USA

OR1               Pte (R)                                                                PVT (NO HOOK)
OR2               Pte (B)                                                                PVT  (1 HOOK)
OR3               Pte (T)                                 L/Cpl                        PVT 1st Class
OR4                 Cpl          -   L/Cpl                                              Specialist   -   Cpl               
OR5               MCpl         -     Cpl                  Cpl                         Sergeant       
OR6                Sgt         -     Sgt                  Sgt                         Staff Sergeant
OR7                WO   -     Staff Sergeant  Staff Sergeant                 Sgt 1st Class
OR8               MWO        -     WO 2              WO2                         Master Sgt     -     First Sgt
OR9               CWO         -     WO 1              WO1                        Sergeant Major   -   Command Sgt Major   -   Sgt Major of the Army



Does it really make much difference now?
Agreed, it doesn't really make a difference, but get it right.  The common misunderstanding is that a Corporal today is equivalent to a Lance Corporal of old.  Its not.  A Master Corporal is equivalent to a Lance Corporal.  Sergeants are now section commanders not platoon 2i/c.  Warrant Officer is equivalent to both the old Sergeant and Staff Sergeant.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
397
Points
980
It seems we've been doing these rank comparisons, using official or observational references, for quite a few pages now ...
MCG said:
Comparison of selected NATO Army Ranks
Based on STANAG 2116, 1992 (Edition 5)

NATOCanadaUSUKFrance
OR-9CWOSergeant-MajorWarrant Officer Class IMajor
Adjudant-chef
OR-8MWOMaster SergeantWarrant Officer Class IIAdjudant
OR-7WOSergeant First ClassStaff Sergeant*
OR-6SgtStaff SergeantSergeantSergent-chef
OR-5Sgt/MCplSergeantSergeantSergent
OR-4CplCorporalCorporalCaporal-chef
OR-3Pte(T)Private 1st ClassLance CorporalCaporal
OR-2Pte(B)Private E.2PrivateSoldat de 1ère classe
OR-1Pte(R)Private E.1Private (Class 4)Soldat de 2ème classe

                * No Equivalent
(1) Each of the US Forces has a senior individual at the OR-9 level who cannot be considered for NATO position coding purposes. This individual is designated as follows in the US ARMY : Sergeant Major of the Army

(2) Canadian Sergeants with less than three years seniority are considered OR-5.

(3) It is emphasized that the UK will appoint Sergeants or Corporals to OR-5 posts, to meet the requirements set out in the job description concerned, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the STANAG.
                

But in the end, is it really important how our rank structure compares to other militaries (or other times within our own military) or is it important that the structure makes sense and works?
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
1,241
Points
1,160
MCG said:
But in the end, is it really important how our rank structure compares to other militaries (or other times within our own military) or is it important that the structure makes sense and works?

Yup.  That's why my only beef is with the who Pte/Cpl/MCpl thing - it's too ambiguous and too prone to abuse (at least from my first hand experience).  My other beef lies with CF Commissioning Plans and the whole OCdt/2Lt/Lt/Captain smoozle.

Both these could use some "finesseing" - other than that, our system works relatively well.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
easy question with an easy answer.....

If it works, don't mess with it.... any more than it has been messed around with already - there is no turning back

The CF rank structure is a Canadian & it works - let's leave well enough alone IMHO
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
eugenetswong said:
I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.

What do you all think?

Am I missing something here?  You are an SQ qualified private, but hate looking like a new recruit?  Are you saying that new recruits are treated differently than SQ qualified privates?  Are you being treated wrongly?  

Stop worrying about small petty items, if you are out there at your unit broadcasting your experience to try to set yourself apart from the newer guys then you will just end up making a bad name for yourself.

They way you handle yourself when you speak with others in your unit should be plenty to distinguish you from the new recruits.

I really can't see how anyone out there would be losing sleep over our rank structure!

 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dolphin.... did you notice the date of the post you are commenting on ???
 
Top