Replacing the Subs

[T700]

We didn't get any big recruiting push when the CPFs rolled in, and we haven't really with AOPs; the COA of hope hasn't worked for a few decades, why would it work now? We're down to a sub crew and a bit, 5 or 6 ish CPF crews, and still iffy where JSS 2 crew is coming from, with key trades still falling. New kit might interest people in signing up, but getting used and abused with jetty hopping won't keep them in.

Even with cutting standards on training, cutting a lot of actual training and cosolidating trades we have only slowed down the bleeding. If they doubled recruits coming in, we'd still have a lot of people sitting on PAT because the schools are another bottleneck, and we've only really shrunk our effective training capacity and gotten rid of external traiing options (like some college programs).

Some things are getting stood up again, but you can't create schools overnight, you can't create instructors, training programs or training platforms overnight, so the RCN really needs to stop hoping shit will get better and take real concrete steps to realistic start fixing things. It's not sexy, and none of it is innovative or rocket surgery, but you can't massively understaff the training facilities, not have adequate TDO support, and still operate WW2 era buildings full of asbestos and then expect the training system to be able to somehow surge when it's at capacity to just keep up.

The RCN retired 20 steamers and trained those crews to man the CPF’s. We could still provide multiple ships to sea. Plus the 280’s were going through the TRUMP program. Not sure if there were crew shortages at that point. Once we decommissioned the 3 AORs and 4 280’s without replacements in any timely manner there was no way to keep people interested. 12 ships doing the work of what was 27? Crew burn out and equipment failure was inevitable.

 

[NavyShooter]

When the rollover from CFNES/CFNOS to NFS(A) happened, they training system was gutted of 'redundant' positions to top up the fleet.

The concept as briefed at the time was that if we were short an instructor, we'd be able to CFTPO them from the fleet...except that's now how VCDS manning priority works...and the leadership didn't listen.

So.

As an example, the NET(A) (now W Eng SONAR) instructor cell went from 13 people, it became 5.

From 1x PO1, 5x PO2 and 7x MS, with a separate Standards Cell to support....that section became 1x PO2, 2x PO2, 2x MS, with the PO1 being the 'Standards(Internal)'.

When I had 12 instructors working for me, I could support 4 courses, with 2 instructors each, the other 4 instructor positions enabled redundancy to allow leave to be taken outside of Block leave, MATA/PATA, someone could call in sick, we could send 2 instructors to Quebec to develop new Computer Based Training, I was able to send 1 instructor to Chile on an exchange program, and, we regularly allowed our MS/PO2's to cover off a buddy on a ship that needed a week off from sailing for something personal that came up.

Having 2x instructors per class ensured that we were covered off for safety when working on live powered systems doing trouble-shooting.

Now, with 5 instructors filling the spot where there used to be 12, there is no redundancy, there is no break, and there is no ability to surge training to support 480+ W Eng JR trainees cycling through the school in a 2-ish year period.

Good luck to the RCN leadership of today trying to un-Knipple what's been done.

 

[GR66]

When the rollover from CFNES/CFNOS to NFS(A) happened, they training system was gutted of 'redundant' positions to top up the fleet.

The concept as briefed at the time was that if we were short an instructor, we'd be able to CFTPO them from the fleet...except that's now how VCDS manning priority works...and the leadership didn't listen.

So.

As an example, the NET(A) (now W Eng SONAR) instructor cell went from 13 people, it became 5.

From 1x PO1, 5x PO2 and 7x MS, with a separate Standards Cell to support....that section became 1x PO2, 2x PO2, 2x MS, with the PO1 being the 'Standards(Internal)'.

When I had 12 instructors working for me, I could support 4 courses, with 2 instructors each, the other 4 instructor positions enabled redundancy to allow leave to be taken outside of Block leave, MATA/PATA, someone could call in sick, we could send 2 instructors to Quebec to develop new Computer Based Training, I was able to send 1 instructor to Chile on an exchange program, and, we regularly allowed our MS/PO2's to cover off a buddy on a ship that needed a week off from sailing for something personal that came up.

Having 2x instructors per class ensured that we were covered off for safety when working on live powered systems doing trouble-shooting.

Now, with 5 instructors filling the spot where there used to be 12, there is no redundancy, there is no break, and there is no ability to surge training to support 480+ W Eng JR trainees cycling through the school in a 2-ish year period.

Good luck to the RCN leadership of today trying to un-Knipple what's been done.

It's not like there aren't know solutions to fixing/expanding the training system. Someone however at the top needs to make the difficult decision to tie up ships (even new ones) and cut back operational tempo in order to focus on training and recruiting for the next several years.

Don't stop the planned builds and purchases, we can crew them when we're able but at least we'll have the ships available if/when we need them.

 

[Grimey]

The RCN retired 20 steamers and trained those crews to man the CPF’s. We could still provide multiple ships to sea. Plus the 280’s were going through the TRUMP program. Not sure if there were crew shortages at that point. Once we decommissioned the 3 AORs and 4 280’s without replacements in any timely manner there was no way to keep people interested. 12 ships doing the work of what was 27? Crew burn out and equipment failure was inevitable.

With two trumped 280s on the west coast from 1995 onwards, there was only a crew and a half for both with only one at high readiness. If both were at sea, it was local waters only and I only remember that happening once. Having HUR decommissioned and tied up in 2000 with a skeleton crew allowed ALG to spend the next ten years with fairly healthy personnel numbers. We had to turn people away for APOLLO. By 2010 the gaps were showing and then we got self-retired by PRO. Bodies then drifted over to frigates.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The RCN retired 20 steamers and trained those crews to man the CPF’s. We could still provide multiple ships to sea. Plus the 280’s were going through the TRUMP program. Not sure if there were crew shortages at that point. Once we decommissioned the 3 AORs and 4 280’s without replacements in any timely manner there was no way to keep people interested. 12 ships doing the work of what was 27? Crew burn out and equipment failure was inevitable.

The 280 and AOR crews rolled over to CPFs and AOPs, as well as a lot of people just being at the end of the career and retiring, but that helped bandaid the general attrition rate we were getting. The AOPs are doing some interesting things, so don't think it's really that, but at the institutional level we're just driving the remnants on the surface and sub side harder than what is sustainable, without an overall and realistic plan to rebuild all the fundamentals you need to support getting sailors in the fleet.

New boats will be great, but if we don't have a reasonable way to train people, consider the massive amount of shore support and repair facilities subs need compared to surface ships, and lack in both of those areas really won't matter if we get new boats if we can't support/sustain them. Would be a bit like buying a new car but them not being able to afford gas, winter tires, or have a parking spot for it then wondering why it's not working for you.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The line items in the next 2 or 3 defence budgets should be interesting. This submarine program is going to be costly, I can’t see the full figures being disclosed until after the next majority government. Unless them play it coy and build up the force 4 at a time.

 

[OldSolduer]

The 280 and AOR crews rolled over to CPFs and AOPs, as well as a lot of people just being at the end of the career and retiring, but that helped bandaid the general attrition rate we were getting. The AOPs are doing some interesting things, so don't think it's really that, but at the institutional level we're just driving the remnants on the surface and sub side harder than what is sustainable, without an overall and realistic plan to rebuild all the fundamentals you need to support getting sailors in the fleet.

New boats will be great, but if we don't have a reasonable way to train people, consider the massive amount of shore support and repair facilities subs need compared to surface ships, and lack in both of those areas really won't matter if we get new boats if we can't support/sustain them. Would be a bit like buying a new car but them not being able to afford gas, winter tires, or have a parking spot for it then wondering why it's not working for you.

Good analogy - so easy even a crayon eaters(s) can understand it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Good analogy - so easy even a crayon eaters(s) can understand it.

The green ones are my favourite, they taste like lime!

 

[Furniture]

Someone however at the top needs to make the difficult decision to tie up ships (even new ones) and cut back operational tempo in order to focus on training and recruiting for the next several years.

This needs to be managed very carefully, because cutting too much sea time will result in people leaving as well... Generally the people who would leave are the ones the navy needs most, because they are the people who actually enjoy sailing and will go do the job at sea.

When I got to Esquimalt in 2012 we had too few ships sailing, and that had a very negative impact on morale for those who joined the navy for a sense of adventure and to sail.

Now we have too few sailors for the number of ships trying to sail, and some of that lack of sailors is a direct result of the lack of sailing 10+ years ago.

 

[Cloud Cover]

So don’t cut their Sea Pay. Call it Training Pay or Instructional Allowance. Surely of all the problems that’s an easier one to fix?

 

[NavyShooter]

When you have literally lost a generation of senior sailors, it's a tough hill to climb to rebuild it...especially when you've also cut the school-house to the bone at the same time.

For perspective, around the time I retired from the RegF 6 years ago, we lost 56% of the CSE Chiefs on the east coast within a 24 month period. 22 out of 39 of us pulled pin for a variety of reasons.

Gutting shore postings might have been part of it...example...CFNES had 5 CPO2 positions for CSE Chiefs. That was reduced to 1.

I'm not sure where this is all at now, but that 1 person was still trying to meet the expectations of 5 former roles that were now residing mostly in a single chair.

Good luck.

 

[Furniture]

So don’t cut their Sea Pay. Call it Training Pay or Instructional Allowance. Surely of all the problems that’s an easier one to fix?

That creates a whole new set of problems, and ignores the adventure/sailing aspect of the issue.

Giving people sea pay to sit at home doesn't incentivize sailing. The RCN is looking at completely revamping Sea Duty Allowance to switch it back to being paid only for days at sea, rather than for being posted to a ship.

The CAF is looking at a school allowance for instructors, to incentivize the postings, but I haven't heard anything about it in a few months. I suspect Treasury Board is not interested in it, because according to them, and some of the retired members here, the CAF is already paid too much.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That creates a whole new set of problems, and ignores the adventure/sailing aspect of the issue.

Giving people sea pay to sit at home doesn't incentivize sailing. The RCN is looking at completely revamping Sea Duty Allowance to switch it back to being paid only for days at sea, rather than for being posted to a ship.

The CAF is looking at a school allowance for instructors, to incentivize the postings, but I haven't heard anything about it in a few months. I suspect Treasury Board is not interested in it, because according to them, and some of the retired members here, the CAF is already paid too much.

That's a terrible idea with how they calculate sea days, and it was also supposed to cover things like duty watches, flash up/shut down etc, and sounds like Mars bar perspective of what sailing preps entail, as they tend to ignore what everyone but the combat or deck dept does.

Things like trial days are the worst for that; come in a 5 for 6am flash up, at immediate notice for power at 8, actually leave at 9, trials go sideways by 11, back alongside by 1300, everyone else leaves by 1400, shutdown done by 1500, back the next day at 0530, none of that counting as sea days. It usually sucks enough a lot of people on flashup everyday just stay onboard because getting in early every day sucks for the family as well.

Sometimes that goes on for weeks, and you get fun things like after hours fuelings, repairs, stores deliveries etc, all of which is supposed to be part of what's included in sea pay, according to TBS.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That's a terrible idea with how they calculate sea days, and it was also supposed to cover things like duty watches, flash up/shut down etc, and sounds like Mars bar perspective of what sailing preps entail, as they tend to ignore what everyone but the combat or deck dept does.

Things like trial days are the worst for that; come in a 5 for 6am flash up, at immediate notice for power at 8, actually leave at 9, trials go sideways by 11, back alongside by 1300, everyone else leaves by 1400, shutdown done by 1500, back the next day at 0530, none of that counting as sea days. It usually sucks enough a lot of people on flashup everyday just stay onboard because getting in early every day sucks for the family as well.

Sometimes that goes on for weeks, and you get fun things like after hours fuelings, repairs, stores deliveries etc, all of which is supposed to be part of what's included in sea pay, according to TBS.

To me as a ‘lay person’, the moment the ship pushes away from the pier should count as a ‘sea day’. Similar to when a passenger planes pushes away from the gate.
No?

 

[Furniture]

That's a terrible idea with how they calculate sea days, and it was also supposed to cover things like duty watches, flash up/shut down etc, and sounds like Mars bar perspective of what sailing preps entail, as they tend to ignore what everyone but the combat or deck dept does.

Things like trial days are the worst for that; come in a 5 for 6am flash up, at immediate notice for power at 8, actually leave at 9, trials go sideways by 11, back alongside by 1300, everyone else leaves by 1400, shutdown done by 1500, back the next day at 0530, none of that counting as sea days. It usually sucks enough a lot of people on flashup everyday just stay onboard because getting in early every day sucks for the family as well.

Sometimes that goes on for weeks, and you get fun things like after hours fuelings, repairs, stores deliveries etc, all of which is supposed to be part of what's included in sea pay, according to TBS.

That should be covered by spec pay.

Sea Duty Allowance right now incentivizes being posted to a ship, not going to sea. Making it about actually sailing will encourage people to do their jobs at sea.

 

[Stoker]

That should be covered by spec pay.

Sea Duty Allowance right now incentivizes being posted to a ship, not going to sea. Making it about actually sailing will encourage people to do their jobs at sea.

You mean the spec 1 pay that wasn't increased as the actual last pay raise because it was felt the delta between spec 1 and non spec folks was too great?

Any change to Sea Duty will ultimately become a trainwreck no matter how well meaning. Just like the PLD replacement.

 

[Furniture]

You mean the spec 1 pay that wasn't increased as the actual last pay raise because it was felt the delta between spec 1 and non spec folks was too great?

Any change to Sea Duty will ultimately become a trainwreck no matter how well meaning. Just like the PLD replacement.

Spec 1 was corrected to reflect the intention of spec pay. It was supposed to be a small boost over base pay, not pay S1s more than standard PO 2s. If trades need more pay, maybe the RCN should explore what the RCAF did with SAR Tech and other air crew trades.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That should be covered by spec pay.

Sea Duty Allowance right now incentivizes being posted to a ship, not going to sea. Making it about actually sailing will encourage people to do their jobs at sea.

Most people onboard don't get spec pay though, and the ones that do get the same spec pay in a shore posting. Sea pay isn't enough to incentivize anything, just compensate a bit for the extra shifts, and work that you do at sea and alongside.

 

[Furniture]

Most people onboard don't get spec pay though, and the ones that do get the same spec pay in a shore posting. Sea pay isn't enough to incentivize anything, just compensate a bit for the extra shifts, and work that you do at sea and alongside.

That's the point, SDA right now isn't working for anyone. It's not enough to keep people happy, and it incentivises not sailing. The new SDA is supposed to actually reward people for sailing, rather than reward them for being posted to a ship. Last I heard is the idea is that when you're at sea you'd make far more than you do now with the monthly.

I'll let the navy people who feel sorry for themselves in on a secret; The rest of the CAF does lots of extra work outside of normal hours, including duty, and they don't get paid extra money each month to do it. Duty watches are compensated with time off. When I was a duty, I'd get a day in lieu if it was a weekend. If it wasn't a weekend, I'd get to slide on Friday...