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

Senior promotions, appointments and retirements (merged)

RedcapCrusader

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Halifax Tar said:
Ok now you lost me... again, pass to the left home boy

Okay, so all anyone has to say about what I've posted is some weed jokes and "That is not true", "I don't know how to answer that" etc., rather than actually dispute what I'm saying with concrete evidence.


Cool.
 

JesseWZ

Sr. Member
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LunchMeat said:
Okay, so all anyone has to say about what I've posted is some weed jokes and "That is not true", "I don't know how to answer that" etc., rather than actually dispute what I'm saying with concrete evidence.


Cool.

If you read the CANFORGEN more carefully, you'll note the laundry list of retirements at the end are mostly all personnel already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. All of which are positions which now have incumbents. A net positive to the number of GOFO personnel heading into APS.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
346
Points
880
LunchMeat said:
Okay, so all anyone has to say about what I've posted is some weed jokes and "That is not true", "I don't know how to answer that" etc., rather than actually dispute what I'm saying with concrete evidence.


Cool.

I'm just lost about how you managed to tie your perceived military negative bias towards liberals to this subject.  :dunno:
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
195
Points
680
LunchMeat said:
First pay raises in decades.
MCG said:
This is not true.
LunchMeat said:
Really? Because they last "raises" we got prior to 2015 were simply cost of living adjustments. Last real pay raise was 2009, nearly a decade ago.
You seem to be having trouble, so I will help you.  You claimed "decades" then countered it being pointed out as untrue with "nearly a decade ago."  When you claim multiple tens of years while the truth is less then ten years, your statement is not true.  So if you are going to hold ground around that lie, what other mistruth or hyperbole are your doubling down on?

LunchMeat said:
Okay, so all anyone has to say about what I've posted is some weed jokes and "That is not true", "I don't know how to answer that" etc., rather than actually dispute what I'm saying with concrete evidence.
When what you post is not true (demonstrably by your very own evidence), then what more can you want? Why do you feel your unsubstantiated broad statements deserve more deference than the statements of others (because, let's face it you have also not brought any concrete evidence)?

LunchMeat said:
The ML and MS fleet have been replaced. The TAPV has entered service. While there is still work being done to replace the LSVW and LUVW, there has been a fleet of LOSV added and CANSOF received a fleet of brand new LUTVs. We saw the creation of a new Maritime Tactical Security Group. Fighter Project is being mishandled sure, but we have new helmets, new fighting rigs, Supply Ships pushed up in priority, new ranger rifles, C6 GPMG upgrades, extensive upgrades to the Victoria Class fleet, Griffons undergoing major lifecycle upgrades. I could go on, but these were all things neglected by the previous government.
This looks like progress as usual. There are always projects in progress and projects delivering.  Many of the things you point to here have been ongoing since the last government was in place, and these were bound to be delivering regardless of election outcomes.

When you say the MS fleet has been replaced, what do you mean?  The MSVS MilCOTS has not been replaced; it will continue in service beside the MSVS SMP.  What do you mean when you say "new fighting rigs" and who has these?
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
185
Points
710
I did the UXO clearance of the ground for the proposed TAPV barn in Petawawa about five years ago, so they were a thing long before our current gov.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
450
Points
980
LunchMeat said:
The ML and MS fleet have been replaced.

What has replaced the ML? Why haven't I seen any? Why are there some MLs a couple of hundred metres east of where I work?

LunchMeat said:
Griffons undergoing major lifecycle upgrades.

"Major"? It's not called "Griffon Limited Life Extension" ("GLLE", pronounced "Glee") for nothing. In its current form, it will not be able to legally fly IFR in a few short years. The mods that will be done are important, yes, but there will be no increase in actual military capability.

LunchMeat said:
I could go on, but these were all things neglected by the previous government.

You mean the government that bought C17s, C130Js, two batches of CH147, Leopard 2s, Lav 6s, GAU-21 (.50 cal) and M-134D (7.62 mm) for Griffon, a host of route clearance equipment for Afghanistan, and actually initiated the Ranger rifle programme?

LunchMeat said:
The increase in the SIP will help fill manpower shortages as well.

Presuming that enough people apply, can be recruited, can be trained, and can effectively be integrated into units.

LunchMeat said:
I forgot to mention that the size of the Reserve Force has doubled and more and more units are being operationalized.

I have yet to see twice as many Reservists wandering around.

LunchMeat said:
It was in the government's long term funding plan. Budget is due to increase $580m CAD for the 2019/2020 fiscal year.

That amount is not even enough to pay for GLLE.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
517
Points
1,060
Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
I did the UXO clearance of the ground for the proposed TAPV barn in Petawawa about five years ago, so they were a thing long before our current gov.

You did a good job, the TAPVs are blowing themselves up, no issues with UXO...  :nod:
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
185
Points
710
I can almost guarantee there's practically nearly zero chances of anyone driving over a 155 over there.
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Whenever folks scream about how top heavy an organization is, they tend to look at the past, in our case generally to WWII.  Furthermore, they often seem to look at essentially an army model based on number of subordinates (e.g. generals command armies, lieutenant generals command corps, etc).  However, sometimes that is comparing apples to oranges.  First off, it's the level of responsibility that determines the appropriate rank level, not the number of subordinates.  Secondly, things have changed since the Napoleonic Wars WWII and there are strategic level jobs that require higher levels of responsibility, but which have not generated higher levels of personnel.

On another note, the last "real" pay raise in the CAF occurred in 1999, when the comparability formula between the public service and the CAF was recalculated.  Other than that, virtually ALL pay raises are cost of living adjustments.  Our pay is not directly negotiated based on occupations, but is instead benchmarked against the Public Service.  If a PS occupation receives an increase as a result of a recalculation of its worth, than yes, theoretically, it gets rolled up into CAF pay rates through the comparability formula, but its effect on overall CAF pay rates is minimal.  The only CAF pay rates that are affected by market forces (i.e. market demand for certain occupations, equaling "real" pay increases) are Specialist Officer rates (e.g. doctors, lawyers, etc).
 

QM

Jr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
130
Pusser said:
Whenever folks scream about how top heavy an organization is, they tend to look at the past, in our case generally to WWII.  Furthermore, they often seem to look at essentially an army model based on number of subordinates (e.g. generals command armies, lieutenant generals command corps, etc).  However, sometimes that is comparing apples to oranges.  First off, it's the level of responsibility that determines the appropriate rank level, not the number of subordinates.  Secondly, things have changed since the Napoleonic Wars WWII and there are strategic level jobs that require higher levels of responsibility, but which have not generated higher levels of personnel.

I concur. I think a complementary question to ask alongside how many GOFO our allies have is how many Public Service Executives there are in other Canadian Federal Government Departments. In addition to military strategic jobs that require a GOFO despite a relatively small workforce working under them, there are ample positions where the Canadian GOFO is doing a purely corporate function alongside civilian EX ranks (of which we also have a few, lol). The rank might be impressive, but the jobs are not. Corporate grind all they way, with maybe a crack at some kind of escape to an OUTCAN or, for a very very very select few GOFO, some kind of command back in the CAF. The Government, however, demands that its largest Department manage itself properly, and that requires Executives. They can't all be civilian EX, either. We benefit from having uniformed GOFO representing our needs to the Department and to other Government Agencies that we need to operate, even though they aren't directly leading most of us.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
47
Points
560
Perhaps relevant on promotions by a serving USAF officer (using a pseudonym)--start of piece:

Being or Doing in the Air Force
Col. 'Ned Stark'

“There are two career paths in front of you, and you have to choose which path you will follow. One path leads to promotions, titles, and positions of distinction […] The other path leads to doing things that are truly significant for the Air Force, but the rewards will quite often be a kick in the stomach because you may have to cross swords with the party line on occasion. You can’t go down both paths, you have to choose. […] To be or to do, that is the question.” —Col. John Boyd

Life is about choices. We can’t control what happens to us, but we always have a choice in how to respond. Those choices reveal who we are. I once heard it said that we tend to judge people based on their actions even though we judge ourselves based on our intentions. There is some truth to that, but I’d like to suggest it’s not just our intentions, it’s also our rationalizations — the explanations we create for ourselves to justify the choices we’ve made. Many hear John Boyd’s remarks quoted above and convince themselves that it’s a false dichotomy — they can both be and do. I think it is a possible but rare thing. We all like to think we are the exception, but the odds are heavily stacked against that. I’d like to suggest there’s a spectrum with the pure careerist at one end and the pure doer at the other. Few, if any, people reside at the polar ends, but it’s safe to say the pressures and expectations at senior ranks tend to push people further toward the careerist pole the higher they climb in the ranks.

The e-mail engagements I have had with some of my readers who have reached out have been illuminating. Through that correspondence and my own networks, I can point to several general officers as examples of those who have compromised themselves in an effort “to be,” but for sake of brevity I will briefly describe two. One general actively advises proteges to avoid e-mail or any form of note taking to escape accountability for any decisions or discussions. This general is held in low regard by past and current superiors yet continues to advance because there is no accountability for missed opportunities. In other words, this general successfully avoids all meaningful risk by pursuing a strategy of inaction. Another general officer mischaracterized his knowledge about an issue to investigators, thereby leaving a subordinate “holding the bag” for years while a needless and protracted investigation ensued. The investigation eventually cleared the subordinate of any wrong doing but not before it destroyed the individual’s personal life and professional aspirations. In the meantime, that general was promoted again.

I have little doubt both of those generals started off as bright, capable, and well-intentioned officers, but somewhere along the line, they, and many others, have lost their way...

Col. ‘Ned Stark’ is an Air Force officer. His opinions are his alone and do not represent those of the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any part of the U.S. government, but he hopes one day they will come closer.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/being-or-doing-in-the-air-force/

Mark
Ottawa

 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
219
Points
930
Latest batch just spotted - highlights mine - feel free to read the tea leaves ....
... Promotions and appointments resulting from retirements are as follows:

Commodore Richard Feltham will retire from service resulting in the following promotion and appointments:
  • Commodore Christopher Robinson will be appointed Commander Canadian Fleet Atlantic, in Halifax, replacing Commodore Richard Feltham
  • Commodore Jason Armstrong will be appointed Director General Naval Force Development, in Ottawa, replacing Commodore Christopher Robinson.
The following promotions and appointments result from new and continuing service requirements:
  • Major-General Patrick Carpentier will be appointed as Director of Operations NORAD Headquarters, in Colorado Springs, replacing Major-General Scott Clancy.
  • Major-General Hercule Gosselin will be appointed in a new position as strategic advisor to Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment), in Ottawa.
  • Rear-Admiral Rebecca Patterson will be appointed in a new position as Chief of Staff, Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, in Ottawa resulting in the following promotion and appointment:
    • Colonel Scott Malcolm will be promoted Brigadier-General and appointed Commander Canadian Forces Health Services, in Ottawa, replacing Rear-Admiral Rebecca Patterson.
  • Brigadier-General Andrew Atherton will be appointed Chief of Staff Operations, Military Personnel Command, in Ottawa, replacing Major-General Sylvain Menard.
  • Captain (Navy) Jacques Olivier was promoted Acting While so Employed Commodore and appointed as Director General Professional Military Conduct, in Ottawa, replacing Brigadier-General Andrew Atherton.
  • Colonel Jamie Speiser-Blanchet will be promoted Brigadier-General and appointed Commander National Cadet and Junior Canadian Rangers Support Group Headquarters, in Ottawa, replacing Commodore Josée Kurtz.
After distinguished service to Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces, the following General Officers will retire in 2021:
  • Major-General Sean Friday
  • Commodore Richard Feltham
- 30 -
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,010
Points
1,010
I am not familiar with this general - what's his claim to fame?
He was cited in a recent news report as being "tone deaf" whilst being Commandant of RMC. The "Night of the Long Knives" fallout continues.
 
Top