The CF Bloated Rank Structure

[PPCLI Guy]

We have had a lot of different discussions on various threads and so I thought that I would dig up the real numbers:

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/ddm/rpp/rpp04-05/sec3p_e.asp

ACTUAL 2003â “04
Officers
General, Lieutenant-General;Admiral, Vice-Admiral*    11    
Major-General;Rear-Admiral   20
Brigadier-General;Commodore    42  
Colonel;Captain (Navy)    313
Lieutenant-Colonel;Commander 1,061
Major;Lieutenant-Commander   3,185
Captain;Lieutenant (Navy)   5,788
Lieutenant, Second-Lieutenant;Sub-Lieutenant, Acting Sub-Lieutenant     1,829  
Officer Cadet;Naval Cadet    1,687  
Sub-total (Officers)    13,936  

Non-Commissioned Members (NCMs)
Chief Warrant Officer;Chief Petty Officer 1st Class    668
Master Warrant Officer;Chief Petty Officer 2nd Class 1,774
Warrant Officer;Petty Officer 1st Class   3,677
Sergeant;Petty Officer 2nd Class)6,758
Master Corporal, Corporal;Master Seaman, Leading Seaman   25,319  
Private, Private (Recruit);Able Seaman, Ordinary Seaman   9,880  
Sub-total (NCMs) 48,076  
 
Total 62,012
Source: Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources - Military)

Note: * Several general officers and flag officers are employed outside the CF, (e.g., at the UN and with NATO), and in other Canadian federal government institutions.

Some calculations:

Officers to NCM ratio:   1:4.45
Percentage Officers:     22%
Percentage Generals: 0.1%
Percentage Cpls and MCpls: 41%
Percentage Ptes:   16%
Percentage Sr NCOs:   21%

So please, from now on when we throw figures around, lets use these.

 

[Infanteer]

I looked through this, it is for the Regular Force only, correct?

That's pretty close to the figures I've been using in my proposals (which were estimates from 2001).   22% (1:4.45) still bothers me though - seems too high; especially when we've talked about flattening the pyramid.  

As well, we have 72 Generals and Admirals (With that neat little caveat which means that this is a low figure) in an Army of 3 Brigades, 2 Fleets, and 1 Air Division.   If things have gotten that inflated up there, how are things in the middle levels (I understand that their are some problems with distribution at the lower levels).

 

[Kirkhill]

It occurs to me that if every Corporal/LS in the CF were put in charge of a Corporal's Guard of 3 Privates there is room for an additional 70,000 Privates in the CF, based on Rank structure, bringing us up to a force level of about 130,000.   It seems that it could be construed that there is a surfeit of leaders at all levels, not just the Flag Grade.

That assumes that about half of the Privates/Private(Recruits) are actually recruits and not fully capable of joining a unit and contributing to its operational capacity.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I looked through this, it is for the Regular Force only, correct?

Yup.

That's pretty close to the figures I've been using in my proposals (which were estimates from 2001).  22% (1:4.45) still bothers me though - seems too high; especially when we've talked about flattening the pyramid.

And has been reduced from 2000 when it was 1:4 - as directed in some report or plan...  

If things have gotten that inflated up there, how are things in the middle levels (I understand that their are some problems with distribution at the lower levels).

Lets play with the numbers a bit.  Assuming that all OCdts and most 2 Lt / Lt are essentailly un-trained or under training, we end up with a percentage of 16.8%, which is certainly more palatable...

Lets look at the middle or "working" ranks of Capt to Major:  a total of 14.5% of the CF.  Another way of looking at it is that of the Offcier corps, 65% are in the "working ranks".

You know as well as I do that numbers can be manipulated six ways to Sunday though...

 

[IPC10]

More Fun with Numbers.

Reg Force Inf Numbers

Rank Bn Ere Total
CWO 9 24(73%) 33
MWO 55 45(45%) 100
WO 167 231(58%) 398
Sgt 401 264(40%) 665
MCpl 574 117(17%) 691
Cpl/Pte 2622 296(10%) 2918

94% of Inf NCM ERE filled
41% of Inf NCO are on ERE

Regt Demographics
Rank RCR PPCLI R22eR
COL    12       7          8
LCOL    31       31          46
Maj     75       75          90
Capt    121      130           140

Inf Corps shortage of around 101 Inf Capts.

So Officers to NCM ratio:   1: 6.27
Around a 13.75% Officers in the RegF Inf PY's
(Not counting Generals)
Source â “ various career managers briefs

 

[Kirkhill]

IPC10, What's ERE?

Sorry for the ignorance.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Extra Regimentally Employed ie not in a Bn or RHQ.

I will use it in a sentence..

Dave is still frickin ERE!!!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..or Dave is still frickin thERE!!![couldn't resist]

 

[Franko]

Too much math for a dumb tanker......

My head hurts  :crybaby:

Regards

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Cpl to Pte ratios are meaningless - a Corporal is a private soldier with a pay raise.  I'd suggest the ratio of Sgts to Junior NCMs (ie section leaders to section members) would be more meaningfull.  I would expect almost a 1 to 1 ratio of privates to corporals; it would mean retention has been better than if we have as many recruits as corporals.

 

[Kirkhill]

Extra Regimentally Employed ie not in a Bn or RHQ.

I will use it in a sentence..

Dave is still frickin ERE!!!

Thanks.  And Condolences.....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Cpl to Pte ratios are meaningless - a Corporal is a private soldier with a pay raise.   I'd suggest the ratio of Sgts to Junior NCMs (ie section leaders to section members) would be more meaningfull.   I would expect almost a 1 to 1 ratio of privates to corporals; it would mean retention has been better than if we have as many recruits as corporals.

Sgts to Mcpl and Below = 1:5

 

[tabernac]

As well, we have 72 Generals and Admirals (With that neat little caveat which means that this is a low figure) in an Army of 3 Brigades, 2 Fleets, and 1 Air Division.

If we have 72 Generals and Admirals, where are they? Do we need them there? And when they retire do they have to be replaced?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If we have 72 Generals and Admirals, where are they? Do we need them there? And when they retire do they have to be replaced?

This has been discussed before.  Many occupy positions equivalent to senior Civil Service positions, so arguably they need the rank.  Many are in scientific, research, public relations and other types of jobs and not in command positions (obviously, given our low number of formations, as pointed out by Infanteer).  Scaling back the military would mean scaling back the equivalent senior civil service jobs - good luck getting that to happen short of a Depression.

 

[Infanteer]

Not good enough for me.  Deriving a requirement of senior officers to senior civil service positions is following an administrative, function-based outlook, as opposed to what we should be seeking to define our requirements by; an output-based, productive outlook in which requirement would be determined by the output of fighting power.  Unless they were to make up an infantry section, those positions should be cut.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Not good enough for me.  Deriving a requirement of senior officers to senior civil service positions is following an administrative, function-based outlook,

Well, duh.  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

Well, duh.

Unfortunately, that is what I said too.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Infanteer, based on our current size of the CF, what do you think upper ranks should look like?



Matthew.  

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Not good enough for me.   Deriving a requirement of senior officers to senior civil service positions is following an administrative, function-based outlook, as opposed to what we should be seeking to define our requirements by; an output-based, productive outlook in which requirement would be determined by the output of fighting power.   Unless they were to make up an infantry section, those positions should be cut.

OK - fair enough.  Lets talk about output=combat power.

Why do we have MFRCs (the one in Toronto is basically the most expensive day care in NATO)?
Why do we have PMQs?
Should DRDC get more than $200M of the defence budget?
Why are we getting a pay raise?
What about maternity/paternity leave?
What do Cadets have to do with combat power?
Can we afford Skyhawks / Ceremonial Guard / those acrobatic aircraft whose name I can't remember right now?
What does DHH have to do with combat power?
And SAR (not CSAR)?
What does the Army mascot have to do with combat power?
Do we really need all of those Reserve Units for the generation of combat power?

The point I am making (and I personally think that we do not need many of the items above) is that there may well be second and third order effects to a narrow perspective of "combat power" as our output.  I firmly believe that you are on the right track, and I do not support many of the activities above precisely because they have no direct relationship to our "output".  I do however think that if we go down that route we will a) have a shitestorm on our hands, and b) dissolve into hopeless infighting as we protect our respective ricebowls.

So where an I going with this?  Sure, focus on the output, but do it for the right reason, and not just to flatten the hierarchy, and then be prepared to live with the outcome.  Finally, the government has yet to define what "combat power" they want us to have...

One final thought - why are 72 positions out of 62.021 so emotive?  I am sure that we have more than 72 pers that are not fit enough to be seen in public, let alone do the BFT or EXPRES test.  I am sure that we have waaay more than 72 Social Workers or Padres - in fact I am sure that we, the CF, pay for at least ten times as many child care workers as that.

Just some thoughts...

 

[pbi]

The imbalance must be at NDHQ. Take a look at LFWA, for example. There are probably around 5,000 RegF and about 3600 Res soldiers, plus a large number of civ empl-let's say 1,000. So call it 9,000 uniforms and 1,000 civvies. In that mix there are:

Two BGens (Area Comd, Area DComd(Res))

Seven Colonels (COS, ACOS(Res), Comd 1 CMBG, Comd 1 ASG, three Res CBG Comds)

That's seven  for 9,000 uniforms, or one to 1285. (approx).

That doesn't seem too bad to me. When you consider that only five are actually commanders, the ratio is better still.

I also agree with the observation that distinguishing between Cpls and Ptes when doing these calculations is false. A Cpl is an NCM, but not really an NCO, although perforce we use them as Sect 2ICs if we have to. In truth, they are  more qualified Ptes-closer to what USA calls a "Spec". Cheers.