The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Edward Campbell]

Could support and services be expanded to trades and positions that don't hear the "crack-thump"?

The Government is funding 68,000 positions (more or less).  In addition to those command positions how many uniformed support positions could be "civilianized", even if they were designated for deserving, time-expired members?

It would change the balance on the liability side of things (more people in the line of fire and thus more risk) but equally it would open up more jobs for injured, experienced personnel while not detracting from the numbers potentially available for front line service.

Also, is there an opportunity to push further on the In-Service Support side of things and find a better balance between the three "traditional" models of service delivery:

- private contractors - worked for the RN when all they had to do was deliver to the ship, not so well for the army where they had a tendency to flee

- the independent government department - the Commissariat - major problems when the Commissariat accompanied the army into the field and demanded releases before handing out ammunition and other supplies

- the "nation at war" system ofr WW1 and WW2 - where uniformed personnel managed everything from the factory gate, if not the factory floor, to the front line.

How far forward can "private" or "PWGSC" support and supply be trusted?  Can they be trusted to maintain an independent battle group in a timely fashion?  A Brigade?  Higher?

Are the Army's requirements different than those of the RCN and the RCAF? Intelligence?  I believe that there is a difference and that that difference can and should be exploited to get people out of the uniformed 68,000 (releasing them for combat positions) and into civilian positions similar to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It would also have a significant impact on the procurement of equipment - perhaps more emphasis on "replacement in a timely fashion" rather than "never break and easy to repair".  Perhaps more use of civilian services and equipment where the bullets aren't flying and dedication of the available dollars to the front lines?

Those issues are beyond the CDS' remit. So is deciding on how the CF is employed (the Vanguard article linked by daftandbarmy). What he can do, with very, very little interference from anyone, is adjust the CF's command and control superstructure; that's very much in his domain.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have previously advocated use of Reservists to fill some of these roles as we do in the US.We think it saves money and it does free up active duty personnel for other duty.

A couple of excellent ways to manage personnel -

Move time expired, or injured personnel to the rear as civilians with Reserve status that can be Called to the Colours as the situation warrants.

Hire civilians straight off the the street to supply technical skills through private ISS contractors. Offer those willing (and able) the opportunity to serve closer to the front lines as Reservists.  - That would also solve the problem of how do you find time to train Reservists - It would become a condition of their employment - Their employer, if he wanted to do business with DND would have to dedicate some percentage of the employees' time towards military training.

I can think of similar models being effective for Coast Guard manned AOPSs, a Canadian version of the Royal Fleet Auxilliary and also for the new Air Refuelling supply model - civilian in the rear, reservist/regular at the front.

I seem to recall that not all positions at KAF were uniformed positions - and not all truck drivers in Iraq were Army drivers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Those issues are beyond the CDS' remit. So is deciding on how the CF is employed (the Vanguard article linked by daftandbarmy). What he can do, with very, very little interference from anyone, is adjust the CF's command and control superstructure; that's very much in his domain.

Seen.

But if not the CDS then who?  Is it a civilian function or military function?  And would the military trust any decisions made by civilians?

(Sorry McG).

 

[upandatom]

How is adding Civilian positions trimming the fat?
The problem stems deeper.
From the Comms and support side-
It stems in certain positions that are integral to CAF operations and communications that are stuck with civilian employees that have hoarded information, protected themselves where the CAF would be crippled in some deployments should something happen because of the fact that they dont give up the information. They kick and they effin scream when someone tries to pull it out of them. They have created a protective bubble with information hoarding.

If the IC of an OR, or a sigs section/ CO of a unit can effectively punish, or create just cause for terminating employee or holding them accountable that will clear a lot of bureaucratic red tape and overhead pay. It will hold them accountable so they are not untouchable as they were.

Look at 202 DA, even with a fat trim of 80+ employees, the military personell are outnumber 4 to 1, and watch some civilian take 2 months a year vacation, they watch them sit on their asses during "Overtime" on a saturday meanwhile the military has to sit there and supervise them and not get any reimbursement for the extra hours they are putting in, but meanwhile for that civilian its going into 110+ hours a pay period Overtime.

Adding civilians and having them get strangleholds on positions isnt going to fix anything. I say the opposite. Wipe them, offer them to medical releases. I know for a fact that going military to Civi is a difficult transition. Those that are medically released due to service injuries, should be accommodated for it. Not Joe Schmo off the streets that happens to win a competition that is absolutely biased.
 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Could support and services be expanded to trades and positions that don't hear the "crack-thump"?

The Government is funding 68,000 positions (more or less).  In addition to those command positions how many uniformed support positions could be "civilianized", even if they were designated for deserving, time-expired members?

It would change the balance on the liability side of things (more people in the line of fire and thus more risk) but equally it would open up more jobs for injured, experienced personnel while not detracting from the numbers potentially available for front line service.

Also, is there an opportunity to push further on the In-Service Support side of things and find a better balance between the three "traditional" models of service delivery:

- private contractors - worked for the RN when all they had to do was deliver to the ship, not so well for the army where they had a tendency to flee

- the independent government department - the Commissariat - major problems when the Commissariat accompanied the army into the field and demanded releases before handing out ammunition and other supplies

- the "nation at war" system ofr WW1 and WW2 - where uniformed personnel managed everything from the factory gate, if not the factory floor, to the front line.

How far forward can "private" or "PWGSC" support and supply be trusted?  Can they be trusted to maintain an independent battle group in a timely fashion?  A Brigade?  Higher?

Are the Army's requirements different than those of the RCN and the RCAF? Intelligence?  I believe that there is a difference and that that difference can and should be exploited to get people out of the uniformed 68,000 (releasing them for combat positions) and into civilian positions similar to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It would also have a significant impact on the procurement of equipment - perhaps more emphasis on "replacement in a timely fashion" rather than "never break and easy to repair".  Perhaps more use of civilian services and equipment where the bullets aren't flying and dedication of the available dollars to the front lines?

This was actually trialed by the CF in late 1990s/early 2000s.  It was called "Alternate Service Delivery"  (ASD).  The goal from what I remember was to cut our uniformed supply train's static positions to almost nil while maintaining the integrated uniformed first line logistical support as per "normal".  Basically, in a Sup Tech sense, get ride of our base/garrison side positions and re-roll them into an almost purely civilian organization, in this case contractors, vice PS.  While maintaining QM staff, Ships Log Depts ect. 

Now I was an OS when this was "squashed" but I know it sent shock waves through the Log branch that this was even attempted.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199911_27_e_10156.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Somewhere along the line, if change is going to happen, somebody's bull is going to be gored.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Somewhere along the line, if change is going to happen, somebody's bull is going to be gored.

Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at. 

 

[upandatom]

Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.

Signals world should be number one. The amount of red tape "specialists" for a wide range of positions is worse, and the amount those pers are paid because of "knowledge"

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.

How so?

 

[MilEME09]

Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.

I would argue the opposite, yes all branches have inefficiencies, however I think the support trades need to be expanded to decrease our dependance on civilian contractors.

 

[Brasidas]

Signals world should be number one. The amount of red tape "specialists" for a wide range of positions is worse, and the amount those pers are paid because of "knowledge"

Someone's not a fan of Calian?

 

[Halifax Tar]

How so?

*** OFF TOPIC ***

First of all I said it should be looked at, not necessarily "gored".

A few areas that should be looked at:

-  Personnel Management
-  Trade(s) Justification and realignment
-  Business Processes
-  Operational Role(s)
-  Basic Soldiering Ability (Lack of a better term for individual operational capabilities)

 

[Kirkhill]

I would argue the opposite, yes all branches have inefficiencies, however I think the support trades need to be expanded to decrease our dependance on civilian contractors.

My problem is that I can't see hiring civilians to pull triggers.  I can see hiring civilians to turn wrenches and to drive trucks and even to supply some forms of intelligence. 

Therefore if I want to optimize the number of trigger pullers I can field within my budget of 68,000 people then I should minimize the number of truck drivers and wrench-jockeys in uniform.

You will never eliminate the number of positions - you need some people that even if not pulling triggers are willing to do "support" jobs where the bullets are flying.  But do you really need (as many) uniformed personnel throughout the support system operating in places where there is no hazard to life or limb?

As to the civilians hoarding info and dogging it on the job.... I'm sure there are bodies in uniform quite capable of operating exactly the same way.

Equally, I am sure that a private contractor has more options at his disposal to motivate personnel than does a public service shop.

And I consider Lockmart (and Irving) to be something half way and between a private contractor and a government agency.  Contrasting organizations would be Austal and Odense Maritime Technology (and perhaps, hopefully Washington Marine).

 

[Halifax Tar]

My problem is that I can't see hiring civilians to pull triggers.  I can see hiring civilians to turn wrenches and to drive trucks and even to supply some forms of intelligence. 

Therefore if I want to optimize the number of trigger pullers I can field within my budget of 68,000 people then I should minimize the number of truck drivers and wrench-jockeys in uniform.

You will never eliminate the number of positions - you need some people that even if not pulling triggers are willing to do "support" jobs where the bullets are flying.  But do you really need (as many) uniformed personnel throughout the support system operating in places where there is no hazard to life or limb?

As to the civilians hoarding info and dogging it on the job.... I'm sure there are bodies in uniform quite capable of operating exactly the same way.

Equally, I am sure that a private contractor has more options at his disposal to motivate personnel than does a public service shop.

And I consider Lockmart (and Irving) to be something half way and between a private contractor and a government agency.  Contrasting organizations would be Austal and Odense Maritime Technology (and perhaps, hopefully Washington Marine).

I would agree with what you are saying.  I did two tours NSE in Afg.  There were a good number of people in my organisation that wouldn't, couldn't or didn't want to go OTW.  There were a great many "Static" positions that could have been given over to a contractor with our main focus being on CLPs, FLGs and FP.  This all ties into my point about operational roles and what is basically IBTS.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

My problem is that I can't see hiring civilians to pull triggers.  I can see hiring civilians to turn wrenches and to drive trucks and even to supply some forms of intelligence. 

Therefore if I want to optimize the number of trigger pullers I can field within my budget of 68,000 people then I should minimize the number of truck drivers and wrench-jockeys in uniform.

You will never eliminate the number of positions - you need some people that even if not pulling triggers are willing to do "support" jobs where the bullets are flying.  But do you really need (as many) uniformed personnel throughout the support system operating in places where there is no hazard to life or limb?

As to the civilians hoarding info and dogging it on the job.... I'm sure there are bodies in uniform quite capable of operating exactly the same way.

Equally, I am sure that a private contractor has more options at his disposal to motivate personnel than does a public service shop.

And I consider Lockmart (and Irving) to be something half way and between a private contractor and a government agency.  Contrasting organizations would be Austal and Odense Maritime Technology (and perhaps, hopefully Washington Marine).

I agree that support should be looked at for realignment or cuts and that many positions (base side) could be made civilian, though I doubt this would save much in the way of money. Service Bn, ships log divisions, and some air log positions should be completely military though for operational reasons.

That said, if we're going to cut than we need to look at a full range of cuts that should be made.

- why do we pay for a reserve bde/div structure that is outdated, undeployable, and inefficient?

- what capabilities do we really need based on tasks and what can we do without/keep for emotional reasons? tanks, fighter aircraft, submarines and other specialty capabilities need to be rationalized as well in the same way that AT and AD were and there needs to be a REAL thought on what we want out military to be/accomplish.

- what bases do we need. Do we need more bases or less, andwhat ones offer the most bang for the buck? ie- could we close edmonton, and amalgamate 1 CMBG in Shilo or Wainwright?

Once,and only once, that is done than the logisitical tail should be looked at.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Bases have already been shrunk down enough, fighters are operational every day of the year, submarines sail operationally without 99% of the CAF knowing and tanks were used operationally in the sandbox.

Sorry but the "tooth" has been reduced and crippled enough already.  What needs to be reduced is any and all things "tail" starting with HQs.  We need to change the way we think and prioritize.  Commanders at all levels who don't get with the program to reduce the tail, as directed, should be replaced.  Full stop.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree that support should be looked at for realignment or cuts and that many positions (base side) could be made civilian, though I doubt this would save much in the way of money. Service Bn, ships log divisions, and some air log positions should be completely military though for operational reasons.

That said, if we're going to cut than we need to look at a full range of cuts that should be made.

- why do we pay for a reserve bde/div structure that is outdated, undeployable, and inefficient? Excellent question and it should be on the CDS "to do" list, but it is fraught with difficulties ~ many of them political and I suspect that other CDSs who have tried to reform the reserves have found the task too long and complex.

- what capabilities do we really need based on tasks and what can we do without/keep for emotional reasons? tanks, fighter aircraft, submarines and other specialty capabilities need to be rationalized as well in the same way that AT and AD were and there needs to be a REAL thought on what we want out military to be/accomplish. Another good question and one in which the CDS should take some interest, should make some contributions, but, in the end, a policy question and, therefore, the province of others, like PM Harper and Ms Charette.

- what bases do we need. Do we need more bases or less, andwhat ones offer the most bang for the buck? ie- could we close edmonton, and amalgamate 1 CMBG in Shilo or Wainwright? Once again, a good question and another in which the CDS should offer some advice, but also a very, very political question with all those inherent difficulties.

Once,and only once, that is done than the logisitical tail should be looked at.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't take issue with the need to cut at the HQ level, nor rationalizing / eliminating the reserve force as is, nor rationalizing bases and infrastructure.

I guess what I am saying is, starting from the Front Line Own Troops, when can you start feeding civilians into the mix so as to leave as many trigger pullers as possible up front. 

And before I get taken to task on concentrating on trigger pullers I do recognize the need for people to do specialized work in the face of enemy fire ......

But, in WW1 the tendency was to go and find miners and teach them to mine in a military manner and look after their rifle - as opposed to finding soldiers and teaching them how to be miners - or worse find civilians and teaching them how to be both miners and soldiers.

Myself, I would be looking for trained tradesmen and asking which of them want to practice their trade for Queen and Country.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I don't take issue with the need to cut at the HQ level, nor rationalizing / eliminating the reserve force as is, nor rationalizing bases and infrastructure.

I guess what I am saying is, starting from the Front Line Own Troops, when can you start feeding civilians into the mix so as to leave as many trigger pullers as possible up front. 

And before I get taken to task on concentrating on trigger pullers I do recognize the need for people to do specialized work in the face of enemy fire ......

But, in WW1 the tendency was to go and find miners and teach them to mine in a military manner and look after their rifle - as opposed to finding soldiers and teaching them how to be miners - or worse find civilians and teaching them how to be both miners and soldiers.

Myself, I would be looking for trained tradesmen and asking which of them want to practice their trade for Queen and Country.

I agree with the thought of finding civilian trained specialists and making them soldiers vice the opposite way around, increasing job flexibility for serving members, and ridding ourselves of a personnel management system that dates back to the industrial age. The problem that arises (potentially at least) is needing to pay those persons the going civilian rate to do their craft, which can be far more expensive than giving the job to a pte/Cpl at $30-50,000/year (even knowing that there's a good chance that the pte/cpl will leave for civie street once their contract is up).

 

[MilEME09]

Perhaps we need to look then where we can push civilians contractors into position to maximize people in operational units. Rolling base maintenance over to all civilian with maybe a hand full of military personal as quality control might be a place to start. Free up more people to be attached to operational units and service battalions.