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

Canada doesn’t matter to the rest of the world - and it’s our own fault

dapaterson said:
In fact, yes, that's a part of DND that's growing.
Click to expand...

Critical question. Capbadge for the department?

Can I suggest crossed Spontoons?

The implement carried by sergeants behind the rank and file to prod the bayonets forwards, dispatch shirkers and seldom used against the King's enemies.
 
Kirkhill said:
Critical question. Capbadge for the department?

Can I suggest crossed Spontoons?

The implement carried by sergeants behind the rank and file to prod the bayonets forwards, dispatch shirkers and seldom used against the King's enemies.
Click to expand...
Picture or it doesn’t exist….
 
MilEME09 said:
Good a place as Any, security checks are killing us at recruiting.

Click to expand...
It is a tough problem.

For some of the problem set, it doesn’t matter how many people we assign to it. If an applicant is from country “X” and we ask the security service of Country “X” to verify that the applicant is who they say they are, and they don’t respond in a timely fashion (or at all), what is Canada supposed to do?

There are very few places in the CAF where someone can serve for very long with only an Enhanced Reliability Check.
 
Jarnhamar said:
We could open recruiting up to some of those one million international students we got.
Click to expand...
Right at the airport screening gates.

You there! Yes you.
You’re a big strong looking brute, aren’t ya laddie? Get in this line right here. Hand over yer passport.

And just like that, recruiting bonus unlocked.
 
FJAG said:
Seriously, as I said, I've toyed with the reduction of the full-time army by 30% and moved another 30% into urban centres as 30/70 units for increasing/enabling the part-time force.

That still required keeping all the same bases albeit some functioned at lower capacities.

Keeping all the ranges is a given. The base infrastructure is for the most part also required albeit much of it needs repurposing to logistics functions and as temporary accommodation for visiting training forces or schools.

The savings come from pay envelopes and not infrastructure. Just as an example, I ran it through the CBO Interactive Force Structure tool and the cost savings of converting an active army SBCT to a ARNG SBCT saves approximately $2 billion per year. It also reduces the force size by 2,000. The number of active army to ARNG is a numbers wash so the reductions come from overhead personnel requirements needed to support active army troops.

🍻
Click to expand...
The major issue I see with cutting CAF pers is you're just getting less capability for for less money.

The only reason pay is 50% of the CAF budget right now is because the government won't stop paying people because it looks bad in the papers, but they will "defer" equipment and maintenance spending. Cut the CA by 30%, and the government will cut spending to match the lower payroll. There will be no more money for new toys, because some other election promise will require funding.
 
Furniture said:
The major issue I see with cutting CAF pers is you're just getting less capability for for less money.

The only reason pay is 50% of the CAF budget right now is because the government won't stop paying people because it looks bad in the papers, but they will "defer" equipment and maintenance spending. Cut the CA by 30%, and the government will cut spending to match the lower payroll. There will be no more money for new toys, because some other election promise will require funding.
Click to expand...

The only way that you get less capability by cutting full-time strength is if you only count and structure full-time strength as the one and only measure of capability.

True enough, the way that DND/CAF is currently structured that is e xactly the way that it works. Full-time strength is all that matters.

IMHO that is the great mistake of how DND/CAF does business. We need to break that paradigm.

Decrease full-time strength and exchange the funding for part-time strength, equipment and training and you increase your capabilities several fold over. In the above SBCT example, converting a brigade from active army to ARNG still leaves you a fully equipped brigade. It is just on a lower level of readiness but has a significantly lower per annum cost. Saved money that can be put towards more equipment to equip another brigade in due course. It's basic math. And I think this math is exactly why the full-time force keeps the part-time force ineffective - in order to justify it's own numbers.

DND/CAF needs to be better at managing that full-time capability that is used routinely in peacetime and balance it against that part-time capability which is available on stand-by. Each has a purpose. The two work together to increase overall defence outputs and capabilities.

🍻
 
FJAG said:
DND/CAF needs to be better at managing that full-time capability that is used routinely in peacetime and balance it against that part-time capability which is available on stand-by. Each has a purpose. The two work together to increase overall defence outputs and capabilities.

🍻
Click to expand...

This would require some joint planning and coordination between HQs, as a start.

For example, Comd 39 CBG and Comd 1CMBG coordinating the development of a shared plan that would change the current 'two solitudes' approach to the ARes vs. Reg F paradigm.

Has that ever been done before? If not, I wonder if there is a XX level leader somewhere who'd dare to bring them together to give that a try...
 
FJAG said:
The only way that you get less capability by cutting full-time strength is if you only count and structure full-time strength as the one and only measure of capability.

True enough, the way that DND/CAF is currently structured that is e xactly the way that it works. Full-time strength is all that matters.

IMHO that is the great mistake of how DND/CAF does business. We need to break that paradigm.

Decrease full-time strength and exchange the funding for part-time strength, equipment and training and you increase your capabilities several fold over. In the above SBCT example, converting a brigade from active army to ARNG still leaves you a fully equipped brigade. It is just on a lower level of readiness but has a significantly lower per annum cost. Saved money that can be put towards more equipment to equip another brigade in due course. It's basic math. And I think this math is exactly why the full-time force keeps the part-time force ineffective - in order to justify it's own numbers.

DND/CAF needs to be better at managing that full-time capability that is used routinely in peacetime and balance it against that part-time capability which is available on stand-by. Each has a purpose. The two work together to increase overall defence outputs and capabilities.

🍻
Click to expand...
I think I didn't explain my point well enough.

People love to highlight that about half of the CAF's budget is spent on pay. My argument is simply this, no matter how many RegF positions you cut, you won't get more free money to spend on other things. The only reason the budget isn't lower than it currently is, is simply because not paying pers would look bad, so all other spending is what gets cut. If you make those RegF pers ResF, the budget will just be cut further, because ResF pers cost less to keep barely trained. ResF cost even less if you cut back training hours a budgets. Since ResF pay isn't what keeps a roof over their heads, the bad press from reduced training/parade nights would be outweighed by the other ways you can use that money to buy votes.

I'm not arguing that a mature country with a real defence plan couldn't make your idea work. My argument is that Canada specifically can't/won't make it work because Canadians don't care about defence capability until it's fighting the forest fire nearby, or filling sandbags at the local river/lake.

If Canada was a serious country, pay and benefits for 70K RegF pers would be 1/4-1/3 of the defence budget, because we'd be spending the rest on kit, facilities, and proper maintenance.
 
Furniture said:
My argument is simply this, no matter how many RegF positions you cut, you won't get more free money to spend on other things. The only reason the budget isn't lower than it currently is, is simply because not paying pers would look bad, so all other spending is what gets cut. If you make those RegF pers ResF, the budget will just be cut further, because ResF pers cost less to keep barely trained.
Click to expand...
Sadly there is a lot of truth in what you say.

🍻
 
OldSolduer said:
ummmm should we send armed RCN guys to bars to press people into service?
Click to expand...

hunger games volunteer GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

daftandbarmy
    • Like
Why Success Doesn’t Lead to Satisfaction
Replies
7
Views
7K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
Optimism
Replies
2
Views
5K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
‘Defence’ doesn’t fit the job of Canada’s military any more. Let’s create a Department of National Safety instead
2 3
Replies
46
Views
72K
foresterab
F
shawn5o
Can Scotland make it on its own, or does it need Westminster?
Replies
1
Views
9K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Retired AF Guy
Over 1000 criminals arrested in major sting operation
Replies
6
Views
12K
Good2Golf
Good2Golf
Back
Top