Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[dimsum]

Tactically, it is not uncommon for Capt leading Majs, LCol or Cols.

That’s more of an aircrew thing, but yes.

@daftandbarmy as for an example, on a multi-crew aircraft, the crew commander and aircraft commander (could be the same person, sometimes not) is the senior TACCO and senior pilot. Neither of them are necessarily the highest ranking person on board.

The CC and AC could be Capts, while the first officer or TACCO B is the Commanding Officer if they didn’t become a CC or AC in previous postings. It’s not necessarily a requirement.

 

[KevinB]

Tactically, it is not uncommon for Capt leading Majs, LCol or Cols.

Define leading from your perspective.

@Navy_Pete equal rank isn’t so much the issue - a senior Captain can command with a junior Captain [or Lt(N)] as a subordinate, but when one gets into unit commands and higher it isn’t ideal, and in no way should a junior member have command over a senior.
If a junior has command over a senior it’s a terrible thing for multiple reasons not just pay and benefits but it brings to question the entire rank structure. Does it occur at times - yes but usually at much lower levels, and it’s still a corrosive issue.

The GOC should cap the GOFO levels, but they won’t as the love empire building too.

 

[KevinB]

Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Naval Warfare Officers, Aerospace Engineers, Legal Officers, and Doctors (and that’s just off the top of my head) retention levels would seem to disagree.

Arguably most of those are related to pay scale issues - not really a rank issue.

 

[markppcli]

"Where you see careerism I see retention, which is a massive man power problem."

We dont have a retention problem with officers, we have problems keeping troops. You guys are going to have to give up on your careers and empire building and put it on hold until it's cleaned up. Troops are leaving because they are tired of getting screwed around by offices trying to advance their careers. My friend just left DND because she was tired of a new CO who had delusions of grandeur. How many guys are leaving because there is no money for training? A LOT. But there's always money for pips and crowns and red patches and cap bands. VAIN. Stop creating empires and start buying off the shelf. Buy the equipment and troops will join up to play with new toys. STOP F**CKING THE TROOPS.

lol what ? We’re critically short Pilot, short Doctors, short nurses, oh and in my Battery of 9 OP Dets we have a whopping 1 FOO, and I can tell you that’s true across all three. We are short officer, and we are short soldiers. Both are true, what’s also true you is you are taking a tiny slice of the CAF and globalizing it.

 

[markppcli]

It's actually pretty common on ships; the heads of departments (HODs) are two ringers, with two ringers working for them. All the Ops room officers are Lt(N)s and they work for the Cbt Officer who is also a Lt(N). We got rid of LCdr HODs a long time ago and nothing fell apart.

Generally the HODs are more senior and have done the various post OFP quals and positions to get there, and the two ringers working for them are working on the quals, or doing the feeder positions. Usuaully the HODs are close to promotion (sometimes get promoted in the last 6 months), so there is definitely a senior/jr Lt(N) setup, with normal expectations for mentoring and developing folks under you, and based entirely on the position.

Less common now due to how fast promotions are due to shortages but in a lot of trades you can have a QL5 S1 overseeing QL3 S1s. Having 'senior shop killicks' used to be the norm, where a 3-5 year QL5 tech would take on some more active roles under the MS and PO.

Navy does lots of weird things, but having a hierchy based on position or expertise works fine, and gives people a chance to get the experience with some training wheels on, with a more experienced peer they can lean on. Do agree it would be a huge disatisfier having your normal boss being a lower rank then you when in the same trade, but does happen in lots of different evolutions when it makes sense, and is because the person running it has the SME or relevant quals that others don't.

In a particularly weird set of workups, saw a flood party made up of mostly Command staff officers and Command Chiefs building wooden shoring under the direction of a Killick hull tech. It was something like our 4th set in less then six months so the sea trainers decided to leave the crew alone for some of it and let the large section of extra staff get their hands dirty. Took a bit longer because they were rusty, but it worked.

Maybe makes more sense when you are all literally in the same boat, and there is a lot of things that can happen with wildly different expertise required, but if something had to get done, why wouldn't I let the person that knew how to do it run the team?

My rank won't help me out if I screw up running a line or something because I was too proud of my rank to listen to the bosn that did that everyday.

Yes sorry I should have been more clear in my definition but it was late. Absolutely at sub unit and unit levels there exists a peer hierarchy, especially at Captain / LT (N) in part because you have such a broad swath of experience at that rank and also because we rush people to Captain and tend not to employ them at Lt. The point I was trying to make was that having a Bde function as a council of Lt Cols probably isn’t efficient, nor would having the CDS be the same rank as his Bde comds or div comds.

@KevinB @SupersonicMax is talking about tactical command of flights and strike packages that will often be given to whom ever is most experienced / up to date. My experience chatting with pilots is that there’s a point where unit command takes away from pilot upgrading and currency so for sure a LT Col could be lead by a captain on a mission. My argument stands in tatters lol.

 

[dimsum]

Arguably most of those are related to pay scale issues - not really a rank issue.

Pilots actually have their own pay scale, which is creating issues because folks see even less reason to get promoted to Maj and up.

I will also argue that “command” in @SupersonicMax and my examples don’t extend to the admin and career stuff - just the “job” stuff.

To @Gunplumber - honest question: How long have you been out and have you been keeping up with the CAF internal workings since then? You mentioned that you were on the tactical level in the Army but depending on when you left, the CAF has changed quite a bit. The fact that we’re losing junior officers at similar (in the case of Air Traffic Controllers and Aerospace Engineers, higher) rates than NCMs has been a thing for over a decade, and they are not cheap or easy to train.

I’m not suggesting that you’re saying “…back in my day” but I do know how recent your viewpoint is based on.

 

[Gunplumber]

@Gunplumber, what are your thoughts about addressing the problem across the government. Shouldn’t the DMs, ADMs and DGs (civilian versions of generals) be eliminated as well? Then the directors, managers, team leaders and senior clerks could get on with things without the interference of a bloated bureaucratic executive, the government overall would run more efficiently, not just the Canadian Army CAF. Right?

Yup. Same problem. slash and burn. Girlfriend works in the public service., her bitterness makes me look sweet. Bureaucracies make problems in how things get completed by red tape etc. It has got so bad that projects can't get completed.

 

[Gunplumber]

Pilots actually have their own pay scale, which is creating issues because folks see even less reason to get promoted to Maj and up.

I will also argue that “command” in @SupersonicMax and my examples don’t extend to the admin and career stuff - just the “job” stuff.

To @Gunplumber - honest question: How long have you been out and have you been keeping up with the CAF internal workings since then? You mentioned that you were on the tactical level in the Army but depending on when you left, the CAF has changed quite a bit. The fact that we’re losing junior officers at similar (in the case of Air Traffic Controllers and Aerospace Engineers, higher) rates than NCMs has been a thing for over a decade, and they are not cheap or easy to train.

I’m not suggesting that you’re saying “…back in my day” but I do know how recent your viewpoint is based on.

Been out 6 months, Joined in 83. Worked at the highest levels of the Army. 2 of my PERs were signed by a LGen. I am an educated plug in reality but have lots of conversations with Generals at all levels. Being a bit cryptic as I dont really want to have people know who I am. I can do that in PMs but not on open channel.

I agree with the junior officer bit. We loose all the "blue collar" jobs as no one cares about us.

 

[Gunplumber]

lol what ? We’re critically short Pilot, short Doctors, short nurses, oh and in my Battery of 9 OP Dets we have a whopping 1 FOO, and I can tell you that’s true across all three. We are short officer, and we are short soldiers. Both are true, what’s also true you is you are taking a tiny slice of the CAF and globalizing it.

I agree with you. I should have said it better earlier but it's the troops and officers who "have a job where something happens" i.e. blue collar. Not sure how to describe it. But as you said, doctors nurses pilots etc. are where it is a problem. We get trampled by the empire builders.

 

[Gunplumber]

Had a friend in the Militia who went to the regs as a medic. He was an Inf MCpl. Was also a paramedic with courses up the wazoo. Got treated like crap because he was a Private. Out qualified his Sgts in both military and civilian courses. Got treated like shit by posers who had the rank but no skills. Said F it and got the hell out and is now a happy civy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes sorry I should have been more clear in my definition but it was late. Absolutely at sub unit and unit levels there exists a peer hierarchy, especially at Captain / LT (N) in part because you have such a broad swath of experience at that rank and also because we rush people to Captain and tend not to employ them at Lt. The point I was trying to make was that having a Bde function as a council of Lt Cols probably isn’t efficient, nor would having the CDS be the same rank as his Bde comds or div comds.

@KevinB @SupersonicMax is talking about tactical command of flights and strike packages that will often be given to whom ever is most experienced / up to date. My experience chatting with pilots is that there’s a point where unit command takes away from pilot upgrading and currency so for sure a LT Col could be lead by a captain on a mission. My argument stands in tatters lol.

Your argument is fine: as Dimsum says there is a difference between 'tactical mission command' and command of a unit or even a sub-unit with all its attendant responsibilities. My argument is not, especially, with rank levels, it is with the plethora of HQs and the notion that staff officers should be able to 'command' subordinate commands rather than just 'manage' resources on behalf of their (mutual) commander. I know that some very large armies do that; I don't think it works very well.

My notion:

Regt/Bn: CO: LCol; Sub-unit OCs: Majs: Unit Staff: Adjt (S1): Capt, IO (S2) Capt, OpsO (S3) Capt, QM (S4) Capt
Bde: Comd: Col; Unit COs: (Cols/Majs); Bde Staff: G1: Capt, G2: Capt, G3: Maj; G4: Maj
Div: Comd: MGen; Fmn Comds: Cols; Div Staff: G1: Maj; G2: Maj; G3: Col; G4: Col

And, yes, for the record, when I commanded my regiment my Ops O was a captain. The squadron OCs (all majors) had no difficulty following his direction as he managed my key resources, including time and space, for me.

 

[Gunplumber]

Your argument is fine: as Dimsum says there is a difference between 'tactical mission command' and command of a unit or even a sub-unit with all its attendant responsibilities. My argument is not, especially, with rank levels, it is with the plethora of HQs and the notion that staff officers should be able to 'command' subordinate commands rather than just 'manage' resources on behalf of their (mutual) commander. I know that some very large armies do that; I don't think it works very well.

My notion:

Regt/Bn: CO: LCol; Sub-unit OCs: Majs: Unit Staff: Adjt (S1): Capt, IO (S2) Capt, OpsO (S3) Capt, QM (S4) Capt
Bde: Comd: Col; Unit COs: (Cols/Majs); Bde Staff: G1: Capt, G2: Capt, G3: Maj; G4: Maj
Div: Comd: MGen; Fmn Comds: Cols; Div Staff: G1: Maj; G2: Maj; G3: Col; G4: Col

And, yes, for the record, when I commanded my regiment my Ops O was a captain. The squadron OCs (all majors) had no difficulty following his direction as he managed my key resources, including time and space, for me.

VERY well said!