Reconstitution

[daftandbarmy]

They should, frankly.

If you wantonly write off 3 DND vehicles, you're going to at least get a talking to from MSE Safety and losing your 404s. We can easily replace those vehicles.

Torpedoing 3 otherwise perfect careers; with potentially millions of dollars with of corporate knowledge, training, and experience because "fuck it, I'm the Career Manager and I can" should probably warrant a harsher reaction.

Skilled people are a finite resource. Especially in an organization that refuses to laterally promote or laterally hire.

But the 'official' numbers say everything's normal, or even better, in comparison with non-CAF peers...

3.1 Attrition in the CAF​

The average rate of attrition from the CAF (Reg Force and P Res) is generally between 8% and 9%. This rate compares favourably with the Canadian labour market, including both the private (10.2%) and public sectors (4.7%) (Coburn & Cowan, 2019).Footnote12The CAF rate of attrition is also lower than that of many of our allies.

3.0 Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF - Canada.ca

The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel.

www.canada.ca

 

[rmc_wannabe]

But the 'official' numbers say everything's normal, or even better, in comparison with non-CAF peers...

3.1 Attrition in the CAF​

The average rate of attrition from the CAF (Reg Force and P Res) is generally between 8% and 9%. This rate compares favourably with the Canadian labour market, including both the private (10.2%) and public sectors (4.7%) (Coburn & Cowan, 2019).Footnote12The CAF rate of attrition is also lower than that of many of our allies.

3.0 Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF - Canada.ca

The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel.

www.canada.ca

Based off 2017-18 numbers.

What's the last part of Mission Analysis again? Something about the situation changing or something....

 

[MJP]

But the 'official' numbers say everything's normal, or even better, in comparison with non-CAF peers...

3.1 Attrition in the CAF​

The average rate of attrition from the CAF (Reg Force and P Res) is generally between 8% and 9%. This rate compares favourably with the Canadian labour market, including both the private (10.2%) and public sectors (4.7%) (Coburn & Cowan, 2019).Footnote12The CAF rate of attrition is also lower than that of many of our allies.

3.0 Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF - Canada.ca

The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel.

www.canada.ca

I think the rub is that while attrition is fairly normal, the trained effective strength has not kept up. The CAF roughly at just under 80% of preferred manning levels with the largest disparities at Pte - MCpl level followed by Sgt-WO. It would suggest seems that our intake and IT system can't keep up with routine release demands and therefore the longer it goes on the further down the food chain it goes. The MWO you need in 15 years needs to be a Pte today type thing

That is a macro view and individual trades have very different numbers and analysis. For example the Signals world sits at roughly 73% PML while Infanteer is at 93%. Looking at the numbers the infantry Pte/Cpl PML is fine, they are hurting at the MCpl-Sgt level suggesting that retention is the issue while signals has issues from Pte - WO suggesting that there is both a recruiting/training and a retention issue. Very cherry picked data and superficial analysis but does highlight that when folks say attrition is normal they need to look at the whole before deciding if that number is good or bad normal for the CAF

 

[MJP]

Based off 2017-18 numbers.

What's the last part of Mission Analysis again? Something about the situation changing or something....

The release rate is still between 8-9% for the last year

 

[Quirky]

Saying attrition is fine in the CAF is like saying Canadians never had it better because we have a AAA credit rating and the best GDP to debt ratio in the G7. Political BS.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The release rate is still between 8-9% for the last year

Based on 16,000 short, 9% is still concerning...

 

[dapaterson]

Is the problem attrition or production? There's only so much mitigating the first can do to mask problems with the latter.

 

[Fabius]

It’s also what demographic the 9% is coming from.
End of first contact, not a big issue overall.
After 25/35 year’s service, not a big issue.
15-20 year’s service in the Sgt-WO and Senior Capt to Major ranks, might indicate a problem.

 

[markppcli]

But the 'official' numbers say everything's normal, or even better, in comparison with non-CAF peers...

3.1 Attrition in the CAF​

The average rate of attrition from the CAF (Reg Force and P Res) is generally between 8% and 9%. This rate compares favourably with the Canadian labour market, including both the private (10.2%) and public sectors (4.7%) (Coburn & Cowan, 2019).Footnote12The CAF rate of attrition is also lower than that of many of our allies.

3.0 Retention vs. Attrition in the CAF - Canada.ca

The landscape that we work within is constantly changing and we must be proactive in identifying and addressing CAF members’ needs in order to retain our personnel.

www.canada.ca

This of course ignores that the cost of training our people is held squarely by the CAF, unlike the civilian sector. Sigh.

I’m glad this is where reconstituting is going, well this and 2 CMBG’s dress policy augmentation.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Americans also have an actual reason to have bases in areas like Alaska (and Greenland for that matter). And they manage to staff them.
Canada seems to have difficulty staffing bases in places they need them.

Canadians don't seem to like their country very much.

View attachment 81008

The US military has a huge planned turnover so they don’t really care if people want their posting or not. Love of country has little to do with it. That being said, the US military is also struggling with retention and recruiting at the moment.

Also, unlike Canada, many folks join the US military for medical and dental benefits. The GI Bill helps as well for education. Most aren’t looking for a career so there is a huge turnover at the end of first contract.

Maybe Canada should recraft its organization around short timers as well? The concept is not a novel one.

How long does a USAF pilot spend in the USAF? When they end their active service how many go to the AFRES and how many go to the ANG?
Are US benefits that much better than Canadian benefits? We already seem to be spending much of our budget on personnel rather than kit and training.

Or do we have to start thinking about creating Inuit, Dene and Algonquin squadrons to man facilities in their homelands where both Canada and NORAD need an active presence?

 

[Furniture]

Maybe Canada should recraft its organization around short timers as well? The concept is not a novel one.

That requires a large pool of people ready to sign up for a few years, which Canada does not have. It also requires a massive increase in funding for schools and barracks, to house and train the churn.

The social and economic factors that drive American recruiting don't necessarily exist in Canada, so trying to emulate the American model here is likely to result in failure.

Or do we have to start thinking about creating Inuit, Dene and Algonquin squadrons to man facilities in their homelands where both Canada and NORAD need an active presence?

Where are we going to find the numbers of medically and academically suited people, who also want to work for the CAF up there? If they meet the CAF requirements, they likely also meet the requirements for work in more lucrative sectors, who need to hire locals for work in the north. The CAF would find itself in a bidding war with diamond mines, and other industries, which the CAF would lose.

 

[Kirkhill]

That requires a large pool of people ready to sign up for a few years, which Canada does not have. It also requires a massive increase in funding for schools and barracks, to house and train the churn.

The social and economic factors that drive American recruiting don't necessarily exist in Canada, so trying to emulate the American model here is likely to result in failure.


Where are we going to find the numbers of medically and academically suited people, who also want to work for the CAF up there? If they meet the CAF requirements, they likely also meet the requirements for work in more lucrative sectors, who need to hire locals for work in the north. The CAF would find itself in a bidding war with diamond mines, and other industries, which the CAF would lose.

Your points are all well taken and understood but given the amount of pushback on any course of action I struggle to see how Canada can sustain any credible force. It appears that the working premise has to be that the defenders will be working from major metropolitan areas and will be gainfully employed for 25 years after which they will be compensated with a full pension. Given that it is difficult for anybody to sustain a high level of physical fitness for 25 years, and harder when being physically abused, I can't help but wonder how many young, fit, "bayonets" are going to be available to close with and engage the other.

Do we know that we don't have a pool of short timers available? We know that the School system needs modifying in any event. What type of housing is required for your young short timers on course vs lifers living on the community.

As to leading to failure... are we succeeding now?

WRT the northerners, I agree that it would be challenging. On the other hand it is apparently challenging to find southerners willing to live and work up north.

 

[dimsum]

How long does a USAF pilot spend in the USAF? When they end their active service how many go to the AFRES and how many go to the ANG?
Are US benefits that much better than Canadian benefits? We already seem to be spending much of our budget on personnel rather than kit and training.

After receiving their wings, USAF requires a 10-year commitment for Pilots, and 6 years for Combat Systems Officers (equivalent to ACSO). Mind you, their wings training is shorter from recruitment bc they can churn so many courses a year. The USN is 8 years for fast jet, 7 years for other fleets, and 6 years for Naval Flight Officers (their equiv to ACSO).

Currently, the RCAF is 10 years for Pilot, and 4 years for ACSO.

The US benefits are…better? Medical/dental continues with you when you retire. As far as pay, it’s hard to say as the USAF site just shows base pay, which is lower (even with back of napkin math exchange rate) than RCAF. They don’t list their aircrew pay or other monetary benefits though. They do have a housing allowance that is far superior to ours.

We seem to be spending much of our budget on personnel because of our pay and benefits. After the Australians, we are the highest-paid military.

The other thing which is usually lost is that the US military is “up or out”, meaning that if you don’t get promoted within a certain number of years (usually 3?) then you’re punted from the military. They can get a pension at 20 years so getting forced out at 18 or so years would really suck. I’m not sure what they get back if that happens though.

 

[WLSC]

The other thing which is usually lost is that the US military is “up or out”, meaning that if you don’t get promoted within a certain number of years (usually 3?) then you’re punted from the military. They can get a pension at 20 years so getting forced out at 18 or so years would really suck. I’m not sure what they get back if that happens though.

I saw a USAF SrMS not being promoted and having to get out with the saving in the bank account. I can be mistaken but that’s what I remember.

 

[Furniture]

Your points are all well taken and understood but given the amount of pushback on any course of action I struggle to see how Canada can sustain any credible force. It appears that the working premise has to be that the defenders will be working from major metropolitan areas and will be gainfully employed for 25 years after which they will be compensated with a full pension. Given that it is difficult for anybody to sustain a high level of physical fitness for 25 years, and harder when being physically abused, I can't help but wonder how many young, fit, "bayonets" are going to be available to close with and engage the other.

My understanding is that we have no real difficulty recruiting young fit "bayonets", we struggle with recruiting and retaining technical trades.

For the technical side of the house, we need to compete with civilian employers who pay about the same, don't require frequent moves, don't require constant non-job related training(gas hut, ranges, etc.), and are located in/near major urban centres.

Do we know that we don't have a pool of short timers available? We know that the School system needs modifying in any event. What type of housing is required for your young short timers on course vs lifers living on the community.

The CAF already accommodates "short timers". People don't sign up for 25 years when they enrol, and they are free to leave at any time during their service, unless they have obligatory service due to training, so it's not a lack of short term options that is our main issue.

My understanding is that the average recruit course isn't full of 18 years old kids fresh from their parent's basements. Part of what hurts us now is that people have to spend months living in single quarters, away from their families, before they are trained.

As to leading to failure... are we succeeding now?

No, but we can fail harder and faster... A sure way to do that would be to encourage people to get out as soon as they get to the point they are experienced enough to train the next generation.

WRT the northerners, I agree that it would be challenging. On the other hand it is apparently challenging to find southerners willing to live and work up north.

The solution to the bolded problem is likely more automation, and short rotations like oilfield workers/miners. It might also require some leaders getting comfortable with the notion that their Jr. pers will get more time off work than they do.

 

[daftandbarmy]

My understanding is that we have no real difficulty recruiting young fit "bayonets", we struggle with recruiting and retaining technical trades.

For the technical side of the house, we need to compete with civilian employers who pay about the same, don't require frequent moves, don't require constant non-job related training(gas hut, ranges, etc.), and are located in/near major urban centres.


The CAF already accommodates "short timers". People don't sign up for 25 years when they enrol, and they are free to leave at any time during their service, unless they have obligatory service due to training, so it's not a lack of short term options that is our main issue.

My understanding is that the average recruit course isn't full of 18 years old kids fresh from their parent's basements. Part of what hurts us now is that people have to spend months living in single quarters, away from their families, before they are trained.


No, but we can fail harder and faster... A sure way to do that would be to encourage people to get out as soon as they get to the point they are experienced enough to train the next generation.


The solution to the bolded problem is likely more automation, and short rotations like oilfield workers/miners. It might also require some leaders getting comfortable with the notion that their Jr. pers will get more time off work than they do.

All things are possible assuming 'money'.

 

[Furniture]

All things are possible assuming 'money'.

Which is why little is possible in the CAF

 

[Kirkhill]

My understanding is that we have no real difficulty recruiting young fit "bayonets", we struggle with recruiting and retaining technical trades.

For the technical side of the house, we need to compete with civilian employers who pay about the same, don't require frequent moves, don't require constant non-job related training(gas hut, ranges, etc.), and are located in/near major urban centres.

Maybe the CAF shouldn't be competing with the civilian employers. Maybe it should engage them directly and hire civilians to supply services rather than trying to train and retain people that are working with 30 year old technology.

And if it is true that there is no trouble recruiting 18 year old bayonets then build a system that will recruit and train 18 year old bayonets (that learned how to fly an FPV drone sitting on their mother's couch).

 

[Furniture]

Maybe the CAF shouldn't be competing with the civilian employers. Maybe it should engage them directly and hire civilians to supply services rather than trying to train and retain people that are working with 30 year old technology.

That works, right up until it doesn't because Bob/Jill won't go to work on Saturday night during an Ex in Wainwright because it wasn't part of the contract, or the Commander won't authorize the OT.

There is a reason militaries around the world don't all go with civilian contractors for support occupations. It's not because it hasn't been tried, or that they are all stupid.

 

[FJAG]

All things are possible assuming 'money'.

It shouldn't have to be solely about money - or at all.

If you can offer adventure and/or opportunities for cost free (in fact paid) training for a future career in civilian life it should go a long way.

The CAF, and especially the army, needs a whole new model for recruiting and service which entices the herds of young graduates that come out of high school each year without prospects. There are roughly 300,000 graduates every year. 10% of graduates are unemployed, 14% of those who didn't graduate are unemployed. Roughly 420,000 reach military age annually. That's a broad pool to draw on if we offered something and advertised and did it right.

Maybe the CAF shouldn't be competing with the civilian employers. Maybe it should engage them directly and hire civilians to supply services rather than trying to train and retain people that are working with 30 year old technology.

Why don't we skip all that and just hire a mercenary army from third world countries at a pittance?

There's a valid role for civilian contracted services. But we've already gone too far and lost many of our capabilities to maintain our equipment fleets in house. Those programs are constantly criticized in audits as crippling our capabilities.

Our problem is that we are still using 1950s and 60s service models (slightly tweaked) and yet degraded through recruiting and IT processes that are only a fraction as effective as those from seventy years ago.