Rick's Napkin Forces Challenge

[KevinB]

As to NAVCAN not surveilling the airspace, I hope that is not true. I would find it disconcerting if they were only aware of the things they expected to see in their airspace and unaware to the unexpected.

Radars are not equal.
Most (if not all) commercial radar systems for air control/observation get assists from transponders on aircraft, in short they look for stuff that wants to be seen.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/asr-11/

Military Search Radar put out significantly more power and are designed things that don't necessarily want to be seen.

You can fly at a decent altitude any civilian air traffic control radars don't have clue you are there.
US Military entities do RUT's all the time - and they use a "few" LO's to deconflict - because people complain when "Black" helicopters fly down their street at nose to navel level some times.

It isn't the FAA or NAVCAN's job to control the airspace - it is their job to manage traffic in it.

 

[lenaitch]

The way I understand it, NORAD operators are divided into three ascending 'desks'; surveillance, identification and weapons (interceptor control). No doubt, an anomaly noticed by a NAVCAN controller would be shared, but any given ACC is only looking at their particular area - they don't have the big picture, and they don't have roles dedicated simply to look for something that shouldn't be there, nor do their systems have any algorithms for that purpose that I am aware of. Most air traffic control depends on technical cooperation of the aircraft (transponders, ADS-B, SatNav). As mentioned, aircraft that want to be seen. Primary radar (echo only - no transponder) has been relegated to a back up role and is generally limited to about 60NM (altitude dependent).

And I'm not naïve enough to believe that when a couple of Bears skip along the edge of our airspace, NORAD's first awareness is a blip on the NWS.

 

[Kirkhill]

Seeing as how this discussion seems to have run its course -

What happens if:

The Woke Party Government is replaced in a general election.

The new Government of the Day (GoD) was elected on a platform of putting Canada back on the world stage and reinvigorating its alliances and international responsibilities.

After discussions with the civil authorities and the Strategic Joint Staff it is determined that the Woke Parties reforms have secured the Defence of the Realm within the existing 1% of GDP budget.

Due to Canada having retreated from its already meagre international position GoD knows that it will have to spend to regain its credibility. Accordingly GoD is committing an additional 1% of GDP to the Defence budget for Mutual Defence, meeting the NATO target. It is also committing to spending 0.7% of GDP on international aid. Money is no longer a consideration.

Recruiting continues to be an issue. Consequently the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is capped at 15,000 uniformed personnel, matching the National Defence Force (NDF) commitment. The two forces are maintained as totally separate entities.

What does JEF look like?

JEF is responsible for both all international war fighting and for all rapid response humanitarian aid.

 

[Kirkhill]

And I'm staying out of this discussion.

 

[ArmyRick]

JTF-2 was born from and trained by the RCMP SERT, police officers who already had a pretty good handle on DOMOPS ROE. The CF had a good understanding of OUTCAN ROE as we'd been playing that game since the 1970's in Cyprus. The biggest challenge was making the bridge between the worlds and understanding that just because the ROE say you can shoot someone doesn't mean you should.

With the wholesale divestment of the Reserves and many other capabilities to the civilian sector and the ongoing militarization of civilian law enforcement in this scenario, I'm surprised that the Woke Party didn't table /pass some type of Posse Comitatus Act.

The Woke Party of Canada proudly does not identify as American and thus want no part in the Yankee Posse Comitatus Act

 

[ArmyRick]

Glad to see things back on track. ROE is important but probably better for a discussion on another thread

I am seeing lots of good way out of the box thinking. I suspected UAVs, highly trained troops (SOF or very skilled infantry), good comms, etc are all common themes here.

I was working on my napkin forces in between my 36 hour work days and because of the influences here, I find myself tearing up old ideas and starting again.

KevinB, I trained infantry soldiers for YEARS (mostly RCR but some Patricias) and I always found their was better more efficient ways to train soldiers as part of efficiency. What are some thoughts you have on better training infantry? Do you think basic infantry would benefit with a toned down "selection" (fitness and mental check activity based on what every SOF uses for the uninformed)?

Kirkhill, if I read what your doing, you are taking the SAR coverage of the nation and expanding on it for combat forces for observe, detect, act idea?

 

[KevinB]

KevinB, I trained infantry soldiers for YEARS (mostly RCR but some Patricias) and I always found their was better more efficient ways to train soldiers as part of efficiency. What are some thoughts you have on better training infantry? Do you think basic infantry would benefit with a toned down "selection" (fitness and mental check activity based on what every SOF uses for the uninformed)?

Yeah, I think a lot more could be done on the conventional side for training.

I don't know so much as a mini selection or watered down selection simply because they aren't trained troops yet - and while you can included aspects from those - I think the biggest gain is tailoring the courses to a modern and practical desired outcome.

Personally I saw a LOT of wasted training time on courses - I also think a lot of archaic stuff needs to be stripped from the syllabus.
Part of the issue (in my opinion) is the system is really bad at acknowledging the reasons that certain things where added.

Frankly I'd launch pretty much all kit and quarters stuff out the window - it was designed to teach attention to detail, and these days that time could be much better used to teach that in a relevant way.
Foot and rifle drill I'd par down to a skeleton.

I'd start weapons training with the pistol - its harder to shoot better (weight to trigger ratios) and also requires much better safety disciple - plus pistols and pistol ammo is cheaper

Bayonet training would be gone, but more medical and comms training, as well as general weapons proficiency.

I think you could get a significantly more skilled soldier in less time by revamping the method.


More to follow -

 

[Kirkhill]

Some more interesting info gleaned on a Sunday morning - from the 2020 Minister's Briefing Book

Canadian Armed Forces 101 - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

Flipbook – Transition binder 2020 - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Proactive divulgation - Transition binder - Minister of National Defence

www.canada.ca

Kirkhill's Summary Statement of DND/CAF

Departmental overview​

Mandate​

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF) are two distinct but complementary entities working together to fulfill the Canadian government's mission to defend Canadian interests and values, and to contribute to international peace and security.

They make up two important parts of the overall national security structure of the country.

• The CAF’s mandate is to protect and serve Canadians.
• DND’s mandate is to enable the CAF’s activities.

Represented in more than 3,000 communities, DND/CAF have a significant footprint and economic presence in every province and territory.

I'm not entirely sure about the DND's mandate. There is a support requirement. But isn't there also a requirement to manage the security service that the Government of the Day has hired? Anywho....

	Budget	Total	Civilian	CAF	Regular	Effectives	In Training	GAC	Reserve	Rangers	Justice
	MCAD	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees	Employees
MND		1	1
DMD		1	1
Corp Sec	15	201
ADM HR-Civ	87	1200	1200
ADM Policy	36	207	165	42
Leg Adv	26	81	28	5							48
JAG	11	350
ADM PA	32	283
ADM Review	132	160	160
ADM Finance	143	450	450
ADM Mat	6100	4600	3220	1380
ADM Infra	1900	3100	2700	400
ADM IM	428	3339	1823	1516
ADM Data	28	67	67
ADM Science	335	1300	1300
VCDS	203	4593	700	3893	3693	2803		890	200
CMP	1301	21538	3610	17928	15798	5050	10748		2130
CIL	217	9668		9668	0				9668
CDS					1	1
SJS	58	329	117	212	212	212
CFIC	128
CJOC	460	2924
RCAF	1068	15561	1518	14043	12074	12074			1969
CA	935	50500	3300	47200	23000	23000			19000	5200
RCN	715	16200	4000	12200	8500	8500			3700
Totals	14358	136653	24360	108487	63278	51640	10748	890	24669	5200	48
Current					68000				27000	5200
SSE					71500				30000
	OMEx	CapEx	Assets	Inventory
	MCAD	MCAD	MCAD	MCAD
ADM Materiel	3,200	2,900	25,260	5,600
ADM Infrastructure	1,200	663	26,000
2 Naval Bases
9 Air Force Bases
11 Army Bases
24 Naval Reserve Divisions in 24 communities
43 Air Force Locations
169 Armouries in 117 communities across Canada
185 Ranger patrols in over 200 remote communities
5376 MCAD Payroll
5600 MCAD Mat Inventory
25,260 MCAD Mat Assets
26,000 MCAD Infra Assets

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill, if I read what your doing, you are taking the SAR coverage of the nation and expanding on it for combat forces for observe, detect, act idea?

Pretty much AR. My sense is that the military is a reactive force when it comes to the Defence of the Realm. It has to wait to be invited to the party by the civilians. Consequently I see the Armed Response as just another step up the ladder from the Civil Response. I see no reason to have the Armed Response organized on a different geographical basis to the Civil Response.

Having said that I do see the absolute need for a clear and distinct Command and Control cut-out / Chinese Wall between the Armed and the Civil. But that doesn't mean that the Armed can't shadow the Civil so that it is at Notice To Move readiness.

 

[Kirkhill]

Seeing as how I have been dragged back into the discussion kicking and screaming ....

Reserve Footprint
24 Naval Reserve Divisions in 24 communities
43 Air Force Locations
169 Armouries in 117 communities across Canada
185 Ranger patrols in over 200 remote communities
185 Ranger patrols in over 200 remote communities
Rangers	5200​
Avg Rangers per Patrol		28​
169 Armouries in 117 communities across Canada
Population	38000000​
Reservists	19000​
Fire (Vol)		126650​
Fire (Paid)	26000​
Police		66748​
Reservists as ppm of population	500​	0.05%​
Fire (Vol) as ppm of population	3333​	0.33%​
Fire (Paid) as ppm of population	684​	0.07%​
Police as ppm of population		1757​	0.18%​
Avg Community Population		324,786
Avg Reservists per Community	162​
Fire (Vol) per Community		1082​
Fire (Pd) per Community		222​
Police per Community		570​
Avg Community per Armoury		224,852
Avg Reservists per Armoury		112​
Fire (Vol) per Community		749​
Fire (Pd) per Community		154​
Police per Community		395​

It seems that you are 6 times more likely to meet a Volunteer Firefighter than an Army Reservist. And they are probably better trained to handle civil emergencies.

Does that mean that we are underestimating the number of willing volunteers there are out there? Or that we should be training people in things they want to learn?

I am not convinced that reserve pay is the primary driver except in the case of students.

Older volunteers, I believe, have very different motivations.

 

[Kirkhill]

A couple of other gleanings

The Vice Chief of Defence Staff - I would not have that job for love nor money

Talk about overstretch

And why, in the name of all that's holy, is he saddled with responsibility for cadets and, apparently 9668 CIL instructors and their $217,912,613 - virtually half of his operating budget of $420,277,907.

March 2020 - Vice Chief of the Defence Staff – Lieutenant-General M. N. Rouleau, CMM, MSC, CD​

Archived content​

This page was proactively published to meet the requirements of the Access to Information Act. It is a historical record which was valid when published, but may now contain information which is out of date.

Mandate​

• The VCDS has two mandates:
• Providing strategic direction across the Defence Team and monitoring DND/CAF progress in achieving key priorities.

(Edit: This makes sense)

• Commanding a diverse group of 18 organizations within Canada and abroad that support the entire DND/CAF including:
  • Security, safety, cadets, Reserve Force, capability development, NATO, NORAD, defence liaison, establishment, conflict management, sexual misconduct, military police, National Capital Region administration.

(Edit: Most of this list is jobsworth stuff that should be handled by others)

Key facts​

Total Employees: ~14,241​

• 3693 Regular Force, 890 outside Canada
• 200 Primary Reservists (full & part-time)
• 700 Employees of the Public Service
• 9668 Reserves Supporting Cadets

Budget: $420,277,907​

• $217,912,613 – Cadets & Junior Rangers
• $77,786,121 – Operations & Maintenance
• $47,947,441 – Civilian Salary Wage Envelope
• $19,698,796 – Primary Reserve Salary
• $45,348,700 – Carling Campus Project

Lieutenant-General M. N. Rouleau, CMM, MSC, CD

VCDS placemat[PPT, 2.4 MB]

Primary location(s):​

• National Defence Headquarters (Pearkes & Carling), Uplands, Bases/Wings;
• 69 Countries: United States (Colorado Springs, Washington), United Kingdom (London), Belgium (Brussels), Germany (Niederheid), Italy (Naples), France, Australia, Korea, etc.

Key Partners​

Internal:​

• Minister of National Defence Office
• Deputy Minister Office + Associate Deputy Ministers
• Chief of Defence Office and Strategic Joint Staff
• ADM(Policy), Judge Advocate General
• Commanders (CAF Formations & DND senior officials)
• Ombudsman

External:​

• Central Agencies
• Public Services and Procurement Canada, Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada
• Public Safety and Portfolio
• Transport Canada
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North American Aerospace Defence Command, United Nations
• Global Affairs Canada and Foreign Embassies in Ottawa
• Five Eyes Military Partners: Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Top issues for Vice Chief of the Defence Staff​

Implement the Defence Services Program (DSP)​

• To date, 66 Capital Projects made it through the various phases to close out, with 230 of the 333 files, or 69% of the total Defence Policy Capital Projects either in Implementation or Complete.
• DND will seek project authorities for more than 40 capital projects between now and end of Fiscal Year 2021/22.
• In the 5-year period from Fiscal Year 2017/18 to Fiscal Year 2021/22, it is estimated that Capital Spending will utilize approximately $16 Billion dollars on a cash basis from the Capital Investment Fund.

Force Mix and Structure Design​

• Objective: To design a Canadian Armed Forces that is fit-for-purpose to conduct concurrent operations and is relevant.
• The Chief of Force Development and key stakeholders continue validation of Force Employment demand and supply analyses to understand risks and option space for structural changes (Phase 1).
• Analyze the impact of Phase 1 results on the supporting Force Generation and Institutional structures (Phase 2 & 3).
• Begin implementing structural changes to address gaps or risks.

Operation HONOUR​

• Established in 2015, Op HONOUR is the CAF’s mission to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian military.
• Currently developing a Unified Policy.
• Office of the Auditor General's Management Action Plan sets several deliverables due 1 October 2019:
  • Operation HONOUR Performance Measurement Framework;
  • Canadian Armed Forces Operation HONOUR Campaign Plan;
  • Duty to Report Working Group Recommendations.
• Closely monitoring the Heyder-Beattie settlement implementation as it relates to this file.

Complete Move to National Defence Headquarters (Carling)​

• Complete move of 9,300 DND employees & military members by 30 March 2020.
• From Nov 2019 to March 2020 this will entail: Delivery of Building 2, Pavilion and Building 10 with an approximate capacity of 2,500 employees.
• Remain within the Project fit-up of final moves budget of $537 Million.
• Schedule is currently extremely tight with risk of minor slippage into April 2020.

 

[Kirkhill]

March 2020 - Strategic Joint Staff - Major General Trevor Cadieu​

Archived content​

This page was proactively published to meet the requirements of the Access to Information Act. It is a historical record which was valid when published, but may now contain information which is out of date.

Biography​

• Appointed Director of Staff (DOS) 24 June 2019
• 28 years in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) with Operational tours to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan and Israel.
• Commanded at all levels of the organization

Mandate​

• Provide situational awareness, military analysis and decision support to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)
• Conduct strategic level engagement with other government departments, allies, and partner nations
• Conduct strategic analysis to achieve military strategic effects
• Develop and distribute CDS directives and orders
• Plan and support Force Posture and Readiness
• Synchronize CAF strategic sustainment and support
• Arms control verification
• Integrate Gender Based Analysis Plus into CAF policies and operations.

SJS placemat[PDF - 2.5MB]

Key facts​

Total Employees:​

• 212 CAF / 117 civilian

Budget:​

• $58 Million

Primary location(s):​

• National Defence Headquarters (Pearkes Building)
• Carling Campus

Key Partners​

Internal:​

• Privy Council Office
• Canadian Security Intelligence Service
• Public Safety and Portfolios
• Canada Border Services Agency
• Communication Security Establishment
• Other DND/CAF organizations (ADM (Policy), Judge Advocate General, ADM Science & Technology)
• Chief of Staff to Minister

External:​

• North Atlantic Treaty Organization
• Five-Eyes Partners (US, UK, NZ, AU)
• North American Aerospace Defence Command
• United Nations

Top Issues for Strategic Joint Staff​

Command Support to the CDS​

• Lead the Strategic Command and Control program that directly enables the CDS to make command decisions for the planning and execution of CAF operations. This includes the development of CDS directives and orders, military analysis, and decision support to the Chief to enable their role as principal military advisor to the Government of Canada. This also involves planning the CAF’s activities across the globe that ensure operational sustainability of CAF operations.

Threats to Canada, North America, and Allies​

• Develop strategy, policy, advice and plans for the CDS on efforts to address threats stemming from terrorism and the actions of violent extremist organizations, including in ungoverned spaces.
• This effort is done in close coordination and collaboration with the Government of Canada’s national security team, and with allies and partner nations. The CAF remains ready to respond on short notice for global response.

Force Posture and Readiness​

• Develop an analytical tool that measures CAF posture and readiness to conduct domestic and international operations in order to fulfill the CAF core mission mandate and concurrent operations target identified in Canada’s defence policy − Strong, Secure, Engaged.

Defence supply chain management​

• CAF lead for Defence Supply Chain Governance which includes upkeep and modernization, as well as interoperability with allies, key partners, and industry.
• Provide sustainment and support statement advice to the CDS, coordinate logistic support across the CAF and ensure balance between operational effectiveness and strategic resource management.

Strategic Effects and Targeting​

• CAF lead for the coordination of strategic effects and targeting in support of CAF operations.
• This includes using an outcome based decision making methodology as the primary means for synchronizing effects, setting priorities for strategic capabilities and resources in pursuit of Government of Canada and CAF objectives.

 

[Kirkhill]

March 2020 - Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy) - Peter Hammerschmidt​

Archived content​

This page was proactively published to meet the requirements of the Access to Information Act. It is a historical record which was valid when published, but may now contain information which is out of date.

Biography​

• Appointed in January 2018
• 21 years in the Public Service, including at National Defence, Public Safety, and the Privy Council Office

Mandate​

• Provide the Minister with advice and support on the implementation of Canada’s defence policy
• Generate policy input for Canadian Armed Forces operations
• Manage the Minister’s international defence and security relations
• Provide the Minister with policy advice on continental, as well as international defence and security
• Advise and support the Minister in fulfilling Cabinet and Parliamentary responsibilities
• Engage external experts to address defence and security policy problems (Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security)

ADM(POL) placemat[PDF - 2.4MB]

Key facts​

Total Employees:​

• 207 (165 civilians, 42 military)

Budget:​

• $35.578M across three votes
• Vote 1 O&M - $4.672M
• Vote 1 SWE- $16.588M
• Vote 5 - $262K
• Vote 10 - $14.053M

Primary location:​

• 101 Colonel By (Pearkes Building)

Key Partners​

Internal:​

• All Defence Team

External:​

• Other government departments – Central Agencies, Global Affairs Canada, Public Safety and Portfolios
• Defence and Security Expert Community
• United States Office of Secretary of Defense
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Five-Eyes Partners

Top Issues for Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy)​

Continental Defence Policy​

Challenge: Evolving threats to North America, including in the North and in emerging technologies, particularly within the space and cyber domains.
Next steps: ADM(Policy) leads the development of advice on continental defence policy, including to modernize North American Aerospace Defense Command. The Group is also leading ongoing policy work to enhance and advance DND/CAF’s cyber and space posture.

Strategic Defence Policy​

Challenge: Conduct research to support DND/CAF and Government of Canada in addressing hostile state activities directed at Canada and its allies.
Next Steps: support defence policy work that:

• Safeguards earmarked investments for enduring capability requirements while also accommodating new pressures;
• Delivers strategic guidance and seeking associated authorities/resources for pressing requirements;
• Moves out on the government’s identified way forward issuing refreshed implementation strategies for existing policy directives.

International Security Policy​

Challenge: Informed by Canada’s foreign and defence policy priorities and in direct support of Canada’s strategic interests, maintain and strengthen relationships with like-minded partners and develop or enhance relations with rising global actors.
Next steps: ADM(Policy) provides advice to the Minister of National Defence based on policy considerations, feasibility assessments, resource and other constraints, in consultation with the Canadian Armed Forces and other government departments.

Support to Parliament and Cabinet​

Challenge: the Minister is accountable to Parliament and Cabinet for government-wide defence activities. Defence issues typically garner significant attention from Parliament.
Next Steps: ADM(Policy) leads the preparations for the Minister’s engagements in Parliament and Cabinet.

 

[Kirkhill]

After reading the Mandates of, and Resources available to, the VCDS, the SJS and the ADM (Policy) is it just me or does the whole question of strategy seem to be thinly resourced? And muddled?

Edit: PS I am not casting aspersions on the people in office or their character of abilities. When I read their mandates, and look at their resources, I conclude that developing Strategy is a secondary task to be fitted in amongst all the trivia of running an office.

 

[FJAG]

My sense is that the military is a reactive force when it comes to the Defence of the Realm.

Yes and no. When you are discussing disaster relief or aid of the civil power then, yes. The feds need an invitation to the party from the province. If we're talking a shooting war type of thing the the feds can take action anywhere in the country on their own hook.

Consequently I see the Armed Response as just another step up the ladder from the Civil Response. I see no reason to have the Armed Response organized on a different geographical basis to the Civil Response.

Again, there is a constitutional difference. An armed response in an aid of the civil power scenario is a provincial maintenance of order role while a shooting war armed response is a fed defence of the country role.

Like I said, you can always change the constitution but I'll lay you dollars to donuts no one ever will.

For me the present arrangement is sound and practical in that your day-to-day "light" armed response is provincially organized and trained to meet local conditions while your armed response "heavies" are trained centrally to a common standard and can be deployed anywhere across the country in a scale tailored to the situation. It provides a good balance between day-to-day responsibilities and capabilities vs surging resources in an extreme emergency. Solid coordination and liaison bridges the two forces.

Geographic location of the "heavies" is theoretically independent of the above but in practice a geographic distribution already exists anyway.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes and no. When you are discussing disaster relief or aid of the civil power then, yes. The feds need an invitation to the party from the province. If we're talking a shooting war type of thing the the feds can take action anywhere in the country on their own hook.


Again, there is a constitutional difference. An armed response in an aid of the civil power scenario is a provincial maintenance of order role while a shooting war armed response is a fed defence of the country role.

Like I said, you can always change the constitution but I'll lay you dollars to donuts no one ever will.

For me the present arrangement is sound and practical in that your day-to-day "light" armed response is provincially organized and trained to meet local conditions while your armed response "heavies" are trained centrally to a common standard and can be deployed anywhere across the country in a scale tailored to the situation. It provides a good balance between day-to-day responsibilities and capabilities vs surging resources in an extreme emergency. Solid coordination and liaison bridges the two forces.

Geographic location of the "heavies" is theoretically independent of the above but in practice a geographic distribution already exists anyway.

Yes. The Feds can. The civilian political masters.

They decide if it is time to engage in a shooting war and if the "heavies" will be employed or will just be left in their barracks - after the fashion of the Danes in 1940. The Government of the Day had an army but chose not to engage the German Army who was invading a neutral country. Some Danish soldiers disobeyed orders and offered some minor resistance but were quickly overwhelmed.

Neither DND nor the CAF can instigate anything in the absence of clear instructions from the Civil Authorities.

In Provincial turf the Feds generally need approval from the Lt Governor in Council. But not always.

In the Territories and beyond the 3 mile limit the Feds can do what they please. I believe they also have a free hand in the airspace over all of Canada and its maritime estate, including that over the Provinces.

So I stand by my earlier comment. I see the CAF as reactive. Reacting to events and the decisions of the civilian masters. They stand between their civil agents, like the Coast Guard and the Mounties, and their military agents, the Canadian Armed Forces.

 

[Haggis]

Personally I saw a LOT of wasted training time on courses - I also think a lot of archaic stuff needs to be stripped from the syllabus.

When I worked in NCMPD, there was a constant cry from the schools and units of "We need courses to be shorter!". When we asked, "What should be cut to make them shorter?' the answer was usually "Everything is important!". This was followed by "We want candidates to arrive better prepared for training." "Will that allow you to shorten your courses?" we asked. The answer was generally "No."

Part of the issue (in my opinion) is the system is really bad at acknowledging the reasons that certain things where added.

Sometimes things were added that were not part of the curriculum which became part of the curriculum "because we've always done it this way" or because units/branches asked for it. A case-in-point was when bayonet fighting was briefly added to the recruit syllabus at CFLRS in around 2010 because it was discussed in the Mess and the leadership thought it was what the Army wanted.

 

[KevinB]

When I worked in NCMPD, there was a constant cry from the schools and units of "We need courses to be shorter!". When we asked, "What should be cut to make them shorter?' the answer was usually "Everything is important!". This was followed by "We want candidates to arrive better prepared for training." "Will that allow you to shorten your courses?" we asked. The answer was generally "No."

Sometimes things were added that were not part of the curriculum which became part of the curriculum "because we've always done it this way" or because units/branches asked for it. A case-in-point was when bayonet fighting was briefly added to the recruit syllabus at CFLRS in around 2010 because it was discussed in the Mess and the leadership thought it was what the Army wanted.

I always like to ask Why/So What to things.
I'd really like people to be required to defend the Why of what is individually added to courses.
A vast amount of rifle and foot drill has remained for no actual purpose - forming a square to repel calvary is entirely irrelevant these days.
Rifle cleaning - having seen people go so far as to remove the flash hider off rifles to clean the muzzle crown - and usually scraping it - as well as soldiers using simply green etc to clean weapons to get them "inspection clean" is an example of where soldier nor staff understand what is needed to be cleaned on the rifle - and a fruitless make work task to teach attention to detail - that could be done in much better ways - as well as not then being destructive to the weapons.

Physical fitness - I really think in this day and age that the CAF can do better, I remember when the 1VP Mountain Man team had a nutritionist brought in to help our training - this should be done at the beginning with recruits - and fitness managed throughout ones career. So many soldier are lost to injuries that could have been prevented by a well thought fitness plan - both individually and collective training in this respect.

Education - what are we teaching our soldiers and why - what can we do to make a better thinking soldier?

Mental Health - shit happens, suck it up isn't a good solution, but what can be done to better prepare soldiers for stress and horrors?
I didn't think the CAF did a good job here - there was way to much bravado in certain training that while it may psych soldiers up to do a task (or in theory) it didn't prepare them for the aftermath of those tasks. There needs to be a lot more effort put into make the physiological preparedness for losing with an destroying the enemy - as well as seeing ones friends and fellow soldiers ripped apart.


I think SOF globally does a much better job in these than the conventional armies - and it really doesn't need to be so - sure some will come with increased costs - but other costs can be lowered simply do to the sheer economy of scale increases from SOF number to the conventional side. As well these 'enablers' also allow the SOF units to streamline - and if done correctly gain a much more talented pool to select from - as well as some pre-selection done already.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think SOF globally does a much better job in these than the conventional armies - and it really doesn't need to be so - sure some will come with increased costs - but other costs can be lowered simply do to the sheer economy of scale increases from SOF number to the conventional side. As well these 'enablers' also allow the SOF units to streamline - and if done correctly gain a much more talented pool to select from - as well as some pre-selection done already.

The 5% pass rate helps with quality control too

 

[KevinB]

The 5% pass rate helps with quality control too

1% of the 1% for a reason...

But outside of that - selection is looking for phobias, morality/ethics/self discipline, physical fitness, the ability to gut through stuff, and interpersonal skills. Not all disqualifiers for SOF would be applicable to the conventional army.

I remember a little thing I did down here - we where going for a nice jog, with a telephone pole, some jerry cans and tires. A buddy of mine was a former 18E, and another came from the West Coast SEALS - we got to the "finish line" and where told to keep going, and almost half the group mentally buckled - and 2 quit, and a few started really bitching - I laughed, and so did two of my buddies, because we knew the finish line wasn't going to be at the finish line - and it was just as much a mental exercise as a physical one. Both the SEAL and I had broken ribs from the obstacle course earlier - and the 18E had a ruptured ear drum from a "relaxing time in the pool". Note the best physical performer on that - we peered out by blackballing - as they where selfish and a bit of a boastful douche, but not a team player at all, oddly not a SEAL

The goal needs to be something people will work for though - you just can't torture and "gut check" folks in training all the time - or your force will be broken a lot of the time.