Author Topic: "$3M cut to naval reserves"  (Read 7932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mariomike

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 183,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Get on the bus, take a ride with us.
    • The job.

Offline Teeps74

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 359
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2010, 17:28:18 »
More Res love from Ottawa... We love, you, we are trying to grow you... Oh, by the way, can you give us back your budget? We only need numbers, we do not need trained troops, how silly...
"... to fight and conquer in all your battles
    is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
    in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
#151 | Rank: 47 | Cbt Exp: 112,284 | Msns: 522

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 13,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 394
  • There's no NAVY in Ottawa!
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2010, 06:28:54 »
This is indeed unfortunate but before everyone flips, keep in mind that these are typical cuts (5-10%) across the board. Just my Section within my Division of my School had the $$$ available reduced from 50K+ for FY 08/09 to 42K for 09/10 to 35K for 10/11. I am still waiting for next year's forecasted numbers. It is the same everywhere - Do more with less. Interesting factoid here:
-A HALIFAX class frigate at 20 knots on 2 GT (Gas Turbines) burns approx 3800 litres/hr
-On PDE (Propulsion Diesel) at 16 knots burns approx 1500 litres/ hr
-At approx $1/litre for naval distillate (home heating fuel), that equates to $2300/hr...over the course of a few deployments...multiplied by 12 platforms.....a "few" $$$s each month.....My point?....
Teach OOWs to stop driving these things like they are stolen!!!!...save some gas money!
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 490
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2010, 08:15:22 »
Greatly unfortunate. I would say here we go again.

In another thread (6 MCDV to be mothballed, I think), someone complained about the reservists who do nothing but hang around the messes of NRU's and have their beers: But if you keep cutting training and ops budget, what else are they supposed to do ???

Besides, with deficit slaying becoming the "in" thing in Ottawa again, this is probably going to become the norm for the next few years. When Ottawa is in such mode, the peacetime (I exclude ops in Afghanistan here) military has a great big red bulls-eye on its back.

Lets wish ourselves luck.

P.S.: PAt in Halifax: When did M.E.S. get out of fashion? In the old steamers days, it was S.O.P. that wherever we went, it was "Most Economical Speed unless otherwise required for operational purposes".

Offline MCG

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 57,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,413
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2010, 09:54:30 »
In another thread (6 MCDV to be mothballed, I think) ...
What are the chances that this announcement is the fall-out of re-allocating funds to keep the MCDVs operating?
Everyone knew something had to give when that reversal was directed.

Offline George Wallace

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Relic
  • *
  • 171,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,973
  • Crewman
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2010, 10:01:14 »
This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?  This would provide trained Reservists to augment the MCDVs that are still being sent to sea. 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline CDN Aviator

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 122,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,801
  • BD3D Op
    • Association of Old Crows
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2010, 10:06:16 »
More Res love from Ottawa...

Yes thats it, more big bad Ottawa sticking it to reservists again.

 ::)


This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?  This would provide trained Reservists to augment the MCDVs that are still being sent to sea. 

Probably the same reason why the AF tends to group specific fleets together at main bases. Logistical chains are simpler and maintenance resources can be more effectively concentrated.

"Ahh..... F**k it....weapon away !!"

"The only difference between peace and war is where we place our bombs" - General Curtis E. LeMay

Offline MCG

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 57,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,413
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2010, 10:34:56 »
This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?
Probably because it would be contrary to the political debate & direction reversal that now calls to see all maritime costal defence vessels active & defending our coasts.  The 6 vessels that could not be manned will be manned.  There is not the option to put them somewhere else.  Something else had to give.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,93567.25.html

Offline DONT_PANIC

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2010, 19:34:52 »
Probably because it would be contrary to the political debate & direction reversal that now calls to see all maritime costal defence vessels active & defending our coasts.  The 6 vessels that could not be manned will be manned.  There is not the option to put them somewhere else.  Something else had to give.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,93567.25.html


I spent some time last month out west doing some OJT, and what really struck me was that even alongside with no real crew, these MCDVs could be really usefull training platforms during times (like the summer) when there are generally be more trainees (sometimes far too many) that billets on ships that are sailling.  If adequate staff could be provided, they could be used by many trades to complete a number requirements on their various OJPRs, as well as develop a wide range of general seamanship skills.

For instance, it could be a great place to get people double banked as quartermaster and other dutywatch related jobs and start getting people quartermaster qualified.  People could have a chance to crawl through all the spaces in detail and get their know your ship books done.  Trainees could have a chance to go through various damage control evolutions in slow time to get adjusted from how things were done in DC school to how they are done on ship.  No reason the ship couldn't go through flying stations or force protection states either.  In terms of trade development, I assume MESOs would have a great opportunity to work on drawings and such; NCIOPS could go through flashup routines, message processing etc... No reason the cooks can't cook soup/lunch. 

At any rate, this could keep trainees developing usefull skills.  I heard of several people on OJT contracts being sent to the field to act as a demo platoon for a BOTC course instead.  That probably did little in developing any relevant trade skills...

Offline CDN Aviator

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 122,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,801
  • BD3D Op
    • Association of Old Crows
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2010, 19:40:49 »
  If adequate staff could be provided,

I'm sure that is at the heart of the problem....
"Ahh..... F**k it....weapon away !!"

"The only difference between peace and war is where we place our bombs" - General Curtis E. LeMay

Offline DONT_PANIC

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2010, 21:20:41 »
I'm sure that is at the heart of the problem....

I partially agree.  In retrospect, an arrangement like the above sounds similar to the C-OJT program of years past, where trainees would rotate in and out of a ship, and work on other aspects of their OJPR while ashore.  Often, the program just seemed to mass produce personel that were on paper, qualified, but lacked many competencies in practice.  I think that well trained sailors that came out of the program were either very motivated themselves, or benifited from effective divisional petty officers that showed alot of initiative in getting their trainees to sea anyway they could.  I can definetly understand any uncertainty towards trying to repeat the experiment.

Perhaps the solution to providing more supervision could lie in tapping both the NRDs and ships.  For example, lets say  each department on a ship  was able to provide even one trade qualified sailor to supervise trainees on the downship.  This would certainly increase the burden on the remainder of the crew that was sailing and would require standing 1 in 2s instead of 1 in 3.  However, this would also free up another bunk for a trainee at sea.   This would also give the ships much more input into the actual training of the sailors they'd be receiving in the future. 

I think the manning situation might have to get worse before it gets better.  But when we have people on OJT contracts spending their time doing demo platoon on a BOTC course while cutting the budget we should probably be asking ourselves why we are spending money to put them on contract in the first place...

Offline Chunks

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2010, 13:06:40 »
I agree that anything that can be done with the MCDVs while alongside is better than nothing. I think that using the platform as a DC training platform is actually a pretty good idea. DC School is pretty good for the "fighting the fire" aspect, but everything else looks more like a building than a ship.


Perhaps the solution to providing more supervision could lie in tapping both the NRDs and ships.  For example, lets say  each department on a ship  was able to provide even one trade qualified sailor to supervise trainees on the downship.  This would certainly increase the burden on the remainder of the crew that was sailing and would require standing 1 in 2s instead of 1 in 3.  However, this would also free up another bunk for a trainee at sea.   This would also give the ships much more input into the actual training of the sailors they'd be receiving in the future. 

With personnel shortages, I don't think putting more stress on the ship themselves is the solution. I don't know about the frigates, but for the 280, in the CSE department, people are already sailing 1 in 2 pretty much on each trip. The technical knowledge needs to be retained on the ship for her to be able to perform.



People could have a chance to crawl through all the spaces in detail and get their know your ship books done. 

 In terms of trade development, I assume MESOs would have a great opportunity to work on drawings and such... 


I assume you meant MSEO...?

I these points, I totally disagree, the KYSB are class specific. It would be a huge waste of time and resources, unless they are used to train reservists. It's pretty much the same for the equipment. It is useless to work on drawings and equipment that you're not going to use anyway and you'll need to do again once you join a "real" unit...

Basically, the only thing that can be usefully done is training that is general and not class specific... seamanship evolutions, duty watch training, DC training...

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,562
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2010, 13:55:44 »
I guess we have to give this back now:


"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Online MARS

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 374
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2010, 14:32:20 »
I assume you meant MSEO...?

Nope.  He means MESO.  Marine Engineering Systems Operator.  We just increased the MESO QL1 to something like 21 weeks.  They need all the help they can get.
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline Chunks

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2010, 14:37:32 »
... more of the same...

My point still stands...

Offline Lex Parsimoniae

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 254
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2010, 17:48:05 »
I these points, I totally disagree, the KYSB are class specific. It would be a huge waste of time and resources, unless they are used to train reservists.
I’m pretty sure the OP was talking about reservists… ;)

It is useless to work on drawings and equipment that you're not going to use anyway and you'll need to do again once you join a "real" unit...
The Kingston Class don’t qualify as “real” units in your view?

Offline Chunks

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2010, 18:37:08 »
The Kingston Class don’t qualify as “real” units in your view?

Kingston Class with tied alongside with barely any crew on board does not fit as a unit in my book...

Also, I think we need to distance ourselves from the us and them concept. (res vs reg)

I was thinking along more general lines, since we wont have the manpower or money to gainfully employ the MCDVs, we might as well use them to train both reservist and regulars...

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 203,821
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 616
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2010, 19:03:15 »
This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?  This would provide trained Reservists to augment the MCDVs that are still being sent to sea.

That would be a good idea if we had the funds, however to do that and it was looked at to station 1 or 2 hulls in Quebec city for training. Unfortunately things like jetty space and planned maintenance requirements would prevent that from happening.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

كافر
#4 | Rank: 864 | Cbt Exp: 649,141,242 | Msns: 9,203

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 203,821
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 616
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2010, 19:07:50 »
I spent some time last month out west doing some OJT, and what really struck me was that even alongside with no real crew, these MCDVs could be really usefull training platforms during times (like the summer) when there are generally be more trainees (sometimes far too many) that billets on ships that are sailling.  If adequate staff could be provided, they could be used by many trades to complete a number requirements on their various OJPRs, as well as develop a wide range of general seamanship skills.

For instance, it could be a great place to get people double banked as quartermaster and other dutywatch related jobs and start getting people quartermaster qualified.  People could have a chance to crawl through all the spaces in detail and get their know your ship books done.  Trainees could have a chance to go through various damage control evolutions in slow time to get adjusted from how things were done in DC school to how they are done on ship.  No reason the ship couldn't go through flying stations or force protection states either.  In terms of trade development, I assume MESOs would have a great opportunity to work on drawings and such; NCIOPS could go through flashup routines, message processing etc... No reason the cooks can't cook soup/lunch. 


That is an excellent idea and what is being done with KINGSTON right now, however as of 1st Aug the ship is suppose to be preserved and locked up or being turned over to the contractor for preservation. The ships are being mothballed.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 19:11:16 by Stoker »
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

كافر
#4 | Rank: 864 | Cbt Exp: 649,141,242 | Msns: 9,203

Offline Lex Parsimoniae

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 254
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2010, 00:44:03 »
Also, I think we need to distance ourselves from the us and them concept. (res vs reg)
Less comments about the Kingston Class not being "real" units would help. :2c:

Online MARS

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 374
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2010, 02:30:00 »
Unless I am misunderstanding your point, it sounds like you are contradicting yourself.  First you say:

Quote
It would be a huge waste of time and resources, unless they are used to train reservists. It's pretty much the same for the equipment. It is useless to work on drawings and equipment that you're not going to use anyway and you'll need to do again once you join a "real" unit...

then you say:


Also, I think we need to distance ourselves from the us and them concept. (res vs reg)

I was thinking along more general lines, since we wont have the manpower or money to gainfully employ the MCDVs, we might as well use them to train both reservist and regulars...

So which is it?  Waste of time and resources or "might as well use them"???

Quote
Basically, the only thing that can be usefully done is training that is general and not class specific... seamanship evolutions, duty watch training, DC training...


Think about the scope of all of that training you just described.  It is hardly "the only thing that can be usefully done".  We haven't even got around  to discussing MARS officer training, which, prior to ORCA, was conducted exclusively in KINGSTON Class MMs.

There was a whole lot of regular force officer training in KINGSTON Class ships for years - one of the few occupations that didn't was yours - CSEO. 

You might want to find your way back into your lane...
Edited for clarity

« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 14:17:53 by MARS »
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 203,821
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 616
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2010, 14:06:42 »
I find it amazing that after 15 years there are navy personnel who don't have a clue to what the MCDV's do even though we're in the same fleet. Even though we're so cost effective we're simply a easy target to cut. Just go to the CBC news site and listen to the comments, pathetic.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

كافر
#4 | Rank: 864 | Cbt Exp: 649,141,242 | Msns: 9,203

Offline Chunks

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2010, 18:59:07 »
Less comments about the Kingston Class not being "real" units would help. :2c:

Ok, I think I'm not clear enough... :-\

We all know that even though the CDS said on May 14 that the 6 MCDVs were not going to be mothballed "officially," they will just sit in the harbour doing pretty much nothing, specially with the new cut in training. So, in my opinion, those ships, and any other in a similar position, are not real units.

For IRO, we put the ship in dry dock in Dec 09, the crew was scattered among the fleet (specially ATH) and on random tasks (OP Podium, IFR etc.) There was about 30 people left at the shore office, most of them leaving at noon for lack of useful tasks to do and most of them waiting for a posting out of ATH. Can you describe that as a unit? I don't think so... It is only use for administrative reasons. A unit is more than a hull or a building, you need, at least, some kind of cohesion between the members.

My intent has never been to imply that reservists unit were not real units.


So which is it?  Waste of time and resources or "might as well use them"???

Here you're mixing two things...

I said it is a waste of time and resources to train (reg) sailors on equipment they are not going to use because they'll be posted to another class with totally different equipment (I'm thinking more on the technical side here).

The "we might as well use them" as a reference again to the CDS's statement of May 14th. So we are ordered to keep them but we still don't have the manpower or money to deploy them as they are intended to... so we might as well use them for training for both reservists and regulars for everything not class specific...

Think about the scope of all of that training you just described.  It is hardly "the only thing that can be usefully done".  We haven't even got around  to discussing MARS officer training, which, prior to ORCA, was conducted exclusively in KINGSTON Class MMs.

Note that in the quote you used, I clearly mentioned "not class specific" MARS being clearly in that category. So, in a near future, when FELEX will tie most ships alongside, why not go back to using the MCDVs training platform for MARS or any other trade with transferable knowledge...


Offline kratz

    Mentor.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 107,536
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,037
  • White Ensign
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2010, 09:18:08 »
STOP the world. I want off. The NDP is defending the military.  :moose:

from CBC.ca

Quote
Naval reserve cuts threaten coasts: NDP
Last Updated: Monday, July 12, 2010 | 7:12 AM .

The New Democratic defence critic says a cut to naval reserve training will have serious repercussions for how well Canada can patrol its own coastlines.

CBC News reported last week that naval reserve training will be cut by $3 million, or about five per cent of its budget. The training cuts involve staff in Nova Scotia.

"[This] is clearly going to have an effect on the ability of the coastal patrol vessels to operate," St. John's East MP Jack Harris told CBC News.

"[It's the] same as we had heard two months ago, which was supposedly cancelled," said Harris, referring to a controversial federal government decision that would have mothballed some of the country's coastal patrol boats.

Harris said a cut to training will mean there will not be enough reservists to staff Canada's patrol fleet, and that there will be other implications.

"It just means that a lot less activity can go on in the reserve and the reserves have been pretty important ... not only for reserve activity but also for supplying people who'd wish to volunteer to go to Afghanistan," Harris said.

Harris said the cuts undermine the Conservative government's support for the navy during this year's centennial celebrations.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 490
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2010, 09:22:19 »
I think we are now losing sight of the real issue, which is: How can Ottawa claim that they appreciate reservists service and "increase" their numbers and at the same time cut their training/ops budget in half?

This is where the contradiction really is. That ships may and can be taken out of service temporarily or even for extended period of time is a time honoured tradition of the Navy. Heck, Nelson's Flag ship HMS Victory spent most of its active career at anchor, with half crew on half pay!

However, we are not in Nelson's days when it comes to qualifying crew for service (we don't use press gangs for one thing) and when more ships are temporary laid up, you have to find ways to  train, qualify and promote the reservists some other way if your stated objective is to increase their number, otherwise you will have serious retention problems (more than even the current average).

In another thread, I have proposed that we do away with the reserve units (I know, sacrilegious) and save on the cost of maintaining and operating 24 buildings. Instead, they would be replaced by larger, fully equipped regional reserve training centres, full of every conceivable simulators and manned, for the trainers, by regular force personnel. Four such centres, Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and Western, would be required. Atlantic and Western could easily be accommodated on base at Halifax and Esquimalt. Quebec would use the already built naval complex in Quebec city, Ontario could easily move back into a refitted and expanded Great Lakes Tr. Centre located in Hamilton at the current HMCS Star facility.

After completing basic, reservists careers would fall under the control of one of those centres. They would receive a schedule requiring them to attend one week end a month and, at least, two weeks a year, at which time they would receive training. Upon request, they would be sent on longer courses or OJT periods when appropriate or to move up faster. Anyway, its my suggestion.

And by the way, could you younger people out there do me a favour and stop using "random" inappropriately. When you get hit by lightning at the Halifax golf course, that will be random. If you are assigned to odd jobs around the base here and there, these are "various" tasks.

Also, Krazyhamburglar, your tag line is wrong: As far as I know, the oldest frontline warship in the western world is the USS Enterprise, she commissioned in 1961 and is still active. That's 11 years more than IRO.