Author Topic: "$3M cut to naval reserves"  (Read 8607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mariomike

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 197,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,836
    • The job.

Offline Teeps74

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
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
#116 | Rank: 68 | Cbt Exp: 341,062 | Msns: 738

Online Pat in Halifax

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 15,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 469
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 546
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
  • *
  • 61,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,546
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
  • *
  • 178,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23,188
  • 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 Myth
  • *****
  • 145,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,803
  • 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
  • *
  • 61,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,546
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
  • ***
  • 5,380
  • 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 Myth
  • *****
  • 145,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,803
  • 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
  • ***
  • 5,380
  • 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
  • *
  • 26,267
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,543
  • 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

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 20,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 394
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
  • *****
  • 13,940
  • 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
  • *****
  • 229,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
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"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر
#4 | Rank: 1141 | Cbt Exp: 1,490,908,671 | Msns: 10,525

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 229,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
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"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر
#4 | Rank: 1141 | Cbt Exp: 1,490,908,671 | Msns: 10,525

Offline Lex Parsimoniae

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,940
  • 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:

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 20,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 394
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
  • *****
  • 229,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
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"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر
#4 | Rank: 1141 | Cbt Exp: 1,490,908,671 | Msns: 10,525

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
  • *
  • 108,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,028
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 546
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.

Offline kratz

    Mentor.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 108,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,028
  • White Ensign
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2010, 09:41:01 »
The concept of regional reserve training centres has some merit, with a major hurdle. Travel distance and times.
As things are currently, when reservists must travel more than 1.5hours away from their unit, regular attendance becomes more of a challenge.

In your suggestion, between the suggested Western RRCT and Central RRCT is close to 2000kms. If we apply Treasury Board's travel standards, there is a wide gap in between the remains out of reach of potential sailors.
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 milnews.ca

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 173,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,703
  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2010, 11:08:49 »
STOP the world. I want off. The NDP is defending the military.  :moose:

from CBC.ca
Are the planets in line?  More from the NDP's web site - highlight mine:
Quote
Reports suggesting Canada’s already cash-strapped Navy is facing a $3 million cut to its reserves are alarming for sailors. New Democrats are calling this five percent budget reduction a major blow during what should be a year celebrating and strengthening Canada’s navy.

“The Harper government is more than happy to use the navy’s centennial to serve its own public relations agenda, but it is clear that there isn’t the same enthusiasm when it comes to providing the navy with adequate resources,” said New Democrat Defence Critic Jack Harris (St. John’s East).

The cuts are expected to reduce training for reserves by 50 percent, with five of the Navy's 12 coastal patrol vessels unable to go to sea because of a lack of funds or crew, according to a reserve spokesman.

In May, Canada's Marine Command ordered half of the navy’s coastal patrol vessels to be tied up due to a shortage of both money and sailors. After questions from New Democrats in the House of Commons, the decision was quickly reversed.

“While the May decision to mothball six vessels was reversed it is apparent that a cut in reserve budget will have the same effect,” said Harris. “These ships can't sail without sailors.”

New Democrats have long questioned the government’s priorities when it comes to defence spending.

“The irony is that the Conservative Government’s defence policy is called Canada First,” said Harris. “However, we have seen the responsibilities for patrolling Canada’s coast line and search and rescue take a back seat to the astronomical cost of the war in Afghanistan.”
I don't think this is as much an ideological stance as a "cuts to work in the home riding/ridings with NDP reps" stance.
Like what you see/read here at Milnet.ca?  Subscribe, and get great swag while helping keep the lights on!

"Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress."  Mahatma Gandhi

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 20,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 394
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2010, 11:26:43 »
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.
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...

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...



Seen.  Thanks.
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline N. McKay

  • Mentor
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,259
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2010, 17:28:59 »
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.

That would take away the principal naval presence from 20 communities, many of them inland, to the detriment of the public's knowledge of the navy as a whole.  The Naval Reserve's purpose is broader than just providing MCDV crews and individual augmentation of other units.  It has an important role in connecting with the population of a country, many of whose inhabitants have never seen salt water.

The Forces as a whole did something similar in the '90s when we consolidated bases and withdrew from many smaller centres in favour of a few "super bases".  Might have saved some money but we've paid for it in other ways.

Offline kratz

    Mentor.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 108,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,028
  • White Ensign
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2010, 09:53:17 »
from the Chronicle Herlad

Quote
Stoffer: Reserve cuts 'wrong way to go'

By JEFFREY SIMPSON Provincial Reporter
Tue. Jul 13 - 4:53 AM
New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer says cuts to naval reserve training will come at a cost to the Halifax area where 215 members are based.

"Every time you do these cuts it has a ripple effect, there’s no question about it," Stoffer, who represents Sackville–Eastern Shore, said Monday.

Naval reserve training is being reduced by about $3 million, or five per cent, across the country’s 24 naval reserve divisions, which have 4,132 reservists. Between 15 and 20 full-time positions will also be eliminated as contracts expire this year and aren’t renewed, according to the Department of National Defence.

Stoffer said the changes will also hurt the navy’s ability to recruit regular force members.

"They’re the wrong way to go," he said. "What you’re doing is you’re affecting morale, you’re affecting recruitment, and you’re affecting training and that is simply not the way to go.

"Besides the cadet programs, the reserve programs are the best possible areas where you can bring people in that have other jobs or university studies, for example, allow them a feel and the taste of the navy. An awful lot of the people who are in the regular service now were part of the reserves at one time."

Stoffer said the spending cuts will also affect the reservists’ readiness to serve.

"Even though it’s only a few million dollars, what you’re doing is diminishing our capability in the event that we require those types of folks in the future," he said.

"If you’re looking to save money within the Defence Department, there’s many ways you can do it without having to cut these reserves first."

Commander Denise LaViolette, a spokeswoman for the navy, said she didn’t know the exact extent to which Nova Scotia’s reserve division would be affected but expected it would be minimal.

The training programs being reduced consists primarily of "refresher training for routine skill sets that have already been learned," such as for firefighting and damage control, she said.

"The majority of people who were getting this training weren’t actually deploying on ships," she said.

"The reduction on an individual person is quite minimal because it was just a few training days. Normally they get about 45 per year, so there will be a loss of maybe three to four training days for them this year."

About 15-20 positions of the 2,110 naval reservists on full-time employment throughout the Canadian Forces will be eliminated, LaViolette said.

About 893 of those people are on contracts of 180 days or longer, while 1,217 have contracts of less than 180 days, she said.

"There’s been reallocations because there’s been higher priorities that have required readjustments and reallocations of money," she said.

"It’s just part of fiscal management."

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 dapaterson

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 127,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,926
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2010, 10:14:39 »
A loss of 4 trainig days on 45 represents a cut of just under 10% to the class A reservist.  Interesting how class A reserve pay is always seen as flexible, but Regular Force pay is somehow sacred - we'd never dream of standing down the Reg F for a week or two to meet a fiscal crunch.


And though I'm not a sailor, I suspect that refresher training on damage control and firefighting could be seen as rather important skills to maintain in the Navy.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline kratz

    Mentor.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 108,624
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,028
  • White Ensign
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2010, 10:34:00 »
*SNIP*

And though I'm not a sailor, I suspect that refresher training on damage control and firefighting could be seen as rather important skills to maintain in the Navy.

Yes, those are part of most trade's CRRs and if they are not current, you can be DAG'ed red and not deployable.
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 GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 319
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2010, 22:33:43 »
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.
I suspect what would happen is that is the reserve units would shut down and the department would then spend the next 25-30 years  doing studies and conducting seminars on weather to build  the training centres
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline jewalsh

  • Guest
  • *
  • 11,933
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 24
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #33 on: October 20, 2010, 07:10:20 »
A 3 million dollar cut to NAVRES was the easiest decision that NDHQ and the government could have made.

PSS Esquimalt alone saved about 1-2 million FYI (although many deadbeats were posted there!)

The MCDVs on the West Coast were so poorly managed at MOG 4, that people quit serving on these vessels. The home port duty watches were outright atrocious. They changed their home port policy afer ten years since their ignorance of morale lost out to a very bit of reason.

NAVRES has failed to train and encourage people to stay in the Naval Reserves since they first introduced C-OJT in 2003. People enduring their OJT phases were treated like 12 year old children. They had very little opportunities to learn their real jobs due to poor selection of OJT instructors and even poorer selection of most senior staff. Umm lets jam 15 people on a ship that is very small and expect all trainees to learn their job to a satisfactory level in less than two months with poor leaders guiding them.

I worked my *** off to get the best training possible for NAVRES personnel. However the "Old boys club" decided that I was too strong and held me back.

To be honest, there is a lack of leaders on extra MCDVs to encourage the spending of 3 million dollars. An entire full time crew plus 20-25 class B billets is 3 million dollars. Oh sure there are enough people promoted into positions that are meant to fill leadership roles to fill the REMAR easily. However those extra people lack any real leadership to actually run a MCDV or anything actually. Those same dead end Lt(N)s and POs work only to promote their "buddy buddies" and the next hot *** that can give them some mess entertainment.

It makes me sad that NAVRES continues to pay life time dead end Lt(N) and POs to stay in their position of nothingness at NRDs and disqualify real candidates for promotion in NAVRES due to the 'Old Boys Dead Weight constitution drafted Febrary 31 1999.n

I too would cut the NAVRES budget by 3 million after seeing the quality of leadership and lack of dedication of the 24 NRDs.

Offline airmich

  • Mentor
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 347,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,055
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2010, 19:53:47 »
... with poor leaders guiding them.
Are you counting yourself into that?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,97021.msg980137.html#msg980137
Quote
I have done the best job possible (maybe ever) when I backed a PO1 position as a senior OJT instructor in 2006 when I was the supervisor of the largest department for that summer. Also my people got the best training out of all sections by quite a bit.

PSS Esquimalt alone saved about 1-2 million FYI (although many deadbeats were posted there!)
At the time that PSS was stood up, it was a great necessity.  The pers posted there worked long, hard hours in nasty weather and positions.  My hats off to all of them for the job that they did.

The MCDVs on the West Coast were so poorly managed at MOG 4, that people quit serving on these vessels.
People quit serving on them for a variety of reasons:  contracts ended, family and school commitments, decisions to CT or retire.  Do you have published numbers to indicate that reasons for those leaving were because of poor management?

NAVRES has failed to train and encourage people to stay in the Naval Reserves since they first introduced C-OJT in 2003.
I call BS on that.  I was there for 3 years after they introduced C-OJT and they still had people clamoring for Class C contracts which indicates that people were obviously still interested in being a member of NavRes.

Those same dead end Lt(N)s and POs work only to promote their "buddy buddies" and the next hot *** that can give them some mess entertainment.
Do you have published documentation of this fact?  I know a great number of Lt(N)s and POs who know their own position inside and out and ensure that training is regimented and knowledgeable.

It makes me sad that NAVRES continues to pay life time dead end Lt(N) and POs to stay in their position of nothingness at NRDs and disqualify real candidates for promotion in NAVRES due to the 'Old Boys Dead Weight constitution drafted Febrary 31 1999.n
Can you please provide the link for this Old boys constitution?  I am curious to read through it as I have never seen it much less heard of it.


*Note:  I am aware that before jewalsh posted on this topic that it was 3 months old and it should be dead.  I am not trying to "feed a troll" but instead am trying to put into perspective for others that might search for NavRes and read this thread.  Although I am no longer a member of NavRes, I am offended by many of these accusations within jewalsh's post, both for myself when I was a member, and for a large number of friends that are still proud to be called a SHAD.
So I'll raise a glass, not the first nor last, Come join me in this toast...Because the old black rum's got a hold on me ~ Great Big Sea
#2 | Rank: 1148 | Cbt Exp: 1,519,212,236 | Msns: 8,853

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 229,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2010, 15:40:15 »
Found out some more info about the ships that are sitting alongside in Halifax. Apparently the "plan" as it is now is to dock both the KINGSTON and GLACE BAY next year and get them back to sea with a mixture reserve/regular force crew. People are being briefed that some of Coxn billets are being given to PO1 regulars to give them experience. If this is all true it makes sense, the ships are no good to anyone rotting alongside.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر
#4 | Rank: 1141 | Cbt Exp: 1,490,908,671 | Msns: 10,525

Offline DONT_PANIC

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 5,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 54
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2010, 23:27:16 »
If this is all true it makes sense, the ships are no good to anyone rotting alongside.

To a certain extent, I disagree.  I think that even along side, there can be considerable value in using the hull as a training platform for OJT related training.  For instance (I think I may have said this before), it could be an ideal place to get a know your ship book done; a place for stokers to crawl through and get drawings completed; a place to get quartermaster qualifed; a place for NCIOPs to practice flashup and presail checks.  I think the list could go on.  To a certain extent, this sounds a bit like C-OJT of years past (a consolidated location for all OJTs to work on their packages before heading out to the ships for consolidated training).  I can understand the reluctance for going bck to that model, as quality control (in my admitedly limited opinion) was an issue. 

I know the ships that are sailling are often short bodies, but I think the way forward might be for them to each contribute a few bodies to help supervise the OJTs.  These bodies in turn would (hopefully) be replaced by someone from an NRD that while trade qualifed, just needs some refresher training to be brought up to speed.  As packages start getting close to completion, the OJT could start to rotate onto the sailing ships as double banks.  I think that involving the ships actively in the OJT process right from the start might help mitigate some issues from COJT, in that COJT instructors were often (and certainly not always) from NRDs, not from the ships; they didn't have a day to day stake in the quality of the trainees.

The flip side of this is that we should limit the number of OJT contracts given out during the summer months.  If we can't provide meaningful training, we shouldn't give them contracts to begin with.  Simply overstuffing COJT (as has happened in the past) doesn't work.  Without COJT, sending them to the ships doesn't work either, as capacity can often become an issue very quickly.  For instance, during summer of 2010, some ships were gone for weeks, and weren't getting back for weeks to come.  D702 kept sending trainees down to Nanaimo, where they were busy trying to get ready for RRIs and going to see again.  When Nanaimo sailed, they transfered all the excess OJTs (I think there were about 20+ at that point) on the downships with little in the way of meaningful trade supervision.  I head that a number ended up doing demo platoon for BOTC courses being run out at Venture, which brings me back to wondering why they have contracts for OJT, if there is no meaningful plan to get them meaningful OJT? 

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 229,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2010, 23:52:48 »
I agree that what we should be concentrating on now is force generation. There are hundreds of pers in the training pipeline that need OJT. From what I was told COJT is on the West coast this year. As stands now Kingston and Glace Bay are in a state of "preservation" but is fairly easy to reactivate. I did bring up the fact just the other day with CCD that we haven't see anybody on the ship to train and we have 2 wonderful training platforms to train on, Scotian is spending Wed nights on board and conducting training. What I would like to see is both ships with reduced manning operating out of Halifax this coming summer and conducting as much OJT as we can to get bodies trained. Until NAVRES spends more money on OJT which they aren't right now we won't see any OJT's for a while. We are wasting a golden opportunity right now to train people. It also doesn't help that 2 ships are being sent to NATO in the med in Mar, not much chance for OJT there.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر
#4 | Rank: 1141 | Cbt Exp: 1,490,908,671 | Msns: 10,525

Offline Snakedoc

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 319
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2010, 23:59:49 »
Scotian is spending Wed nights on board and conducting training.

Perks of being an NRD on the coast.  It would be nice to have some sort of platform to conduct weekly 'Wednesday night' training on during the year.

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 229,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 687
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #39 on: November 16, 2010, 00:07:56 »
Years ago a lot of small units had unit tenders, perhaps we should bring that back?
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر
#4 | Rank: 1141 | Cbt Exp: 1,490,908,671 | Msns: 10,525

Offline airmich

  • Mentor
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 347,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,055
Re: "$3M cut to naval reserves"
« Reply #40 on: November 16, 2010, 05:49:11 »
Perks of being an NRD on the coast.  It would be nice to have some sort of platform to conduct weekly 'Wednesday night' training on during the year.

Years ago, the non-coastal NRDs spent at least 2 weekends in a training year on either coast for a "Pig boat" weekend.  It was mandated and worked into the budget. (Yes, I'm aging myself here  ;))
So I'll raise a glass, not the first nor last, Come join me in this toast...Because the old black rum's got a hold on me ~ Great Big Sea
#2 | Rank: 1148 | Cbt Exp: 1,519,212,236 | Msns: 8,853