Noah you say the other services are changing trade and occupations too, but I seem to hear more about how the RCN is looking into change in general with more analysis. Is the RCN more ahead in their plans to deal with the future? Perhaps VAdm Topshee has just been better at communicating where the RCN is at than the other commanders.
I think it's a combination of both. Army Modernization is still fresh, thiugh there have been changes. The Air Force isnt nearly as extensive but they got several new trades (security, space) coming in.
Publicity certainly plays a role. Navy is more outgoing, more in your face. A lot of that is Topshee. He is a media person. He likes being outgoing and in the press, and encourages orhers to be the same. That creates a culture of discussion and sharing that we don't see a lot from the Army and Air Force. Not to the same extent at least.
Navy is definitely very forthcoming with their struggles and plans. That is something that they do very extensively is keeping you informed on whats happening. Not always the easiest to find that info but it is out there.
Just curious if changing the current 9 into 13 positions will require an increase to the number required to man each platform? Will this further strain the already low recruitment numbers for the Navy?
I don't see changes to the Hull tech trade where they amalgamated many of the trades and lost a whole bunch of people, something the RN did with the same problems and warned the RCN not to do.
Interesting. I'd love to dive into one line in the release a little more, "pay considerations and the protection of specialized skill sets." I could be mistaken, but is this about ensuring that the RCN is offering competitive pay packages for different skill sets? What I mean is, many public sector organizations struggle to retain skilled workers because the private sector is freer to offer better pay packages when a specific skill set (like certain areas of IT) becomes more valuable. While I've heard that the Aussies like to snipe our skilled submariners, I assume that loosing our soldiers to other militaries is not what we are most worried about, but rather the much more lucrative big tech companies south of the boarder. I am always hearing about the CAF's retention problems, and while I understand some of that is people getting frustrated with slow and poorly planned training, I imagine CAF has the same problem as all public sector organizations, that the private sector will try and scope their best people. The CAF at least has the advantage of fixed term contracts, but the root of the problem likely remains the same.
What I am rambling around saying, is this process also tied to the CAFs attempt to improve personnel retention, not just AGEIS?
the US does this by sheer force of numbers and very very specialized roles with high turnover
Noah you say the other services are changing trade and occupations too, but I seem to hear more about how the RCN is looking into change in general with more analysis. Is the RCN more ahead in their plans to deal with the future? Perhaps VAdm Topshee has just been better at communicating where the RCN is at than the other commanders.
I think it's a combination of both. Army Modernization is still fresh, thiugh there have been changes. The Air Force isnt nearly as extensive but they got several new trades (security, space) coming in.
Publicity certainly plays a role. Navy is more outgoing, more in your face. A lot of that is Topshee. He is a media person. He likes being outgoing and in the press, and encourages orhers to be the same. That creates a culture of discussion and sharing that we don't see a lot from the Army and Air Force. Not to the same extent at least.
Navy is definitely very forthcoming with their struggles and plans. That is something that they do very extensively is keeping you informed on whats happening. Not always the easiest to find that info but it is out there.
Just curious if changing the current 9 into 13 positions will require an increase to the number required to man each platform? Will this further strain the already low recruitment numbers for the Navy?
I don't see changes to the Hull tech trade where they amalgamated many of the trades and lost a whole bunch of people, something the RN did with the same problems and warned the RCN not to do.
Interesting. I'd love to dive into one line in the release a little more, "pay considerations and the protection of specialized skill sets." I could be mistaken, but is this about ensuring that the RCN is offering competitive pay packages for different skill sets? What I mean is, many public sector organizations struggle to retain skilled workers because the private sector is freer to offer better pay packages when a specific skill set (like certain areas of IT) becomes more valuable. While I've heard that the Aussies like to snipe our skilled submariners, I assume that loosing our soldiers to other militaries is not what we are most worried about, but rather the much more lucrative big tech companies south of the boarder. I am always hearing about the CAF's retention problems, and while I understand some of that is people getting frustrated with slow and poorly planned training, I imagine CAF has the same problem as all public sector organizations, that the private sector will try and scope their best people. The CAF at least has the advantage of fixed term contracts, but the root of the problem likely remains the same.
What I am rambling around saying, is this process also tied to the CAFs attempt to improve personnel retention, not just AGEIS?