Reconstitution

[SupersonicMax]

I keep hearing this. But where I grew up, the athletes were the worst perpetrators of all four activities!

And, if we look at Hockey Canada’s issues, still are.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Notice how the names of the alleged perpetrators have been released, just like in the military?

Oh wait.

They have lawyers.

And so get due process.

 

[TCM621]

Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.

My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.

The residual problem is the purple trades. That said, we already have them select uniforms so let's make that stick by having them actually take their initial training in that environment. Let the cooks and the like do their BMQ and language training within their chosen environment and then come together at Borden for trades training but then return them to their environment for the bulk of their service. That might be complicated in some cases but it will work for the vast majority.

While I do actually subscribe to the idea that there is a lot of truth to the idea that everyone [can be] a rifleman if required, there is some merit to element specific BMQ. An element specific BMQ would allow the services to do away with courses like NETP, SQ and BAEQ. They would start absorbing the lingo from day one. As someone who has been in all three services, they have their own languages in a lot of ways. Students could be put through scenarios that are more likely to be seen in their careers. We could add some of the skills one now picks up on other courses and probably end up with course that are similar in length to what we have now. In the RCAF case it would probably be a little shorter as they have 2 very distinct part between aircrew and technicians (including ATISS). Basic could be a little shorter and get them on their next phase of training quicker.

As for purple trades, we could either split them by element or we could give them their own "element". They could train together and have their own DEU while wearing the working uniform of whichever element they work in.

I think we would still need a number of common skills and we could have a core curriculum that everyone, in every element, has to take. This could include things like drill (element appropriate), personal weapons, first aid, etc. Then ea h element would fill in the blanks with what they think is important. I remember all the stuff I learned in Basic 25 years ago and the average Soldier doesn't learn half of those things anymore, but since they are all still mostly needed the Army created another course altogether.

Each element already has schools in place that could do this, if you gave the elements back all the St. Jean positions, they could run these element specific courses at the CTC in Gagetown, WATC, the fleet schools in Esquimalt and Halifax, the ACA in Borden with very little difficulty).

 

[TacticalTea]

Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.

I think we all agree here that BMQ should be an element-specific thing. Haven't seen anyone put forward a good reason not to.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Making everyone come through a combat arms trade is a absolutely ridiculous idea.

Wholeheartedly agree. It's a hangover from the JArmy mentality that resides in Ottawa for some reason.

Every time this comes up I roll my eyes. Just more examples of how the CAF needs to break away from this constant Army spin on things.

Even the Army has seen this schism between Combat Arms trades, Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and HQ Support. We all have a role to play, and each trade and corps provides different effects.

The CO of 3 RCR told me point blank he didn't need another infantryman with a different cap badge; he needed a skilled tradesman that could make sure he had C2 to get his people killing bad guys efficiently. If I couldn't be that skilled tradesman, I was useless to him.

I couldve been thebhardeat charging airborne Pronto in the Army, but if I didnt know my stuff.... no Bueno.

If the Army to wants to do that, fill yer boots. But the rest of CAF shouldnt have to do something because one element has an overwhelming inferiority complex.

We don't. Honestly.

A lot of times it's foisted down on the Corps because a lot of the L2/3 positions that make those decisions lose sight of what support enablers bring to the fight. Its less inferiority complex than it is "these soldiers dont look soldiery enough for me... fix it."

"Soldier first" is slowly dying and good riddance. We train folks to a degree that is unwarranted for the realities they face on Day One of OFP. Me learning how to muddle my way through a section attack isn't going to save anyone's life in the real world. Our TTP in Afghan for us in the Column? "Stay in the truck, leave if things get too dicey, let the FP elements deal with it."

We don't train as we fight, mainly because we train poorly to perform tasks we never will in real life. But ..."hooray.. Army.... close with and destroy.....blah blah."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How many "hardship" postings are there really?

I get sea duty for the Navy. For the Air Force? I keep hearing about Cold Lake and Bagotville.

Comox. Esquimalt/Pat Bay. Trenton was trending high enough I became disinterested in MAISR.

Places without PLD like Greenwood that were considered affordable 5 years ago are trending up in COL and housing while offering very little in terms of employment for spouses/SOs. Coldbrook -> Wolfville is less attractive driving with fuel prices where they went and are staying.

You’d be better to ask the question “what Wings are viewed as affordable?” at this point.

12 Wing with a house in the Passage, as an example; PLD and short commute.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Do you really need a uniformed tech for those jobs at all?

I've had people fixing control systems by modems for over 30 years. Loggies? Do they need to be military at all? Those people in "managerial" roles - could we strike them from the 60 or 70,000 reg force PYs and add them to the civvy rolls at NDHQ, or even as consultants.

And, as you note, spare the uniforms for the short term youngsters.

I think is depends. From the Navy side we need shore billets to create some semblance of sea to shore ratio, no matter how broken that is currently.

I def think we have positions in supply that could be better filled by, ideally, retired MMTs. But we need billets in all lines of supply to properly develop our people.

Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.

My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.

The residual problem is the purple trades. That said, we already have them select uniforms so let's make that stick by having them actually take their initial training in that environment. Let the cooks and the like do their BMQ and language training within their chosen environment and then come together at Borden for trades training but then return them to their environment for the bulk of their service. That might be complicated in some cases but it will work for the vast majority.


Hoo-Boy. Where to start.

After growing up in Toronto but spending almost all of my adult life in Manitoba (where I met my wife) we moved back to Ontario around 15 years ago. I think I can say that with a kid in Ontario and one lived in Alberta and now in BC I can fairly say I've got my foot in both places and can honestly say that each has their pluses and minuses.

My point is that most young people these days do not start off with the idea that they want to live elsewhere. They want a job, they want opportunities, they want to stay connected with family, they want some stability and if there is a chance to visit new places and do new things then so much the better.

I can't help but believe that if we can offer a person from Winnipeg a career which let's him remain in Manitoba lets say for 10 years, or a person from Vancouver a chance to stay in BC then we'll do better in recruiting. Currently only people from Quebec, while not having such a promise, have the odds in their favour of a career in their home province.

Do we even have statistics on what today's youth really want?

@FJAG I owe you an apology, sorry if I was harsh. I get my hackles up at this idea, and others. I will suck back and reload next time.

We totally agree. The services should be split including a disbandment of the Log branch with those pers belonging to their service. All stop.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Does anyone know if the RCN or RCAF have released a plan yet?

Don't really expect anything, on the RCN side, but unless we tie up and retire some ships, while slowing down the ops tempo (including random fleet exercises) we don't have a hope in hell, and ships will 'self retire'. Believe we're still pulling instructors to fill at sea billets, and we've broken the schools anyway.

While I haven’t seen a RCAF one myself, it’s been referred to for quite a while and we’ve changed some of the ways we do business and think. I’m on leave but will check to see if there is an official RCAF or Air Div document.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Vitriol aside, I agree. I'd go further in fact. There is no need for a common BMQ. It wastes time and increases costs. IMHO recruits should be funneled directly into Army, Navy and Air Force streams and start training within their services environment. If that means three separate recruit schools, then so be it.

My BMOQ was done at CFOCS Venture in Victoria and it impressed me with what the Navy was. A young sailor shouldn't spend the better part of their first year inland in classes having nothing to do with the Navy. BMQ and even language training should be given in a Navy environment, and, if possible, blended with Navy specific skill training so that they are properly developed in their formative year with a sense of belonging to the Navy. The same for the Air Force and the Army. Have sailors train sailors, soldiers train soldiers and aviators train aviators from the get go.

The residual problem is the purple trades. That said, we already have them select uniforms so let's make that stick by having them actually take their initial training in that environment. Let the cooks and the like do their BMQ and language training within their chosen environment and then come together at Borden for trades training but then return them to their environment for the bulk of their service.

Agree, but as long as the CAF is one service we will continue down this bumpy, meandering side road we are on now as a military.

We need to change the piece below, but I don’t believe it will happen.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agree, but as long as the CAF is one service we will continue down this bumpy, meandering side road we are on now as a military.

We need to change the piece below, but I don’t believe it will happen.

View attachment 74324

It's really just personnel management policy that needs to change, isn't it ? We have the titles and services already in place.

I mean, you could even keep common schools for the branches that are pan CAF. We don't need a triplicate of systems and processes like HR, Fin or Supply. Just management of people according to their uniforms. Including, in the Log Branch, different merit standings and CM depending on uniform.

The more I learn about unification the more I realize that was the point it really all fell apart.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yup I agree. But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service. People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.

I’d change that, despite how small our Armed Forces are.

 

[KevinB]

Yup I agree. But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service. People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.

I’d change that, despite how small our Armed Forces are.

Honestly IMHO the Purple trades need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice - one can have a "One CAF" and still have the different elements with their own personnel. Some of those separate things may intertwine, and share common courses, but I would suspect that a Supply Tech in the Army, has vastly different materials to be familiar with than the Navy or AirForce, and while the process may be common - the items are not.

 

[KevinB]

Wholeheartedly agree. It's a hangover from the JArmy mentality that resides in Ottawa for some reason.

Even the Army has seen this schism between Combat Arms trades, Combat Support, Combat Service Support, and HQ Support. We all have a role to play, and each trade and corps provides different effects.

The CO of 3 RCR told me point blank he didn't need another infantryman with a different cap badge; he needed a skilled tradesman that could make sure he had C2 to get his people killing bad guys efficiently. If I couldn't be that skilled tradesman, I was useless to him.

I couldve been thebhardeat charging airborne Pronto in the Army, but if I didnt know my stuff.... no Bueno.

We don't. Honestly.

A lot of times it's foisted down on the Corps because a lot of the L2/3 positions that make those decisions lose sight of what support enablers bring to the fight. Its less inferiority complex than it is "these soldiers dont look soldiery enough for me... fix it."

"Soldier first" is slowly dying and good riddance. We train folks to a degree that is unwarranted for the realities they face on Day One of OFP. Me learning how to muddle my way through a section attack isn't going to save anyone's life in the real world. Our TTP in Afghan for us in the Column? "Stay in the truck, leave if things get too dicey, let the FP elements deal with it."

We don't train as we fight, mainly because we train poorly to perform tasks we never will in real life. But ..."hooray.. Army.... close with and destroy.....blah blah."

When one looks at the USMC, and their "Every Marine, a rifleman" concept, it isn't suggesting that all trades be a blood lusting death tech of extreme skill - it just means that everyone has some common understanding of land warfare - they can shoot, move and communicate.
Realistically it should not inhibit anyones primary role to also be familiar with that, the biggest issue occurs more when certain trades or pipelines do a left turn and think they are a gunfighter first, and there is no one doing their primary role, that is when the wheels truly fall off the cart.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yup I agree. But we don’t have “services” right now we have a single service. People don’t “join the RCN/RCAF”, they join the CAF.

I’d change that, despite how small our Armed Forces are.

Right, but when a Boatswain, Infanteer or AVN Tech joins they are managed within their element. Simply do the same for everyone.

Right now I fall under CMP. Take away CMP and insert RCN. Just like the rest of the anchor wearing Navy folks.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Honestly IMHO the Purple trades need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice - one can have a "One CAF" and still have the different elements with their own personnel. Some of those separate things may intertwine, and share common courses, but I would suspect that a Supply Tech in the Army, has vastly different materials to be familiar with than the Navy or AirForce, and while the process may be common - the items are not.

Agree 100%.

 

[Halifax Tar]

When one looks at the USMC, and their "Every Marine, a rifleman" concept, it isn't suggesting that all trades be a blood lusting death tech of extreme skill - it just means that everyone has some common understanding of land warfare - they can shoot, move and communicate.
Realistically it should not inhibit anyones primary role to also be familiar with that, the biggest issue occurs more when certain trades or pipelines do a left turn and think they are a gunfighter first, and there is no one doing their primary role, that is when the wheels truly fall off the cart.

Small arms competency should be an everyone job. But for most that should be simple and safe operation of the fire arm.

Anyone should be able to stand gate guard.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Honestly IMHO the Purple trades need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice - one can have a "One CAF" and still have the different elements with their own personnel. Some of those separate things may intertwine, and share common courses, but I would suspect that a Supply Tech in the Army, has vastly different materials to be familiar with than the Navy or AirForce, and while the process may be common - the items are not.

Unification was never supposed to see this happen. Personnel Branches were an afterthought along with CF Greens and unified ranks.

The C&E Branch is slowly heaving it's final breaths and for good reason. Any common ground because "we all are communicators..." is no longer. The RCN hold onto their folks with fervor, the RCAF and the ATIS trade want back under Air Ops, the Sig Int folks want to run off with CFIOG, while the RCCS wants our heritage and traditions back entirely. There wasn't the pay off that was envisioned when this all kicked off.

Now factor the Log Branch and you'll see similar fault lines.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Right, but when a Boatswain, Infanteer or AVN Tech joins they are managed within their element. Simply do the same for everyone.

Right now I am fall under CMP. Take away CMP and insert RCN. Just like the rest of the anchor wearing Navy folks.

It would be easier and quicker to change at that level, but also easier and quicker to reserve when the next CDS doesn’t like it. Change the legislation and that would be harder for future good idea technicians to reverse back to that meandering road we’re on now as a military.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It would be easier and quicker to change at that level, but also easier and quicker to reserve when the next CDS doesn’t like it. Change the legislation and that would be harder for future good idea technicians to reserve.

That's a good point. Look at the way Army plays silly buggers with the PLQ/JLC every couple years.

Maybe take the easy road to get the ball rolling and change the legislation as time goes on.

 

[KevinB]

Small arms competency should be an everyone job. But for most that should be simple and safe operation of the fire arm.

Anyone should be able to stand gate guard.

I think it needs to go beyond Gate Guard, as anyone should be able to conduct (or be a useful contributor to) an effective defense. Most should be able also to conduct a limited attack with suppression, fire and movement.

That should be a week at most for any trade.
Then a few days of refresher annually.