Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

[orange.paint]

So besides courses ran for trained troops (mcpl and above) if armoured officers and recruits are re-directed the armoured school will slow down considerably.Maybe freeing up quite a few people to move back to the regiments.

Actually looking foward to hopefully hearing more of this tomorrow.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Don't know about "human rights" issues, but it's not impossoble someone could make a contract law point ...

 

[HItorMiss]

I think it maybe less of the people who are in the pipe right now so to speak and more of change in the contratc type to follow on recruits making them aware that for X years you well be trained as an Infanteer them employed for y years as an Infanteer, then after thats time ( likely the length of the BE) you will be moved into the trade of your inital choice.


Or mayb the CDS has been drinking lot's of Grog of late and has decided to start press gangs again  "Drink up boy's for tomorrow you'll be in Meaford"

 

[George Wallace]

So besides courses ran for trained troops (mcpl and above) if armoured officers and recruits are re-directed the armoured school will slow down considerably.Maybe freeing up quite a few people to move back to the regiments.

Actually looking foward to hopefully hearing more of this tomorrow.

That proposal would throw the Schools back into the "Hole" they found themselves five to ten years ago.  It would only aspirate the problem.   Less Instructors and Staff only means less people being trained to fill the Regiments.   We would be recreating the problem we found ourselves with and are only now correcting for.  It would be a gigantic step backwards to cut back at the Schools to fill up the Regiments.

 

[orange.paint]

I'm under the whole "its the army you'll do as told or bye bye"clause.Personally if General Hillier says your going infantry you are.I can't see it working for everyone but seldom do plans ever work for everyone.

I'm confused on what happens for the corp and other trades for the next two years.But I'm sure someone has a plan for that too.Speaking with the news I'm sure General Hillier never got the question"what about attrition rates in other trades?"Hopefully we all will be addressed as to the plans pertaining to each of our trades.

As for human rights its an employer saying we currently have no positions in these trades.How the heck is that against human rights?It's like going to a work site and them saying listen I know you came out to be a carpenter but we got no positions left.So how about we pay you the same wages to be a laborour.Then as a free person you can decide.

That proposal would throw the Schools back into the "Hole" they found themselves five to ten years ago.  It would only aspirate the problem.   Less Instructors only means less people being trained to fill the Regiments.   We would be recreating the problem we found ourselves with and are only now correcting for.  It would be a gigantic step backwards to cut back at the Schools to fill up the Regiments.

Probably but as I alluded to in the earlier paragraph,were proably not seeing the whole story.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think it maybe less of the people who are in the pipe right now so to speak and more of change in the contratc type to follow on recruits making them aware that for X years you well be trained as an Infanteer them employed for y years as an Infanteer, then after thats time ( likely the length of the BE) you will be moved into the trade of your inital choice.

Yeah - going in with it over your head from the start is VERY different than pushing someone down a different fork in the road later in the process.

 

[childs56]

Human rights issues I think not.

 

[Patrolman]

Working in the training system I repeatedly see young soldiers enrolled as armd,eng.arty, and so on who really want to be infantry. Some are duped at the recruiting centers where they are told that once they complete there basic they will be able to change trades. Which is a lie ! As of now soldiers are not able to change trades until at least after they have completed there DP 1.  Which in my opinion is a huge waste of resources and money.

Many young soldiers on SQ's are exposed to what the infantry actually does, then want to change trades to do the cool stuff. I see this almost every time I teach on a SQ course. So in my opinion re-roling people should make it easier for all those who really want to be infantry but for whatever reason are in trades that are not their first choice.

 

[Gunner]

I'm under the whole "its the army you'll do as told or bye bye"clause.

So does this mean we no longer have to hear you bitch about being posted to the armour school?

Just asking.

 

[orange.paint]

Nope.It's a god given right with posting.Said so on my posting message. ;D
I don't mind the school,just want to get back to being a soldier again.

 

[Gunner]

Roger that!

 

[ArmyRick]

Since i teach DP 1 INF (RegF), it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Is it just arty and armored, or will they include other trades (a few log folks perhaps from CFSAL?)  ;D

 

[392]

Is it just arty and armored, or will they include other trades (a few log folks perhaps from CFSAL?)  ;D

Who knows. Hopefully they throw a few extra bodies our way too....

 

[rampage800]

Might be a short term solution, but I really think the CDS is robbing Peter to pay Paul with this. I know that the TF is based off 3 Inf Coys(4 including the one going to the PRT) but I know all the other Cbt Arms units are short too and when 08 roles around and Areas start having to do sole sourcing(meaning they'll have to draw from units within the Area, unlike whats going on now) it'll really start to show.
I agree that the Inf should get the lions share of recruits but if the other units don't get anyone say for a year and a half, with attrition, postings, etc they won't have time to train they're guys for the tours ie PCF and when they do get the guys the trainers will be doing workup training themselves.
I don't know what the answer is on this one, maybe they could look at bringing in more reservists for when the TF originally stands up or before that(a year as opposed to 6 or 7 months) That would allow the host Bn to place the pers on PCF course as well that aren't run in their home units ie LAV Gnr instead of trying to plug holes based on what quals a guy shows up with. Anyhow just a thought(I'm gonna get hammered on this, I just know it.
Anyhow just my 2 cents

 

[Edward Campbell]

I may be waaaay out of my lane now but, about twenty plus years ago, I challenged some of my friends in the upper echelons of some of the more attractive, technical branches to consider reviving and reforming the old LOTRP (Land Operations Trade Reassignment Programme – I think; maybe the Alzheimer’s is kicking in already).

Why, I asked, did we need to have private level soldiers in e.g. the C&E and EME Branch technical trades?  Why could we not insist that soldiers ‘re-muster’ into these trades from combat trades – after, say, three and a half years of good service which would mean that by the time they completed trade training they would be corporals?

I understood that such a process could not happen all at once – those technical trades need a steady stream of people, but it could be accomplished, I thought over a fairly short, say three year, period.  New Zealand, if I recall correctly used to do this – maybe they still do.  (They also did much (most? all?) of their theoretical (academic) technician training in their polytechnic colleges which are the equivalent of our community colleges.)

I never did get a good, solid “cannot be done, and here’s why” answer.  Most of the people to whom I spoke liked the idea but wondered if they would get enough of the right people – if, in other words, youngsters who wanted to be technical tradesmen/soldiers would join the army knowing that they had to serve three plus years in the combat arms first.

One (or more) of my colleagues offered that such a programme would work if and only if it was applied to all army trades and, maybe, even to air force trades, too.  He (they) saw nothing wrong with that.

One stumbling block was gender equality.  Could enough women, some wondered, complete combat arms training and serve for three plus years?  Enough, they asked to help meet the overall personnel needs of the CSS trades and to satisfy the (then) unwritten quotas?

It still seems to me that such a system would be desirable and fair IF it could be implemented efficiently and effectively.

 

[GAP]

Edwards suggestion would go a long way to eliminating the empires in the CF. Everyone is initially a grunt...the rest later.

Do we have the time?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Just going to play devil's advocate here for a bit.  So every shiny face that walks into BMQ knows they're bound for 3 years combat arms, and, after that 3 years, they get the trade they want.... riiiiiiight.  What happens at the purple schools when 300 air frame or whatever techs all show up at once?  Where do the 300 fully trained infanteers come from to replace them?  How does the admin train keep up with the OT paperwork?  At the end of three years, does the kid just stop showing up at battalion until his trade training starts?  Riiiiiiight, pt2.  There would be a dodecadillion "the checks in the mail, Pte. Slivo, now hump that ruck" memos flying around the regiments. Okay, pile on... >

 

[Jed]

I completely agree with and support Edwards suggestion / proposal for giving the CFs best long term End State however; in my opinion we do not have the time to allow the process to produce the results; a steady state of trained, qualified service men and women.

As before both world wors and probably Korea, we need to cut a lot of red tape, and reward our personnel for producing results not just for doing the right thing according to whatever rules and regulations apply. For example, do we really need to waste time, money and equipment to accredit folks for 404s on a milcot (Civi chev truck), or do other training that people already have ?

The Army needs people now, not just infantry, but tradesmen, cooks, etc. In my opinion, the Army is at war and we need to mobilise. It is debatable whether the Navy and Air Force are though. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I can see the sense in Edward's position.

What is the status of someone that signs up to drive a LAV or man a turret?  Is he an infanteer or a Black Hat?  Carry a radio: infanteer or signaller?  Man a mortar: infanteer or gunner? Crew a TOW det: infanteer or blackhat or gunner (they have all claimed the job)?  Lay or clear and obstacle:  pioneer or engineer?  Drive a truck: infanteer or transport?

Maybe this is just one radical attempt to eliminate parochialism and push towards a single Combat Arms classification.

The "every soldier a rifleman" ethos may not have to be pushed back beyond the combat arms (including engineers) to include the technicians of the world responsible for repairs and maintenance where there is more emphasis on competing with the civvy world for skills and less emphasis on, shall we say, recruiting those that wish to aggressively engage with the enemy.

 

[big bad john]

I may be waaaay out of my lane now but, about twenty plus years ago, I challenged some of my friends in the upper echelons of some of the more attractive, technical branches to consider reviving and reforming the old LOTRP (Land Operations Trade Reassignment Programme – I think; maybe the Alzheimer’s is kicking in already).

Why, I asked, did we need to have private level soldiers in e.g. the C&E and EME Branch technical trades?  Why could we not insist that soldiers ‘re-muster’ into these trades from combat trades – after, say, three and a half years of good service which would mean that by the time they completed trade training they would be corporals?

I understood that such a process could not happen all at once – those technical trades need a steady stream of people, but it could be accomplished, I thought over a fairly short, say three year, period.  New Zealand, if I recall correctly used to do this – maybe they still do.  (They also did much (most? all?) of their theoretical (academic) technician training in their polytechnic colleges which are the equivalent of our community colleges.)

In the Royal Marines if you want to be in a CSS trade their are two ways to go: A) Join the Army and take the All Arms Commando Course and then get posted to the Commando Logistics Regiment.

or B) Spend three years as a Marine, then apply to be a signaller or any of the other 26 trades.