Saving Money in the PRes (From: The Defence Budget)

[brihard]

I think part of this too is that many reserve units try to compress to many concepts into one training year, as a result budget is spent trying to cover all these issues. I would sooner see Reserve units use a cycle system where we focus on more specific training goals in a year and change roles the following year and so on. by putting the focus on one type of training I think that could save some money.

I can only speak from my experience as the Ops/Trg NCO in one unit. I basically designed much of a number of our exercises for a training year, and there was pressure to try to capture as much collective BTS as possible within single (short) exercises. It ended up forcing us to 'script' tacical scenarios more than I think would have been optimal... But then I think this has always been a problem within the reserves.

It's hard to get much done in a Friday evening - Sunday afternoon exercise. I think most units try to do far too much in that time. There is also often a strong push to operate at platoon level when realistically we should be focusing on the sections and, I would content, worrying about platoons only when doing brigade collective stuff where those platoon commanders get a decent context to operate within. By the time we got to those exercises we'd have sections much better able to do things at their level and roll more quickly into platoon tasks. Just my $.02.

An abandonment of CT within the reserves though? No and hell no. Our leadership need to train too.

 

[WLSC]

I can only speak from my experience as the Ops/Trg NCO in one unit. I basically designed much of a number of our exercises for a training year, and there was pressure to try to capture as much collective BTS as possible within single (short) exercises. It ended up forcing us to 'script' tacical scenarios more than I think would have been optimal... But then I think this has always been a problem within the reserves.

It's hard to get much done in a Friday evening - Sunday afternoon exercise. I think most units try to do far too much in that time. There is also often a strong push to operate at platoon level when realistically we should be focusing on the sections and, I would content, worrying about platoons only when doing brigade collective stuff where those platoon commanders get a decent context to operate within. By the time we got to those exercises we'd have sections much better able to do things at their level and roll more quickly into platoon tasks. Just my $.02.

An abandonment of CT within the reserves though? No and hell no. Our leadership need to train too.

From time to time, there is that good idea fery that comes and try to push to much thing in an exercise.  But, most of the time, in 2 div, the wisdom prevail an we stick to our limited things to do in one exercise.  The BTS are covert during the years training. 

 

[MilEME09]

I can only speak from my experience as the Ops/Trg NCO in one unit. I basically designed much of a number of our exercises for a training year, and there was pressure to try to capture as much collective BTS as possible within single (short) exercises. It ended up forcing us to 'script' tacical scenarios more than I think would have been optimal... But then I think this has always been a problem within the reserves.

It's hard to get much done in a Friday evening - Sunday afternoon exercise. I think most units try to do far too much in that time. There is also often a strong push to operate at platoon level when realistically we should be focusing on the sections and, I would content, worrying about platoons only when doing brigade collective stuff where those platoon commanders get a decent context to operate within. By the time we got to those exercises we'd have sections much better able to do things at their level and roll more quickly into platoon tasks. Just my $.02.

An abandonment of CT within the reserves though? No and hell no. Our leadership need to train too.

CT is valuable for sure, at the Reserve CSS level, nothing ever goes past section level, atleast in my unit. As my signature block suggests (its a qoute from my section commander) my unit has very low turn out due to various major issues. What if though we move some BTS in the reserves to every two years you need a check in the box, not every year? This could give a few more weekends a year to devote to section level training. In my unit a few years ago we trialed a modified training calendar we eliminated 2 wednesday nights and combined them into an extra saturday of training. General idea is more can be done with a full day (especially in CSS) then we can do in a 3 hour parade night. Some how this has saved money set aside for class A pay within the unit, and increased productivity in the unit.

 

[Rifleman62]

This is the presentation I did on CSS Trg as of Nov 05. I bet there are still many of the same problems, although some of it is stale dated. Some pertains only to 38 CBG.

It was sent out of the chain of command to everyone I could think of: 2 Army G4's, the LFA G4's, school Commandants, reserve trg cell Gagetown, etc, etc.

The EME Branch was really screwing around with Army PRes trg as you will see. The notes to the slides amplify the trg problems not only for the Army CSS, but in some cases all Army PRes.

Anyway, my research and opinion at the time. It was difficult to pry the stats from the schools, especially EME.

In four parts:

Slide 5 Notes: We do not have the capability to do Close Support. We do Integral Support, which does not make a difference to the soldier. The 38 CBG Infantry units NEVER establish a CP with command and administration radio nets. Their officers have lost this skill. Their Echelon (CQMS), carries all supplies needed for a weekend. What happens when they have to operate for longer than 36 hours? They will not know how. When we support them it is a matter of liaison and figuring it out from a master events schedule (if there is one!). I have requested Brigade HQ to include Infantry CP BTS’s for 2005/6 Operating Plan.

Side 7 Notes: Part of this problem of getting MSE Op’s qualified QL3 has been alleviated by conducting QL3 Part 1 Conversion (must be Driver Wheeled qualified as a course prerequisite) This means a soldier would be able to get qualified QL3 in one summer, if course vacancies are available, and the soldier was able to get qualified Driver Wheeled during winter LHQ training cycle.

Slide 10 Notes: A LFWA QL3/2 was conducted in 1999, 2003 and in 2005. Three courses in 7+ years (as far as my records go back) for 7 Reserve Svc Bn’s!  17 Svc Bn got one soldier (waited 5 years) on a Borden course in 2004.
A complete QL3/1 was not conducted by LFWA in the summer of 2005. MSE Ops who completed BMQ or SQ during the Winter CITY cycle were, of course, not qualified Driver Wheeled, and consequently did not receive any training. If we can load a soldier on EME Common or a QL3 crse prior to SQ, we do so. That soldier will then take his out of sequence SQ training prior to QL4. 38 CBG only conducts SQ in the Winter CITY period as a COOP crse i.e. High School Student COOP 5 days a week which gives them a High School credit. Therefore the soldier invariably goes to WATC in the summer to get SQ equating to no change on how long to get qualified to MCpl.

Slide 11 Notes: 15, and 17 Svc Bns just got one HLVW in 05 ( 11 and 12 Svc Bns still share one HLVW??)  With only one HLVW it is difficult for the Drivers to stay qualified at 500 Km per year. Also, there will soon be a requirement for Veh Techs to be qualified HLVW Driver/airbrake as a prerequisite for QL3 training.

Slide 17 Notes: EME Common should be conducted by the ASGs, to ensure uniformity across the LFAs. There are several course packages out there, some only 20 training days. 17 (Wpg) Svc Bn has conducted this course 3 years (2003/4/5) during the summer. 38 CBG funded the 2003 and 04 courses. We just received a new CTP consisting of 31 training days. Suggest that EME Common and Driver Wheeled, including HLVW/airbrake be conducted back-to-back in order to get a soldier qualified to go on their QL3 the following summer. The Veh Tech should be qualified LSVW, MLVW, and HLVW. MILCOT, possibly, as repairs for this vehicle are conducted at dealerships (is MILCOT necessary??) A Veh Tech can’t fix them; if they cannot road test them.

Slide 19 Notes: Often only one Anglo course is conducted with 14 vacancies available for 17 Anglo Svc Bn’s. More later.

Slide 21 Notes: In 2007, QL3 course may be 52 training days, or 54 training days if the two blocks are not taken together. The new course may be validated summer of 2006. The QL5 course may also be reduced to 37 training days.

Slide 23 Notes: Only one Anglo course is conducted annually with 10 vacancies for the 17 Anglo Svc Bn’s. More later.

Slide 25 Notes: The difficulty with cooks, is the distinct lack of a 6A qualified cook to order rations so that the cooks can actually practice their trade in garrison and in the field. A Reg F 6A cook must be on the establishment of  P Res Svc Bns to build the new Food Svc Pl. 

Slide 27 Notes: Cook QL4 OJT is identical Reg/Res and is unrealistic. All training is in a Mess environment, none in the field. Includes baking!

Due to the length of time it takes to train Res cooks, seldom do we have a QL6A on unit strength (unless we are fortunate to get an ex Reg F soldier as 17 Svc Bn has – now on his way to Afghanistan – so now there will be no cook training, nor can we deploy our kitchen trailer for the next 10 months). Without a QL6A qualified cook, our cooks can basically do nothing as no one is qualified to draw fresh rations.  A perpetual problem for 17 Svc Bn is that as soon as the soldier gets qualified QL4, they join the Regular Force (3 in less than 2 years). I don’t have a problem with that, as long as they get the QL4 qualification on enrollment (which we had to fight for one ex 17 Svc Bn soldier). The role of the Reserves is augmentation, whether it is for an operation, or enrolling as a career choice. This does add to the problem, as MCpl’s are not being produced, therefore no supervision and no one to draw the rations = no cooking by the QL3’s who get frustrated and either quit, or OT (we lost 2 to the Infantry).
It would be a great benefit if the Reserve Svc Bn’s establishments were amended to include a Regular Force QL6A qualified cook (Sgt or MCpl). I brought this up at the 2003 CO, Svc Bn Working Group, and there was agreement to this proposal. Understand there is probably a Regular Force shortage here, and knitting 19 QL6A cooks would be a problem, but we can at least look at this.

Slide 28 Notes: RMS Clerk, in my opinion, is not a hard CSS MOC, as every unit requires the trade. There are a fair number of courses at various levels. The course content is the same Reg/Res. Some of the training has no relevance to the Reserve. The course teaches the Regular Force pay system, and not the Reserve RPSR. Could not the course be split off at some point to concurrently teach the Reserve candidates the RPSR?

I have not included a set of slides for Sup Tech. There are QL3 courses every summer, and QL5 courses are conducted with some regularity including QL6. Unfortunately, at least in 38 CBG, not many recruits select Sup Tech as their MOC and courses are cancelled. The course content is the same Reg/Res including the CFSS, which in spite of the CANLANGEN, we in 38 CBG do not have access to, other than look in. 

 

[Rifleman62]

Pt 2:

Slide 2 Notes: A very big IF, based on the number of vacancies available annually, course length, the unfunded/underfunded OJT requirement, etc.
A very big intangible here is that the soldier recruited in 2005, may NOT be the soldier who, if they were extremely lucky, and got all the required training every year, is leadership material. It may be the soldier that is recruited in 2006 or 7. Not every soldier recruited will be a MCpl. I say soldier, as with the limited number of course vacancies, we are only training, basically one soldier per MOC per year. This is why we have so few MCpls. More later.

Slide 3 Notes: What civilian employer will allow an employee a leave of absence for the length of the QL3 and QL5 courses, to P Res personnel to attend as instructor augmentees?  Would all of the Federal Government departments?  DND does not have MOU’s with every federal department now for operational deployments or training, and we are talking about the same employer!

Slide 6 Notes: This is best case scenario. It does not mean the soldier has the experience, maturity, and leadership skills to be a MCpl. This does show, how far behind  P Res CSS soldiers are. In The P Res our soldiers e.g. would be in the same Armory, the same junior Ranks Club to socialize, after being on the same BMQ/SQ course. They see a buddy in the Cbt Arms, who was on the same BMQ/SQ course as they were, very likely progressing much faster. This does not help retention, especially for our ambitious CSS soldiers who want to be leaders.

Slide 10 Notes: LFWA Crse - QL3/1 conversion crse ( must be qual Dvr Wh ), followed by QL3/2.  38 CBG has 6 vacancies on each part, but loaded 9 for QL3/2.  Does not account for backlog of pers who require QL3/2, as QL3/2 has only been conducted by LFWA three times in 7+ years (1999, 2003 and 2005).

I personally sent the Ops O of CFSEME a long email, and spoke to him on several occasions when the course calendar came out (Jun) to ensure at least one course of each commenced in Jul. The crse schedule was changed for whatever reason.

The courses were cancelled for, you guessed it, lack of Reserve augmentation. We must STOP sending our full time, Reg F and P Res CSS NCOs and Offs, who are posted to P Res Svc Bns  to e.g. WATC to instruct BMQ and SQ.  They should be filling instructor billets wherever a CSS course is conducted, whether its Borden, or Edmonton etc. Hopefully the Area Reserve CSS Coordination Cell will get a grip on this. This is not unique to LFWA.

For 17 (Wpg) Svc Bn it was an horrific year. Four soldiers arrived at CFSEME, Borden, 2 for QL3 and 2 for QL5, only to be told on day 1 that the courses were cancelled. Additionally, 2 soldiers did not get QL5 MSE Op due to the second course being canceled.

Slide 12 Notes: The same question, after you have seen the course commencement dates. The majority of our soldiers who require QL3 are in High School. The school year for High School generally ends the last week of June. Additionally, I would think that after 12 years of school, a student/soldier would like to attend Graduation, and Grad Night.

CFSTG states that they schedule courses at the request of the Army. We must find out the truth. Who is responsible?  Who is the authority that schedules the start date, the number of courses, etc?  Until this is determined, we will continue to have problems.

Slide 13 Notes: *AATC Crse

The courses were cancelled for, you guessed it, lack of Reserve augmentation. We must STOP sending our full time, Reg F and P Res CSS NCOs and Offs, who are posted to P Res Svc Bns  to e.g. WATC to instruct BMQ and SQ.  They should be filling instructor billets wherever a CSS course is conducted, whether its Borden, or Edmonton etc. Hopefully the Area Reserve CSS Coordination Cell will get a grip on this. This is not unique to LFWA.

The cook course was hanging by its teeth. We were looking to load on a Nav Res course.

 

[Rifleman62]

Pt 3:

Slide 4 Notes: The distances to get all 38 CBG units together, or the 3 Svc Bn’s.

Slide 6 Notes: * MSE Pt 2 is not included in the grand total, as it is not a complete crse.

* LFWA conducted crse, including the QL3/1crse that 17 Svc Bn conducted in the summer of 2004, as there was none being conducted elsewhere.

Slide 7 Notes: * MSE Pt 2 not included in the grand total.

Slide 9 Notes: We go through the long process of attraction; processing, BMQ, SQ then hit the stumbling block of too few QL3 vacancies. Some of the approx 75+ pers, over the five years were nominated again ( figures I cannot separate), some transferred to the Combat Arms ( we do not try and hold  them in my unit), some quit. That’s a lot of time and money down the drain, and certainly does not enhance the Army’s image as an employer of choice, especially in smaller communities.

Slide 13 Notes: CFSEME does not conduct Reserve QL6 Veh Tech courses. You must get on a Regular Force course through a Career Manager. Since 2005 the P Res gets 2 vacancies per serial.

CFSEME does not conduct Reserve QL6 Wpn Tech courses. The Army must decide if there is a requirement for this qualification. A problem would be is that the Reg F QL6 has armaments in the course content which is not taught on the P Res QL3 to 5.

Slide 17 Notes: The greater majority of  NCM  Reserve recruits are 17/18 years of age, and enroll while in grade XI or XII. They are in the learning curve and in cynic with receiving instruction.

Experience on LHQ courses has proven that new soldiers naturally seek out the individuals who grasp the instruction, whether they have past military experience or are quick learners.

I Believe, CFSEME has recently adopted what you could describe as the semester system, which has been in use in the school/secondary school system for decades.

What are we teaching soldiers on the Reserve Veh Tech course? The vehicles we utilize in the Reserves were built in the 80’s and 90’s. The technology is 1950’s.  The new vehicles will be repaired under a National warranty contract.

What are we teaching soldiers on the reserve Wpn Tech course? The weapons we utilize in the Reserves are 40’s and 50’s (MG42=C6, Armlite AR15= C7/C8 ).

This is not rocket science.

Slide 21 Notes: If courses are broken down into Blocks, it will accommodate a Reserve soldier who has 2/3 weeks annual employee vacation if the blocks are short enough. For Wpn Tech example, this would accommodate a high school student who cannot miss starting a semester late and only has Jul and Aug off. That’s IF the course is conducted in this time frame, which CFSEME traditionally does not. Breaking into Blocks one great disadvantage is it will add additional year/years on to the time to get a soldier QL3 qualified.

Slide 22 Notes: Overview of EME technical training

**********This is a build slide***********

- Reg force QL3 for veh techs is 144 trg days
- it is trimmed down for the reservist to 60 days, reduced in scope to wheeled vehs, first line only. (still long period in summer for some reservists)
- it is proposed to further breakdown in two blocks. A first block of 20-25 days could be done at the armoury with DL package. Reservist would only spend 25 days in summer at Borden
Same thing for wpns techs. Reg force trg at 130 trg days and includes for blocks as indicated here. Block I: Small Arms (SA),Block II: Crew-served Weapons (CSW), Block III: Armaments, Block IV: LAV III, Block V: Grizzly, TUA, C3 Howitzer
- trg has been reduced to 53 trg days and reduced in scope to only block I & II
- it is proposed to further split into two blocks of 25 days that could be taken over two summer periods or one full summer. Possibilities of DL not yet fully investigated (low number of candidates)

 

[Rifleman62]

Pt 4:

Slide 2 Notes: This CFAO is almost 2 decades old!!!

In Jun 2001 ( reissued Feb 2004), the army promulgated  LFCO 29-12 Army Reserve Career Profile (ARCP) Interim. This document provides direction and guidance on career progression for Offrs and NCMs in the Army Reserve. The Annexes lays out the training requirements the Army wants P Res Offrs and NCMs for career progression. What frustrates me is that the Army deferred to this 18 year old CFAO for one thing – acting promotions, paragraph 18. This CFAO has the original career profile that has been revised 3 times since 1987, but never amended in the CFAO. The Army, in its LFCO states the career progression for its personnel, but defers to one paragraph only in the CFAO. Someone's personal agenda is at work here. We have an ex 2 PPCLI Warrant Officer (Acting Lacking), who transfers to the Reserves. He has to take his crown down and become a Sergeant because he is missing his ILQ, and cannot be an acting rank in the Reserves if he does not have the required leadership qualification. Ridiculous. This promotion policy is RIGIDLY ENFORCED by LFWA. No amount of reasoning will change the minds of the staff officers responsible!!

The replacement of the CFAOs for promotion is currently underway.  The Army is not the OPI for these CFAOs, though Land Staff G1 pers are in communication with ADM(HR-Mil) on this issue .  However, the issue of permitting acting rank while lacking a leadership qualification has been discussed and rejected by senior members of the Army.

The implementation of ILQ within the Army Reserve has been recognised as an issue of great importance (and the backlog of Sgts awaiting training is recognized as well); in the upcoming SORD 2006 there will be over $1.5M in additional funding (nationally) to address this need (directed by the Assistant Chief of the Land Staff at the Army Program Board in Oct 2005).

Slide 3 Notes: These are old CFAO’s (1987 and 1991) and are based on the old Junior NCO/Junior Leader courses (remember all the changes to these courses?) We now have PLQ, with 6 modules. A Reserve CSS soldier must have PLQ (Land) mods 2 to 6 to be leadership qualified ( Mod 1, Physical Fitness is not authorized to be conducted for the Reserves). A Regular Force CSS soldier only requires CF PLQ, a 36 day course.  Without all the PLQ mods, 2 to 6, a Reserve CSS soldier cannot be promoted, ie to MCpl. A Regular Force soldier not qualified CF PLQ, PLQ (Land) or PLQ (Infantry), the leadership qualification, can be promoted MCPL (AL).

It would appear that the normal practice for the Regular Force Combat Arms is to not waive the leadership qualification. Regardless, a Regular Force CSS soldier does not require PLQ mod 6 as it is not a component of the CF PLQ, while his Reserve counterpart does. This is due to the fact that the Army is the MA for all MOC’s of the Army Reserves, and is not the MA for Regular Force CSS MOC’s (some dispute here- the Army says its not the MA when it is convenient, and says it is when it promulgates LFCO 29-12 !!)

What exasperates this is, the tremendously tedious Reserve CSS Career Profile with limited vacancies. This is clearly indicated in the previous slides, even at the QL3 level which shows the length of time to even get a soldier into the MCpl promotion zone. We are only generating five QL3 soldiers a year, usually one per MOC. In 5 years, it is possible to have five, i.e., Veh Techs at various stages of the DP process. Only one of those Veh Techs, after 5 years, will be at  the point of having the prerequisites to take PLQ. The soldier may have the prerequisites, but are they leadership material?

It is no wonder we do not have CSS NCO’s, as not all of these soldiers stay the course. This needs to be amended for the Reserves. At the very least, authorize promotion for a Reserve CSS soldier to MCpl on completion of PLQ mods 2 to 5. I suggest we still continue the requirement for the mod 6, but allow acting rank. See slide 89. This also impacts on MSE Op in cab driver instructors.

Another big problem is that our CSS PLQ Mod 6 candidates do not have all the “combat or Infantry” skills required for this Mod. The last time they participated in a section attack was on their SQ course, let alone led the attack/patrol. The CSS Battle school should look at a pre Mod 6 training for P Res soldiers.

In The P Res our soldiers e.g. would be in the same Armory, the same junior Ranks Club to socialize, after being on the same BMQ/SQ course. They see a buddy who was on the same BMQ/SQ course as they were, very likely progressing much faster. This does not help retention, especially for our ambitious CSS soldiers who want to be leaders.

Slide 4 Notes: JLC has been replaced with PLQ mods 1 to 6.

Slide 5 Notes: Old messages. I Cdn Div does not exist. The LFCO was revised in Feb 2005, and still lists these references.

Slide 8 Notes: What does PO 207 - Lead a section in offensive ops; PO 208 - Lead a section in defence; and PO 209 – Lead a dismounted patrol to do with driver instruction??

Slide 10 Notes: *Ex Reg F

The Sup Sgt is the Cl B Quartermaster in our Single Point of Service (SPS) Garrison QM . The MSE Op MCpl is our Cl B SPS dispatcher who transferred in from another unit. The RMS Sgt and Veh Tech Sgt are the first members of 17 Svc Bn to make that rank in 9 years. The RMS Sgt will be transferring to the Supp Res in Sep 06, as he will be articling for his CGA.

In 2005, two Veh Tech MCpls  component transferred from 17 Svc Bn. One to the Regular Force as a Traffic Tech, and the other to the Air Reserve as a Aero Engine Tech. To replace these NCO’s will take years, as currently only 3 soldiers are eligible to take QL4 (commencing Jan 06),and only 2 are available. Two Wpn Tech Cpls failed in the last week of PLQ Mod 6.

Slide 11 Notes: A huge gap here. All the 2Lts are in various stages of completing CAP.

Slide 20 Notes: How do they do it? We train 37.5 days per year, plus courses/concentrations.

 

[MilEME09]

thanks for posting, are you still in the same role since you wrote that? and given the changes that are happening in CSS trg do you think it has addressed some of the points you brought up? I'm going through the new weapons tech system now. Cook QL3 is now 2 summers, wpn and vehicle techs take about 4 summers to train now. Wpns techs right now will get C3 howitzer in our final course allow us to go on the reg force 6A course (rumour is the C3 might be taken out of the system though).

This reminds me of an idea i had, would it save the Pres and the army as a whole money if we decentralized reserve training away from the schools? most bases have the facilities needed to do training for most if not all trades. So why not have say an Armoured school east and west? to save on TD, travel and such?

 

[McG]

This reminds me of an idea i had, would it save the Pres and the army as a whole money if we decentralized reserve training away from the schools? most bases have the facilities needed to do training for most if not all trades. So why not have say an Armoured school east and west? to save on TD, travel and such?

It costs manpower to have two of the same school.  It is better to decentralize courses that make twin branch schools.
The TD efficiencies of decentralized courses can also be quickly lost if a few max load courses become replaced by many min load (and below-min load) courses.  The little bit saved in plane tickets gets lost in paying for many additional Cl B instructors, Crse NCOs, Crse Officers and other overhead.

 

[ModlrMike]

It costs manpower to have two of the same school.  It is better to decentralize courses that make twin branch schools.
The TD efficiencies of decentralized courses can also be quickly lost if a few max load courses become replaced by many min load (and below-min load) courses.  The little bit saved in plane tickets gets lost in paying for many additional Cl B instructors, Crse NCOs, Crse Officers and other overhead.

It also costs less to use existing schools than to create additional ones. For example NAVRES sends their Log branch (LogO, Supply) to Quebec when Borden has the pre-existing infrastructure and expertise (Standards etc) to provide the training.

 

[Monsoon]

It also costs less to use existing schools than to create additional ones. For example NAVRES sends their Log branch (LogO, Supply) to Quebec when Borden has the pre-existing infrastructure and expertise (Standards etc) to provide the training.

The Log branch courses run at QC are delivered in a different format than those at Borden to accommodate a reserve training cycle. The QSPs deliver the same POs, but portions of them are shifted to DL and OJT, and a lot of the flex time is squeezed out of the in-house phases (PT and admin periods are reduced, length of work days increased, etc). I'm sure CFFS(Q) would be happy to send the courses over to CFSAL (which is involved in the course standards anyway), if only CFSAL would recognize that not everyone can take a six-month QL3 that runs from February to July (for example). There's nothing efficient or cost effective about designing training that your people can't take.

 

[ModlrMike]

There's nothing efficient or cost effective about designing training that your people can't take.

True enough, but other schools manage it.

BTW, I heard a rumour yesterday that they might be merging Reg/Res LogO trg. That's an outcome that will seriously hamper Res trg. Then again, another option I heard was employment based ie: shorter, more specific blocks for Compt, Foods, Admin O etc. The later is a more manageable option for folks who already work full time.

Whichever outcome, trg designed from the perspective that everyone can take two months off in the summer starts with a flawed premise and is destined to fail to meet its goals.

 

[MilEME09]

I could see the blocks happening more as that is the way NCM training has been going, all RCEME courses are two months or less as of now, spread over a longer period of time. Which in my mind shows some one is starting to get it that we cant take long periods of time off from our civilian jobs. I wonder though if for some trades some of the theory stuff cant be made as DL to do at the home unit before the course, thus making a course shorter by a few days or even a week which can make a difference for a reservist. That said its not possible for all trades, and all courses, you can't teach how to take apart a C7 via DL. However you can do say principles of ammunition and small arms over DL for example, all those theory items could cut a week off a two month course.

 

[Eowyn]

BTW, I heard a rumour yesterday that they might be merging Reg/Res LogO trg.

I am not surprised by that.  The current Army PRes Log O course is 12 years old.  The Reg F trg has changed with the PRes stagnating.  I think making PRes officers take the Reg F is troublesome, since most can not get the time off from their employers.  It will be interesting to see if modularization of the Reg F course can be done.

 

[dapaterson]

I am not surprised by that.  The current Army PRes Log O course is 12 years old.  The Reg F trg has changed with the PRes stagnating.  I think making PRes officers take the Reg F is troublesome, since most can not get the time off from their employers.  It will be interesting to see if modularization of the Reg F course can be done.

Of course it can be done.  It's a question of whether various empires are willing to do it.

(And, ideally, abandon the failed environmental stovepipes and return to a Log officer occupation organized on competencies)

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

I am not surprised by that.  The current Army PRes Log O course is 12 years old.  The Reg F trg has changed with the PRes stagnating.  I think making PRes officers take the Reg F is troublesome, since most can not get the time off from their employers.  It will be interesting to see if modularization of the Reg F course can be done.

It has already been in effect for Inf O DP1.1 for almost 7 years, so I'm positive it can be done for Log O as well.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

One simply has to look to the angst that the PRes Armour and CTC go through on an almost annual and constant basis to try reach accommodation between Units, HQs and the School.

I spent decades working through those systems, watched the wheel go around more than a few times and nothing has really changed.

You will never reach the ultimate solution that balances a Reservists time and the needs of the trade.

 

[MilEME09]

You will never reach the ultimate solution that balances a Reservists time and the needs of the trade.

While I believe you are correct, I do believe that there has to be a better arrangement that can be made compared to the current system. Now keeping on with the thread topic, the question becomes is whether these compromises to make it easier for a reservist would be cost effective for the army. Now I would argue if it leads to greater retention and higher moral in the reserves then i would say it is worth it.

Another cost saver, I remember seeing a few months ago on the "what's Canada Buying" Thread DND was looking for someone to build duel purpose live fire - SAT ranges. Building something like this in major reserve cities could save a lot of costs for a unit in fuel, and travel costs.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Don't mean to unnecessarily revive a dying topic, but...

Having seen things on both sides of the fence, I don't think there is a real use for the reserves.

I know people will quote a battery of statistics on how much of what roto was reserve and the benefit of the reserve but at the end of the day, I don't think the same or better couldn't be accomplished with the same money invested in a larger Reg Force.

In the CSS specifically, you can't really train up a operator or tech on a night a week (which is normally eaten up by inefficient administration or poorly executed parades) and a weekend a month. As stated by others, 3 hours in a night doesn't get you anywhere, and the exercise proves nothing as sustained operations are never done over even 1 resupp cycle.

As a whole, the reserve was always nothing more than a place for retired reg force to socialize while collecting enough beer money to make it worthwhile.

The only way I see the reserve ever truly working is for it to focus ENTIRELY on individual training, preferably by tagging on in small groups in reg force units during IBTS weeks and then practicing CT on exercises. The nights and weekends ought to be scapped entirely. Otherwise you end up with the blind leading the blind and re-inforcing bad habits.

 

[OldSolduer]

Don't mean to unnecessarily revive a dying topic, but...

Having seen things on both sides of the fence, I don't think there is a real use for the reserves.

I know people will quote a battery of statistics on how much of what roto was reserve and the benefit of the reserve but at the end of the day, I don't think the same or better couldn't be accomplished with the same money invested in a larger Reg Force.

In the CSS specifically, you can't really train up a operator or tech on a night a week (which is normally eaten up by inefficient administration or poorly executed parades) and a weekend a month. As stated by others, 3 hours in a night doesn't get you anywhere, and the exercise proves nothing as sustained operations are never done over even 1 resupp cycle.

As a whole, the reserve was always nothing more than a place for retired reg force to socialize while collecting enough beer money to make it worthwhile.

The only way I see the reserve ever truly working is for it to focus ENTIRELY on individual training, preferably by tagging on in small groups in reg force units during IBTS weeks and then practicing CT on exercises. The nights and weekends ought to be scapped entirely. Otherwise you end up with the blind leading the blind and re-inforcing bad habits.

Well now that we have your opinion, ........maybe you should strive to become the MND and disband all the PRes regiments. I am former Reg Force who retired for four years before I was asked to join the PRes. I can assure you that I am not collecting "beer money".