# TF 1-06 Reserve Employment Opp's....



## cbt arms sub tech (27 Jul 2005)

Anyone know of many reserve opportunities that may exist for TF1-06 overseas, with most of the units being stood down due to summer training at respective camps, i.e. Camp Wainwright & Gagetown...Part of LFWA, although I'm not presently working due to full time work commitment's, wondering if opportunities are occuring but wondering if the unit chain of command contacts you during the summer?

Any feedback would be appreciated!


----------



## McG (27 Jul 2005)

D&S Pl


----------



## Krazy-P (27 Jul 2005)

i am pretty sure they need drivers for psyops and cimic


----------



## cbt arms sub tech (27 Jul 2005)

Thats what I've been hearing, sometimes you wonder how much info gets down to the troops though?  Especially throughout the summer with alot of staff being away on course?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2005)

Guessing isn't going to help.

The fact of the matter is that they're still sorting out manning for the mission.  The organization is a developing beast, complicated by a variety of multi-national concerns.  Looking at the tea leaves, I wouldn't expect anything to filter down over the summer, although a "planning" organization currently exists.  I am not sure if they're using it for anything but putting senior names to positions, though.  Individual tasks typically come later in the planning cycle.

Gunner, who is closer to this than I am these days, may have something more useful to add.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## cbt arms sub tech (27 Jul 2005)

Cheers for the info, appreciate it


----------



## Gunner (27 Jul 2005)

> Gunner, who is closer to this than I am these days, may have something more useful to add.



The manning conference was held over the last couple of days in Edmonton.  Positions should be out on the street shortly.  Make sure your chain of command (whatever exists during the summer) knows that you are interested and are available on short notice.  

cbt arms sub tech - didn't you post this question previously?


----------



## MJP (27 Jul 2005)

We were told we would have roughly two PLs of reserves working out of our building around the end of Aug today, but as Gunner has said it had no specific TOE(that we knew of).


----------



## Gunner (27 Jul 2005)

In the absence of direction from NDHQ, we have leaned forward based on managed readiness.  41 CBG is providing a D&S Pl and has the lead on filling CIMIC and PSYOPS positions for TF 1-06.  There are many, many other positions that need to be filled by other LFWA formations, army formations (mainly specialist) and particularly the Comm Res.

Having said that, MJP is quite correct about the lack of a TO&E causing difficulties...


----------



## cbt arms sub tech (27 Jul 2005)

Sorry, but what does D&S Platoon, an TOE Stand for?


----------



## Jungle (27 Jul 2005)

cbt arms sub tech said:
			
		

> Sorry, but what does D&S Platoon, an TOE Stand for?


D&S: Defence and Security
TO(&)E: Table of Organisation and Equipment


----------



## KevinB (27 Jul 2005)

Perhaps flush your profile out a bit more -- and what exactly is a Cbt Arms Sub Tech?


----------



## Tpr.Orange (27 Jul 2005)

what is TF 1- 06?


----------



## silentbutdeadly (27 Jul 2005)

its basically, the new term for Cbt tm for rotation on missions, meaning Task Force 1 of the year 2006. There has been a change already i think that has the name going backl to Combat team 1-06 correct if i am wrong anyone out there?


----------



## ImanIdiot (28 Jul 2005)

I'm going to assume that there isn't anything outside of the D&S pl for the R031s in LFWA...


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2005)

Nope TF 1-06 refers to the 1VP BattleGroup Op Archer Roto 0 

 From my understanding the TF #ing is just to make management easier.  :  It can either be a Bn Based BattleGroup or a Coy based Cbt Team (Inf or Armour heavy) 

 I guess it gives a set piece for those in TF 2-6 or Surge 06 to know where they stand in line for deployments...


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2005)

silentbutdeadly said:
			
		

> its basically, the new term for Cbt tm for rotation on missions, meaning Task Force 1 of the year 2006. There has been a change already i think that has the name going backl to Combat team 1-06 correct if i am wrong anyone out there?


You are wrong.   Cbt Tm refers to a sub unit grouping (it is an inf coy and a armd sqn).   BG refers to a unit (bn/regt) sized combined arms grouping.   A TF refers to an organization put together for a mission (and it could be any size).   Our typical TFs consist of a BG plus national command and support elements.  However, a TF could also be a Bde or a Coy Gp.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (28 Jul 2005)

i just comfirmed with my higher that the name has changed to BG 1-06 instead of TF and the reason being is because we are ( 1PPCLI) are supplying the HQ. So if i am wrong this time, so for being in the know! :threat:


----------



## silentbutdeadly (28 Jul 2005)

and thx for the lesson on  a Cbt tm :blotto:


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Having said that, MJP is quite correct about the lack of a TO&E causing difficulties...


Down at my end it is the multiple TO&Es causing problem.   TO&E 'A' is supported by the unit & is being pushed up at some level (but is based on a vehicle that will not leave Canada: M113A3 & MTVE).   TO&E 'B' is being pushed down from somewhere else and it has us deploying in a vehicle that has not yet reached production.   Neither are compatable and there are entire specialist sections that appear only in one or the other, but we have to put names to both.     . . . and, depending on the vehicle used overseas, both may be missing critical positions.     :


----------



## 392 (28 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Nope TF 1-06 refers to the 1VP BattleGroup Op Archer Roto 0



So Athena is no more? Is it now Archer for everyone after Roto4 moves to Kandahar?

Aren't the PRT and ETT's under Archer alreadyr? So wouldn't that make 1-06 technically Roto 1?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jul 2005)

392 said:
			
		

> So Athena is no more? Is it now Archer for everyone after Roto4 moves to Kandahar?
> 
> Aren't the PRT and ETT's under Archer alreadyr? So wouldn't that make 1-06 technically Roto 1?



ATHENA is still ongoing, as we still have troops in Kabul.   ARCHER is the mission in Kandahar.   The original idea was that all "coalition" operations would come under ARCHER, while the ISAF mission would remain ATHENA.   This did not work out in practice and the ETT came under ATHENA until recently.

Now, with the shift to S. Afghanistan, the original intent will be realized and all "coalition" forces (ETT, CFC-A staff, PRT, MNB(S), TF 01-06) will come under ARCHER.   Hence, Roto 0.



> Down at my end it is the multiple TO&Es causing problem.   TO&E 'A' is supported by the unit & is being pushed up at some level.   TO&E 'B' is being pushed down from somewhere else and it has us deploying in a vehicle that has not yet reached production.   Neither are compatable and there are entire specialist sections that appear only in one or the other, but we have to put names to both.     . . . and, depending on the vehicle used overseas, both may be missing critical positions.



I used to call this the "bright idea" scenario.   The problem comes (as you alude to) when a TO&E is pushed "up" representing what the unit (and sometimes brigade and Area) wants, while another is being pushed down from J-staff, reflecting realities on the move and support side.   Unfortunately, J-staff uses establishments to generate their version and there is a lot of negotiation to rationalize the two - including elimination of bizarre non-existent vehicles.   Everyone has a bright idea and this makes negotiating even more difficult.

At the end of the day, there is only one valid TO&E - the one on CFTPO.   Until that is solidified and it is published on the "operational" side of the program, all bets are off and everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jul 2005)

> including elimination of bizarre non-existant vehicles.



I found this extremely funny, for some reason.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jul 2005)

It isn't as bad as it sounds.  Typically, the person making up the spreadsheet in Ottawa simply takes the "establishment" and cuts and pastes it into Excel to come up with a draft organization.  The establishment may reflect what is "supposed" to be there, rather than what actually exists in unit lines (yes, each unit is different - despite efforts to sort this out; each CO has his own ideas of how to do business and kit may not have been delivered yet).  When you realize that the drafter could be an AF clerk Sgt, you'll understand why this happens.

This, again, is why there's only one "valid" organization - the one where all this has been sorted out in a rather painful, line-by-line review.


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> there is a lot of negotiation to rationalize the two - including elimination of bizarre non-existent vehicles.   Everyone has a bright idea and this makes negotiating even more difficult.


and don't think that I don't also have my own ideas.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jul 2005)

And the whole situation can get really deranged if a rigid manpower ceiling is imposed too early in the planning cycle. The agreed figure will probably be too low, especially as NDHQ will direct so many PAFFOs, lawyers, MPs, etc, thus limiting the number of fighting troops.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jul 2005)

Too right!!  Everyone with a "rice bowl" gets involved, if only to try and ticket punch their trades and prove they're "operational".  PSOs immediately spring to mind - they're mandated on every tour.  Gets a bit maddening, especially if you're having to fight to (say) get another AFV crew added...


----------



## MJP (28 Jul 2005)

or another Pl of D&S eh.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Jul 2005)

Yup... a perfect example.


----------



## pbi (31 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Too right!!   Everyone with a "rice bowl" gets involved, if only to try and ticket punch their trades and prove they're "operational".   PSOs immediately spring to mind - they're mandated on every tour.   Gets a bit maddening, especially if you're having to fight to (say) get another AFV crew added...



Roger that. I was on the recce for ATHENA in Apr of 04-we did what we believed was a pretty detailed and professional job of assessing the situation and developing a structure to meet the need (with advice from the Canadians on the ground). We even did an excruciating line-by-line before we left theatre. NDHQ savaged it and we had to make some significant cuts to meet a manpower cap because that was the number that the MND had already announced, based on J-staff comment. More shockingly, we had to struggle with the Land Staff over things as small as rifle platoons. Hopefully Transformation will sort this out: it has been going on for years now and is extremely frustrating, confusing and wasteful of command/staff energies.

Cheers.


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2005)

Does it seem "normal" that a sub-unit would be validated & go through BTE in an entierly different family of armd vehicles that it would use when it deploys?


----------



## KevinB (1 Aug 2005)

Why what on earth do you mean the Nyala is not on your ORBAT   :-\

 Engineers with LAV/Bison and Nyala - never heard of it   ;D

Sadly when you see them rumble by in Canada in old 113's leaving hours before start times so they can make it to places the same time as the Cbt Team...   :

 But unfortunately you end up with the same idea - that overseas everyone magically get to know how to use all the issue over there kit too...   :

Someday when a bunch of troops get killed from that - and some asshat claims -" but they had the best kit..."   I want to be there to punch his teeth out.


----------



## PhilB (2 Aug 2005)

As far a reserve positions go I have been told a D&S Pl, CIMIC, PSYOPS, and of course the normal specialties comms, int,  etc. I am a member of the D&S pl. As it stands we will be part of 1VP for the BTE then who knows after that. The majority of the positions are being filled by troops from 41 Bgd, although Ive heard they will start going to 39 Bgd if 41 cannot fill them. I cant speak for Cimic, phsyops or the rest but on the ground with the D&S pl it seems fairly full. All of the positions that are currently available are on CFTPO if you have access to it, although the last time I checked most were filled.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Aug 2005)

> As far a reserve positions go I have been told a D&S Pl, CIMIC, PSYOPS, and of course the normal specialties comms, int,  etc. I am a member of the D&S pl. As it stands we will be part of 1VP for the BTE then who knows after that. The majority of the positions are being filled by troops from 41 Bgd, although Ive heard they will start going to 39 Bgd if 41 cannot fill them. I cant speak for Cimic, phsyops or the rest but on the ground with the D&S pl it seems fairly full. All of the positions that are currently available are on CFTPO if you have access to it, although the last time I checked most were filled.




Hey Phil, you know if you guys are going to be running through CMTC at some point before leaving?


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Engineers with LAV/Bison and Nyala - never heard of it   ;D


Nyala & Bison are not the problem.  The training bill is one or two people per vehicle, and neither one requires additional people added to the TO&E.   . . . but throwing a LAV III at a section that has nobody with turret qualifications and maybe one driver.

But that is not really where I was going.  It is more a matter of the TO&E numbers being solidified based on vehicle "X."  The TO&E is validated at BTE, and just as everyone is ready to go out the door we hear from the crowd "oh, sorry but we need 8 guys sent on Gnr/CC crse & we need 6 other new guys added to the TO&E because some of our smaller elements no longer have enough people to do their job and crew the vehicles."


----------



## MJP (2 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Hey Phil, you know if you guys are going to be running through CMTC at some point before leaving?



They will be part of the BTE, which isn't a CMTC serial.   First serial for CMTC is for the RCRs sometime early next year


----------



## PhilB (2 Aug 2005)

Like MJP said we will not. We (the D&S Pl) are currently in WATC. A few of us helped conduct the WES trials here. We were told that the BG suite of equipment would be ready to go sometime around Jan/Feb 06


----------

