# New skill badges recognize unique naval operations qualifications



## dimsum (15 May 2019)

> Navy News / May 15, 2019
> 
> The RCN is excited to recognize the professionalism and dedication of sailors who demonstrate leadership and a commitment to operational excellence by pursuing speciality training through the creation of three new specialist skill badges for members of the Naval Tactical Operations Group, Naval Security Team and Naval Boarding Party.
> 
> ...



http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=new-skill-badges-recognize-unique-naval-operations-qualifications%2Fjvmqlycc&fbclid=IwAR34ca4EH_cM7psc3z7qijG7tQO2iOHo4YmPjRhABJPdsKG94BOYziuRZ0Y%27


----------



## AlDazz (15 May 2019)

Have to give to the Navy. They are out patching the Army and Airforce together.  Our most conservative service has jumped on the bandwagon of buttons and bows. What's next?


----------



## brihard (15 May 2019)

I didn't realize NTOQ was a six month course. I'd love to know more about what the curriculum looks like. Seems like the RCN isn't screwing around with this capability. Hopefully they can retain people.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2019)

That seems exceptionally long. I'd love to read the curriculum too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 May 2019)

While I don't know what is in the curriculum, I suspect the amount of material the operators need to go through and knowledge they need to acquire is quite impressive as compared to Army special operations needs.

First of all, they would operate outside actual war situations, and therefore must have a fairly complete knowledge of the law of the sea - which is much more complex and voluminous than the laws of war.

Second, unlike land operations where there is only so many things to figure out in a building, the differences in operating against a bulk carrier, a VLCC, a container ship, a cruise ship, or any other of dozens of specific types of vessels creates the need for distinct and separate knowledge bases that must be acquired, even if just to find their way around. Then there is the completely different sets of documents and informations that can be found and garnered from each of these different types of ships, of which they must have some knowledge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While I don't know what is in the curriculum, I suspect the amount of material the operators need to go through and knowledge they need to acquire is quite impressive as compared to Army special operations needs.
> 
> First of all, they would operate outside actual war situations, and therefore must have a fairly complete knowledge of the law of the sea - which is much more complex and voluminous than the laws of war.
> 
> Second, unlike land operations where there is only so many things to figure out in a building, the differences in operating against a bulk carrier, a VLCC, a container ship, a cruise ship, or any other of dozens of specific types of vessels creates the need for distinct and separate knowledge bases that must be acquired, even if just to find their way around. Then there is the completely different sets of documents and informations that can be found and garnered from each of these different types of ships, of which they must have some knowledge.



I know what you're saying but...in fairness, I think the Land Ops types do more than just "buildings".   

Both sets of pro's are just that;  pro's in the unique environments.


----------



## FSTO (16 May 2019)

The man behind NTOG did a turn at JTF2 before returning to the RCN. He recognized that our Naval Boarding Team training was not up to snuff (putting it lightly) and initiated some much needed changes. The NTOG is a step above the ships company NBP and uses many aspects of JTF2 assessments and training and thats why it is such a long course.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 May 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I didn't realize NTOQ was a six month course. I'd love to know more about what the curriculum looks like. Seems like the RCN isn't screwing around with this capability. Hopefully they can retain people.



The Maritime Tactical Operator is an Maritime Interdiction Operations and Force Protection specialist.

MTO candidates may apply from all navy occupations and must undergo a 5 day (7 days for officers) Assessment Centre(MTO AC) at CFB Albert Head. Competitive candidates may beselected for training in the MTO Course (4.5 months long).Further specialised training is conducted at the unit as required after completion of the initial coursing.

MTO teams consist of 10-15 operators used for obstructed boardings using specialized equipment and robust PPE.  They are capable of advanced embarkation, tactical shooting, self-defence, TCCC,CQB, and IED ID methods.  When embarked, MTOs replace the 1st wave NBP and conduct FP at sea or alongside in higher threat environments.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> The man behind NTOG did a turn at JTF2 before returning to the RCN. He recognized that our Naval Boarding Team training was not up to snuff (putting it lightly) and initiated some much needed changes. The NTOG is a step above the ships company NBP and uses many aspects of JTF2 assessments and training and thats why it is such a long course.



I was having this discussion the other day with a couple of my friends who are clearance divers.  Why did the RCN not just give the enhanced boarding party mandate to the Clearance Divers?  They already have some of the requisite training, they work with CANSOFCOM already, it would give them a bigger role in operations. Yes it would probably necessitate an increase in numbers of Clearance Divers but it seems easier to me to surge training rather than start an entirely new unit from scratch.  The big difficulty seems to be numbers but perhaps the RCN should do a "troops to tasks" assessment of what the Clearance Divers actually do and go from there.  A big advantage of this would be that each fleet could have its own dedicated enhanced naval boarding element rather than an organization that somehow is supposed to support two fleets, one of which is 4 time zones away from its base of operations.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 May 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Maritime Tactical Operator is an Maritime Interdiction Operations and Force Protection specialist.
> 
> MTO candidates may apply from all navy occupations and must undergo a 5 day (7 days for officers) Assessment Centre(MTO AC) at CFB Albert Head. Competitive candidates may beselected for training in the MTO Course (4.5 months long).Further specialised training is conducted at the unit as required after completion of the initial coursing.
> 
> ...



Speaking as long term, capital 'I', Infantry guy, I find it sad that the Navy wants to be more like the Infantry. We've got that job pretty much dialed.

I was kind of hoping that they'd want to spend more of their time and resources to be more like a global, strategic, kick a$$, maritime military asset...


----------



## Brash (16 May 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Speaking as long term, capital 'I', Infantry guy, I find it sad that the Navy wants to be more like the Infantry. We've got that job pretty much dialed.
> 
> I was kind of hoping that they'd want to spend more of their time and resources to be more like a global, strategic, kick a$$, maritime military asset...



What experience does the Infantry have in terms of safely operating and shutting down (taking over) propulsion control and ancillary systems?

How many qualified bridge watchkeepers are in the Infantry?

I suppose they could take your Infanteers and give them 5-8 years of MOC training.

Seems a little shortsighted IMO.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2019)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> What experience does the Infantry have in terms of safely operating and shutting down (taking over) propulsion control and ancillary systems?
> 
> How many qualified bridge watchkeepers are in the Infantry?



Don't traditional boarding parties already know how to do that?  


I'm not familiar enough with that part of the Navy. 

What does this capability bring that the Navy didn't already have? 

Are these a dedicated trade group?  Do these guys fill other functions on ship?  Ie are they Boatswains on ship and act as operators when required or do they sit somewhere until needed? 

Given manning shortfalls is this the best use of pers in the Navy? 

daftandbarmy's post I think was meant to highlight that our Navy has far more pressing issues than having their own special force.  I don't know if that is actually the case or not.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2019)

This part made me laugh.

_The badges reflect a modesty of character and often escape notice_

the whole point of a badge is to get noticed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I was having this discussion the other day with a couple of my friends who are clearance divers.  Why did the RCN not just give the enhanced boarding party mandate to the Clearance Divers?  They already have some of the requisite training, they work with CANSOFCOM already, it would give them a bigger role in operations. Yes it would probably necessitate an increase in numbers of Clearance Divers but it seems easier to me to surge training rather than start an entirely new unit from scratch.  The big difficulty seems to be numbers but perhaps the RCN should do a "troops to tasks" assessment of what the Clearance Divers actually do and go from there.  A big advantage of this would be that each fleet could have its own dedicated enhanced naval boarding element rather than an organization that somehow is supposed to support two fleets, one of which is 4 time zones away from its base of operations.



I think you highly underestimate how much the CLDs and CLDOs are actually interested in spending time on ships at sea, which is sole the operating environment of the NTOG.  

I think the current selection method is correct, CLDs are welcome to try out. 

Having now sailed with NTOG now a few times, I will keep any further opinions for more face to face styled conversations.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 May 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> MTO candidates may apply from *all navy occupations* and must undergo a 5 day (7 days for officers) Assessment Centre(MTO AC) . . .



By "navy occupations", do they mean only those who wear a navy cap badge or is a navy uniform (regardless of occupation) the criteria?


----------



## brihard (16 May 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Speaking as long term, capital 'I', Infantry guy, I find it sad that the Navy wants to be more like the Infantry. We've got that job pretty much dialed.
> 
> I was kind of hoping that they'd want to spend more of their time and resources to be more like a global, strategic, kick a$$, maritime military asset...



How do you figure they want to be “more like infantry”? They have a tactical requirement in certain environments for gunfighters trained for a maritime environment, and apparently trained to a pretty high level. Putting a rifle in someone’s hand doesn’t make them infantry wannabes.

Operating on ships, particularly with contested or opposed boardings, is very much a niche specialty. In the law enforcement world it’s a special mission profile too, that only a subset of tactical teams do.

It looks to me like someone eminently qualified to speak to the matter was able to articulate and demonstrate the need, and pushed to have a new team developed that has now been fielded to at least an initial level of capability. They know their needs better than you or I.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 May 2019)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> What experience does the Infantry have in terms of safely operating and shutting down (taking over) propulsion control and ancillary systems?



Easy. 
1. They have careers of being ordered to do all kinds of jobs they're not trained for; and
2. They break everything they touch.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> This part made me laugh.
> 
> _The badges reflect a modesty of character and often escape notice_
> 
> the whole point of a badge is to get noticed.



I got a kick out of that too. 


[quote author=Brihard] 

Operating on ships, particularly with contested or opposed boardings, is very much a niche specialty. 
[/quote]

I recall hearing it's Canadian policy not to board ships that are contested. Was that incorrect?


----------



## Monsoon (16 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I recall hearing it's Canadian policy not to board ships that are contested. Was that incorrect?


That was very much a restriction in place before we developed a capability to carry those sort of missions out. The tail was wagging the dog on that one.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 May 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> That was very much a restriction in place before we developed a capability to carry those sort of missions out. The tail was wagging the dog on that one.



Now the RCN will board opposed ships with NTOG?


----------



## Monsoon (16 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Now the RCN will board opposed ships with NTOG?


That seems like a question best answered offline.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 May 2019)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> What experience does the Infantry have in terms of safely operating and shutting down (taking over) propulsion control and ancillary systems?
> 
> How many qualified bridge watchkeepers are in the Infantry?
> 
> ...



What experience does JTF2 have in this regard either?  They are able to carry out even more complex boarding operations.  Bring a specialist along for the ride or point a gun in someone's face and tell them to do it.  What your highlighting is not a critical requirement.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> How do you figure they want to be “more like infantry”? They have a tactical requirement in certain environments for gunfighters trained for a maritime environment, and apparently trained to a pretty high level. Putting a rifle in someone’s hand doesn’t make them infantry wannabes.
> 
> Operating on ships, particularly with contested or opposed boardings, is very much a niche specialty. In the law enforcement world it’s a special mission profile too, that only a subset of tactical teams do.
> 
> It looks to me like someone eminently qualified to speak to the matter was able to articulate and demonstrate the need, and pushed to have a new team developed that has now been fielded to at least an initial level of capability. They know their needs better than you or I.



What D&B was alluding too is the fact that opposed boardings are indeed an Infantry task.  They are usually carried out by Naval Infantry in other countries that have Naval Infantry or by Clearance Divers.

e.g.

Royal Navy - 43 Commando Royal Marines (specializing in MIO and Force Protection)







French Navy - French Naval Fusiliers and Marine Commandos






Royal Australian Navy - Australian Navy Clearance Divers






Dutch Navy - Dutch Marine Corps






Danish Navy - Danish Frogman Corps






German Navy - German Frogman Corps






For whatever reason though, the RCN has decided to go in another direction and create a brand new unit rather than using existing RCN assets e.g. Clearance Divers or go elsewhere for manpower.  It makes me wonder if NTOG is more useful as an actual capability or as a retention and marketing tool?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think you highly underestimate how much the CLDs and CLDOs are actually interested in spending time on ships at sea, which is sole the operating environment of the NTOG.
> 
> I think the current selection method is correct, CLDs are welcome to try out.
> 
> Having now sailed with NTOG now a few times, I will keep any further opinions for more face to face styled conversations.



From what I have heard, this seems to be the biggest issue.  The CD community doesn't want the task.  Too bad as it would help them shake the perception that they are a "dive club".

Btw, D&B is far too modest but I believe he speaks from a position of some knowledge having previously served in a certain foreign regiment that is tasked with carrying out these operations for a certain Navy.

Edit:

Don't take my comments as being unsupportive of this capability as I think it's about time we got with the times.  I question though whether the RCN is using certain organizations and/or resources appropriately?

The problem with too many "special" units is eventually nobody is special anymore.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The problem with too many "special" units is eventually nobody is special anymore.



That’s not what the badge says...


----------



## BDTyre (16 May 2019)

I'm by no means even a beginner at anything Navy, but the clearance divers have been going around reserve units in a recruiting drive. So they are looking to expand their pool. Perhaps they know something we don't? Or perhaps they anticipate losing people to a new task.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 May 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What experience does JTF2 have in this regard either?  They are able to carry out even more complex boarding operations.  Bring a specialist along for the ride or point a gun in someone's face and tell them to do it.  What your highlighting is not a critical requirement.
> 
> What D&B was alluding too is the fact that opposed boardings are indeed an Infantry task.  They are usually carried out by Naval Infantry in other countries that have Naval Infantry or by Clearance Divers.



Now that I've managed to thoroughly derail the thread about badges, my apologies!

It just seems that if we have to tie up ships for lack of crew, the Navy ratings are best employed at doing things the Navy does best (and that the Infantry could never do, which is alot, on board). 

If you want people to clear a ship, and perhaps take 50% casualties doing so Gawd forbid, then you want to chuck Infantry in there. 

Your ship sure won't be 100% ready to fight if your highly trained, specialized, hard to find, 'takes two years to train', propeller hat wearing naval ratings are gut shot...

And now, as my draught certainly exceeds my depth, I shall wait for high water, shout 'mug up!', then weigh anchor....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 May 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I'm by no means even a beginner at anything Navy, but the clearance divers have been going around reserve units in a recruiting drive. So they are looking to expand their pool. Perhaps they know something we don't? Or perhaps they anticipate losing people to a new task.



Without looking too deeply into the crystal ball, the aircrew NCM trades are also doing a focused recruiting drive at this time...mostly because of a difference in TOS and PML and with knowledge that PMLs are likely going to increase in the next few years...


----------



## Dirty Patricia (18 May 2019)

Did the RCN switch to metal skill badges for all of their skill badges on DEU tunics? I thought I saw a couple of pictures with sailors with metal diver badges on their tunics. If so, why the change? Are the other services going to follow suit?


----------



## kratz (18 May 2019)

[quote author=Dirty Patricia]Did the RCN switch to metal skill badges for all of their skill badges on DEU tunics? I thought I saw a couple of pictures with sailors with metal diver badges on their tunics. If so, why the change? Are the other services going to follow suit?[/quote]

Yes (mostly), last summer:



			
				NAVGEN 018/18 said:
			
		

> 3. DEU:
> 
> A. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY SPECIALIST SKILL BADGES: CLOTH SPECIALIST
> SKILL BADGES IAW A-DH-265-000/AG-001 (CANADIAN FORCES DRESS
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 May 2019)

So, basically going back to what it used to be be in the 70's and 80's: Metal for CF/DEU, cloth for WD/NCD.

As with everything "fashion" what was old is new again and no new wheel gets invented, we just go back in circles to what was in - fell out of fashion - and now is in again.

"Managed change" anyone?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 May 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What experience does JTF2 have in this regard either?  They are able to carry out even more complex boarding operations.  Bring a specialist along for the ride or point a gun in someone's face and tell them to do it.  What your highlighting is not a critical requirement...



It’s probably reasonable to believe that some of these folks would have the necessary skills to control the vessel once the tactical situation is controlled.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=new-skill-badges-recognize-unique-naval-operations-qualifications%2Fjvmqlycc&fbclid=IwAR34ca4EH_cM7psc3z7qijG7tQO2iOHo4YmPjRhABJPdsKG94BOYziuRZ0Y%27


And in case you missed it in May, here's a slightly different angle from the RCN info-machine in August.


> The latest candidates of the Naval Boarding Party (NBP) Basic Course at Naval Fleet School (Pacific) in Esquimalt, B.C., graduated in a ceremony held August 15. They were the first in the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) to receive the new Specialist Skill Badges for the NBP qualification.
> 
> The new NBP badge is one of three new skill badges introduced by the RCN in May to recognize the specialized skill sets of the NBP, the Naval Security Team (NST) and the Naval Tactical Operations Group (NTOG).
> 
> ...


More @ link

Attached photo caption:  "From left: The Naval Boarding Party Basic Qualification badge and the Naval Tactical Operations Group Qualification badge."


----------



## dimsum (29 Aug 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And in case you missed it in May, here's a slightly different angle from the RCN info-machine in August.More @ link
> 
> Attached photo caption:  "From left: The Naval Boarding Party Basic Qualification badge and the Naval Tactical Operations Group Qualification badge."



They're...not awful.

_Looks at RCAF Command Badge_


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> They're...not awful.
> 
> _Looks at RCAF Command Badge_



You mean the seagull with an expanding blue fart emanating from its anus?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Aug 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean the seagull with an expanding blue fart emanating from its anus?


What is imagined cannot be unimagined ...


----------



## dimsum (30 Aug 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean the seagull with an expanding blue fart emanating from its anus?



 :-X

Ok, maybe the new RCAF Command Badge is a little bit nicer than that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2019)

I'd prefer if they were broken down by "groups"...because the old MAG badge was better than the current one with the wings sticking out way too far...then all we have to do is teach people how it is supposed to be worn.   :nod:

https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237/10156261897441237/?type=3&theater


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd prefer if they were broken down by "groups"...because the old MAG badge was better than the current one with the wings sticking out way too far...then all we have to do is teach people how it is supposed to be worn.   :nod:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237/10156261897441237/?type=3&theater



Or we put the Maritime Air Group guys and gals (and non binary) in RCN uniforms and then nobody needs any stinkin badges!  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Or we put the Maritime Air Group guys and gals (and non binary) in RCN uniforms and then nobody needs any stinkin badges!  ;D



Uhhh, I like my wedge too much to give it up.  

And...I'd like to see the Air Transport Command badge come back;  that's the one I think everyone would 'point and talk' about... ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Aug 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean the seagull with an expanding blue fart emanating from its anus?




 :rofl:


----------



## dimsum (30 Aug 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Uhhh, I like my wedge too much to give it up.



Pfft...I'm sure there would be some "considerations"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pfft...I'm sure there would be some "considerations"



Maybe the RCN would/could get use some new flight suits to go with them?


----------



## dimsum (30 Aug 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Or we put the Maritime Air Group guys and gals (and non binary) in RCN uniforms and then nobody needs any stinkin badges!  ;D



That's actually a topic in the Air Force Research List 2019-2020 (along with Tac Hel to the Army).  I wonder if anyone will write about it.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's actually a topic in the Air Force Research List 2019-2020 (along with Tac Hel to the Army).  I wonder if anyone will write about it.



Do you have a link?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's actually a topic in the Air Force Research List 2019-2020 (along with Tac Hel to the Army).  I wonder if anyone will write about it.



You mean Fighter is trying to eliminate its competition?


----------



## dimsum (30 Aug 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Do you have a link?



It was a document I found but I can't find the link on the stupid  DND search function.  However, the relevant part is this:



> FA-6.
> Functional support to the other CAF environments. Is the current approach of consolidating aircraft resources within the RCAF still effective? Explore the possibilities of organic aviation assets controlled, managed and optimized by one or all of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), Canadian special operations forces and Canadian Army (CA), with engineering and higher-headquarters support provided by the RCAF.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Aug 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd prefer if they were broken down by "groups"...because the old MAG badge was better than the current one with the wings sticking out way too far...then all we have to do is teach people how it is supposed to be worn.   :nod:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237/10156261897441237/?type=3&theater



Just a semantics point, that's not a "MAG" badge, but the "Air Command" badge.  I wore it, back in the days of everyone in green, when posted to Edmonton.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2019)

Well, all these years I've thought that was what it was...thanks for the correction!  It's the only one I remember Dad wearing, always thought it was MAG.

Seems this is what I was actually talking about? (pic attached)  I'd rather that be made into a Command Badge to replace the one I have now.

http://www.shearwateraviationmuseum.ns.ca/images/crests/general/MaritimeAirCommand.jpg


----------

