# PLQ / AJLC changes again....



## Choco-ShakaZulu (15 May 2021)

Hey everyone, so today I heard from an instructor on a plq course that come September AJLC will only be required for combat trades. Any truth to it? Anyone seen any documents stating some truth?


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 May 2021)

What is AJLC ? Army Junior Leadership Course ?


----------



## Choco-ShakaZulu (16 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> What is AJLC ? Army Junior Leadership Course ?


Yes


----------



## Kilted (16 May 2021)

And what is everyone else going to do?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> And what is everyone else going to do?


Find something else to whine about.


----------



## Choco-ShakaZulu (16 May 2021)

I presume all trades do plq common, infantry stick their bat shit crazy stuff....and combat arms trades do the AJLC.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2021)

Infantry = IPLQ
Combat Support + Army Managed Trades = PLQ+AJLC
RCN/RCAF trades = PLQ


----------



## OldSolduer (16 May 2021)

Choco-ShakaZulu said:


> I presume all trades do plq common, infantry stick their bat shit crazy stuff....and combat arms trades do the AJLC.


Excuse me but I am - was - infantry for my entire career.
Thanks for the compliment 😉


----------



## MilEME09 (16 May 2021)

They had been talking about this since before i did my PLQ/AJLC in 2018. It's a matter of who really needs to do it vs nice to have. A clerk probably doesn't need AJLC, but a combat engineer, for sure does. I'd argue some support trades need it was well.


----------



## dangerboy (18 May 2021)

A CANFORGEN has just been released addressing changes to the PLQ (CANFORGEN 072/21 MODIFICATION TO BMQ-L AND DP2 ARMY NCM LEADERSHIP TRAINING REQUIREMENTS (REG F AND RES F)



> REFS: A. CANFORGEN 101/08 CMP 040/08 031334Z JUN 08
> B. CANFORGEN 092/15 COMD CA 019/15 191700Z MAY 15
> C. CANFORGEN 051/16 CMP 030/16 301823Z MAR 16
> D. CANFORGEN 080/16 COMD CA 010/16 021800Z MAY 16
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 May 2021)

Seems to make sense for Log trades.  I never understood why 2 people in the trade needed a different qualification to become a MCpl or MS.


----------



## Kilted (18 May 2021)

So is the non-Combat Arms PLQ only three mods?


----------



## dangerboy (18 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> So is the non-Combat Arms PLQ only three mods?


Yes, basically finishing with the small party tasking (whatever they are calling that PO now)


----------



## medic5 (18 May 2021)

Do we think this is a good idea? Getting rid of the few weeks of "Army" stuff from all the non combat arms?


----------



## Kilted (18 May 2021)

Is the officer side going to change as well?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2021)

What a #$%#ing joke. The Army has basically abdicated its responsibility for environmental training to the trade schools, so they can make up random standards. Every Army DEU trade that isn't on this list now needs to rewrite their DP1 and DP2 packages to make up for any knowledge gaps, and we all know how amazing CTC Gagetown is at timely QS and TP reviews...


----------



## Ostrozac (18 May 2021)

And, after 25-odd years of tinkering with Junior NCO training, we end up with one leadership course for the infantry, a second course for the other combat arms, and a third course for the supporting arms. Which, of course, is exactly where we started, with ISCC, CLC and JLC.

The circle is complete.


----------



## dangerboy (18 May 2021)

I would be very surprised if the trade schools are going to do environmental training, I can't see for example CFLTC adding field training to the HRA and FSA courses for example. I think that it will be up to the unit to do if the unit wishes them to have that training. So units in a CMBG might want it but an Air Force Wing probably not.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2021)

Pretty sure AJLC is a prereq for AVCC. In 5 years how are we going to tactically move all the Sigs LAVs, Maint LAVs, EW LAVs, MP TAPVs and Medic LAVs when all the "old" folks are promoted away from being Crew Commanders?

Know how we fix morale in the CMBGs? Mandate a month-long gun camp every year to teach everything BMQ-L and AJLC should have for the 50% or more of the Bde that's not Inf/Cbt Eng/Gunner/Crewman.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> And, after 25-odd years of tinkering with Junior NCO training, we end up with one leadership course for the infantry, a second course for the other combat arms, and a third course for the supporting arms. Which, of course, is exactly where we started, with ISCC, CLC and JLC.
> 
> The circle is complete.


You guys really complicate things - much like we did in the olden days.

Making easy tasks difficult and complicated since the first parade....


----------



## MilEME09 (18 May 2021)

dangerboy said:


> I would be very surprised if the trade schools are going to do environmental training, I can't see for example CFLTC adding field training to the HRA and FSA courses for example. I think that it will be up to the unit to do if the unit wishes them to have that training. So units in a CMBG might want it but an Air Force Wing probably not.


Some trades it makes sense, but all the ones that get attached to combat elements? Medics, sigs techs? They need that training as well.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Some trades it makes sense, but all the ones that get attached to combat elements? Medics, sigs techs? They need that training as well.


I believe the CANFORGEN specifically directs to include such training in other training evolutions (such as pre-deployment training)


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2021)

Because 8 month predeployment training for a 6 month roto isn't long enough, lets add another few weeks.


----------



## medic5 (18 May 2021)

So essentially in the end we will have different courses for,
1. Infantry 
2. Combat Arms
3. Non Combat Arms but attached
4. Everyone else

Who thought this was a good idea?


----------



## Furniture (18 May 2021)

medic5 said:


> So essentially in the end we will have different courses for,
> 1. Infantry
> 2. Combat Arms
> 3. Non Combat Arms but attached
> ...



There are still only three categories of PLQ, CAF standard, combat arms, and infantry.

Now the stuff you got sent away to learn on BMQ-L will be taught at the base/unit level, rather than being a formal course that could hold up your career. There have been many Met Techs who were slowed down by needing a BMQ-L, before they could do PLQ. With staffing shortages it was hard to send techs from air bases to bases like Shilo or Pet for a month to learn skills they will likely never use in their careers, just so they could get loaded on a PLQ.


----------



## MJP (18 May 2021)

medic5 said:


> So essentially in the end we will have different courses for,
> 1. Infantry
> 2. Combat Arms
> 3. Non Combat Arms but attached
> ...


The system now is essentially the same as it was 20+ years ago.  What is old is new again. It was fine then and it is fine now.  We need to simplify our IT, not make it more cumbersome


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 May 2021)

Add a mechanized phase to the infantry PLQ


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Because 8 month predeployment training for a 6 month roto isn't long enough, lets add another few weeks.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Because 8 month predeployment training for a 6 month roto isn't long enough, lets add another few weeks.


No time needs to be added.  I spent 8 months of 12 holding down a picnic table.  I'm sure we can find 3 weeks to teach a clerk how to do 5s and 20s, and pairs live fire.  You guys make the army out to be way more complicated than it is.

3/4 of Army training is just learning which end of the rifle the bullet leaves from and where to point said flashy bangy end.

Man, from field pay to environmental training to JLC courses you Army guys sure can make a mess of things 

Can Cbt Arms trades not just do proper QL/DP level training development progressions like the rest of the CAF ?

(1) BMQ
(2) Land Environmental
(3) Trades Trg (3,5,6 ect ect)
(3.1) Trade Specialty Course (MGs, Mortar, ect)
(4) CAF PLQ
(5) CAF ILP
(6) CAF SLP

This rings to me like the fitness test, no matter what the CAF comes out with the Army is going to need to prove its ever endangered "manhood" and make a more difficult version.  I loved my time in the Army, I truly did.  The one negative thing I took away from it was it is a massive penis size comparison contest with everyone clamoring to appease or be like the Cbt Arms gods.  Do your job, were all just cogs in the wheel.  And no we aren't all soldiers first and no not every thing we do is to support the infantry.


----------



## Kilted (19 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> No time needs to be added.  I spent 8 months of 12 holding down a picnic table.  I'm sure we can find 3 weeks to teach a clerk how to do 5s and 20s, and pairs live fire.  You guys make the army out to be way more complicated than it is.
> 
> 3/4 of Army training is just learning which end of the rifle the bullet leaves from and where to point said flashy bangy end.
> 
> ...


Trade based harassment is going to be the next thing after hateful conduct.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Do your job, were all just cogs in the wheel.  And no we aren't all soldiers first and no not every thing we do is to support the infantry.



Infantry: the Millennial of Battle


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> Trade based harassment is going to be the next thing after hateful conduct.


Bud, that's been going on since Jesus was a cowboy.  REMF ?  FOBBIT ?  KAF ?

We all have a role to play in the battle space.  Someone has to fire the gun, someone has to feed the gun; and someone has to maintain the gun.  Take anyone of those out and the gun breaks down, fast.


----------



## Kilted (19 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Bud, that's been going on since Jesus was a cowboy.  REMF ?  FOBBIT ?  KAF ?
> 
> We all have a role to play in the battle space.  Someone has to fire the gun, someone has to feed the gun; and someone has to maintain the gun.  Take anyone of those out and the gun breaks down, fast.


I meant the next thing that is addressed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> I meant the next thing that is addressed.


Why ?  What do you predict is suddenly going to start happening ?


----------



## Kilted (19 May 2021)

We have all the various other issues to deal with, on top of this we can't even treat each other with respect. The mentality that if someone's job is slightly easier (even if a member of the same trade) then yours, that they are a lesser person is problematic.


----------



## Kilted (19 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Why ?  What do you predict is suddenly going to start happening ?


Just an extension of targeting harassment, maybe as part of the big culture change they are talking about.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 May 2021)

Kilted said:


> We have all the various other issues to deal with, on top of this we can't even treat each other with respect. The mentality that if someone's job is slightly easier (even if a member of the same trade) then yours, that they are a lesser person is problematic.


What are you going on about ?  Are you trying to say the Cbt Arms folks are some how being treated with less respect now that Jr Leadership Trg in the Army is getting a corrective adjustment ? 



Kilted said:


> Just an extension of targeting harassment, maybe as part of the big culture change they are talking about.


I don't see how a correcting adjustment to junior leadership training in the Army can some how lead to targeted harassment.


----------



## Kilted (19 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> What are you going on about ?  Are you trying to say the Cbt Arms folks are some how being treated with less respect now that Jr Leadership Trg in the Army is getting a corrective adjustment ?
> 
> 
> I don't see how a correcting adjustment to junior leadership training in the Army can some how lead to targeted harassment.


It's not related to this discussion, it's about the current state of the military and how they have been addressing things.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> No time needs to be added.  I spent 8 months of 12 holding down a picnic table.  I'm sure we can find 3 weeks to teach a clerk how to do 5s and 20s, and pairs live fire.  You guys make the army out to be way more complicated than it is.



I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between qualified, current, proficient and expert when it comes to training, right? When bullets end up coming back towards me from those Fig 11 targets on the range, I definitely want to be way better than "qualified" to do pairs live. Pairs live is a dangerous training event, and takes a lot of work up to do safely. We all have our biases based on our environments and trades, so maybe your trade doesn't need this training but mine definitely does, and it was removed without any nuance to that requirement.

Everyone loves to beat the strawman about HRA/FSAs (I won't say clerks so people don't get triggered) not needing Army training. No problem, remove them. The Combat Support trades require it as well as some of the Combat Service Support trades, and the Army has pushed that onto the trade schools to figure out instead of having the Combat Arms create a standard they want to see out of their enablers so they're safe and effective on the battlefield.

All this whining about BMQ-L and AJLC makes me wonder if those folks would be singing a different tune if environmental allowances were treated like spec pay: You gain it and keep it based on specific training requirements. If HRAs/FSAs don't need field training, no problem, they don't need LDA either, they can get casual.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> All this whining about BMQ-L and AJLC makes me wonder if those folks would be singing a different tune if environmental allowances were treated like spec pay: You gain it and keep it based on specific training requirements. If HRAs/FSAs don't need field training, no problem, they don't need LDA either, they can get casual.


This is how Aircrew Allowance is administered. You need to hold a specific qualification, be in a position designated as aircrew and hold a valid medical category to be entitled.


----------



## Furniture (19 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between qualified, current, proficient and expert when it comes to training, right? When bullets end up coming back towards me from those Fig 11 targets on the range, I definitely want to be way better than "qualified" to do pairs live. Pairs live is a dangerous training event, and takes a lot of work up to do safely. We all have our biases based on our environments and trades, so maybe your trade doesn't need this training but mine definitely does, and it was removed without any nuance to that requirement.
> 
> Everyone loves to beat the strawman about HRA/FSAs (I won't say clerks so people don't get triggered) not needing Army training. No problem, remove them. The Combat Support trades require it as well as some of the Combat Service Support trades, and the Army has pushed that onto the trade schools to figure out instead of having the Combat Arms create a standard they want to see out of their enablers so they're safe and effective on the battlefield.
> 
> All this whining about BMQ-L and AJLC makes me wonder if those folks would be singing a different tune if environmental allowances were treated like spec pay: You gain it and keep it based on specific training requirements. If HRAs/FSAs don't need field training, no problem, they don't need LDA either, they can get casual.


It's not whining about training, it was complaining about the way the training was delivered.

Doing a BMQ-L when you join doesn't help much when you never go to the field in your career, or only go after 10-15 years working in other environments. Having the training delivered locally as required, frees up time and money, while also ensuring the training is still fresh and relevant. We have limited numbers, and are going to be in this situation for some time to come, finding ways to balance "nice to have" training with "need to have" training is smart use of our people.

Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> It's not whining about training, it was complaining about the way the training was delivered.
> 
> Doing a BMQ-L when you join doesn't help much when you never go to the field in your career, or only go after 10-15 years working in other environments. Having the training delivered locally as required, frees up time and money, while also ensuring the training is still fresh and relevant. We have limited numbers, and are going to be in this situation for some time to come, finding ways to balance "nice to have" training with "need to have" training is smart use of our people.
> 
> Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.


Whole I agree with you, I feel the blanket all non combat arms trades won't do BMQL is a mistake, purple trades? Sure but as a tech I still need to man a C6, C9 or Carl G in our lines, still have patrols as part of my BTS, etc.... leaving it upto units ti teach the basics will create a system with no standardization.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between qualified, current, proficient and expert when it comes to training, right? When bullets end up coming back towards me from those Fig 11 targets on the range, I definitely want to be way better than "qualified" to do pairs live. Pairs live is a dangerous training event, and takes a lot of work up to do safely. We all have our biases based on our environments and trades, so maybe your trade doesn't need this training but mine definitely does, and it was removed without any nuance to that requirement.
> 
> Everyone loves to beat the strawman about HRA/FSAs (I won't say clerks so people don't get triggered) not needing Army training. No problem, remove them. The Combat Support trades require it as well as some of the Combat Service Support trades, and the Army has pushed that onto the trade schools to figure out instead of having the Combat Arms create a standard they want to see out of their enablers so they're safe and effective on the battlefield.
> 
> All this whining about BMQ-L and AJLC makes me wonder if those folks would be singing a different tune if environmental allowances were treated like spec pay: You gain it and keep it based on specific training requirements. If HRAs/FSAs don't need field training, no problem, they don't need LDA either, they can get casual.


You're talking about me!  I was that Killick Sup Tech right from the RCN, sent for TF1-10.  I didn't even have a ruck sack when I reported in PET (actually Meaford), why ?  Because we didn't have any in stores in Halifax.  My only military weapons exposure was the annual C7 quals.  I did have the advantage of being NBP and a gun nut too.

I spent from12 months in Pet for "work up trg" and the vast majority was spent farmed out 1 RCR RQ or some CQ I cant remember in 2 Svc.  We did 2 months in Ft Irwin too, which was spent with a few convoys and then I was sent to the "PRT" for the remainder of that Ex.

There was plenty of time in that 12 months work work me up, and I have never had BMQ-L or the A/JLC.  And I was deployed on a whole bunch of convoys, I was tasked to be part of moving the Guns from Wilson to Soja and I was then sent to the PDC.

I'm not beating on HRA/FSAs.  I want them in their seats doing their jobs.  Processing financial and HR stuff.  These people are eminently important to me, they are looking after my pers docs and pay.

We should be realistic about what's required.  Log folks are never going to clear trenches and advance to contact.  But they should be able to be an effective part of a convoy, run a check point, guard a gate and successfully maintain a defensive.  Basically hold the ground their on.

I said it previously, the Army messed up on LDA.  They tried to copy the way we do SDA and it doesn't work.  A ship is a true mobile unit.  Every member of that ships coys sails when the ship slips lines and it becomes a self sustaining piece of Canada, we don't have rear party's or stay behind folks unless its a short term pers landing scenario.  Regiments don't do that.  You cant pack up an OR and send it to the Matawa plains for a 2 week gun camp, that's an insane amount of work and your only asking to create problems in your OR if you do.  Even when was at 1 RCR RQ we slept in the shop and convoyed out the stores from the previous days ADREPs.  That was actually effective as the CO of 1 RCR was interested in training us on convoy drills and CSS as much as he was about his gun fighters.

You really wanna get pissed off start investigating who all gets LDA in the CAF.  There are a ton of units and pers getting LDA who will never set foot in the field while posted to that billet number.

Tie LDA to a qualification, maybe that's a good idea; but I would suggest the Army be realistic and realize LDA is being wasted on folks who dont go to the field and should be in receipt of casual instead.  I would tie it to a minimum number of 24 hour days in the field.  Say 100 out of year. 

My point is current pre-deployment training leaves enough time to bring the nonexperience folks up to speed.  OR Stop with the purpleness for god sake and start employing sailors at sea, soldiers in the field and zoomies in hotels.  Like god intended. 



Furniture said:


> Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.



Exactly!


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> Otherwise why not send all CAF members on the BMQ-L, and NETP? Sure you might not have to fight a fire at sea in your entire career, but in the event of a fire/flood at sea I want the "riders" to be useful, and not just huddled in the Wardroom/Jr. Ranks/C&POs wondering what is happening.


Do we have ships that can carry more than 10 or 20 "riders"? If we had an amphibious assault ship then the embarked Inf Coy should definitely have DC training, it's in their best interest to keep themselves alive.

I'm hearing this was a top down decision, with no feedback solicited from the AJLC WG that's currently sitting to update the course. Another case of senior leadership trying to fix one problem, with no estimate on the effects that one change would cause. One of the largest Branches in the Army (RCCS) now does no Land Environment training, and must figure it out on their own or rely on overworked+undermanned CMBGs to make up the delta. To save what? 8 weeks over the span of a 6-9 year career to get to MCpl? HFXTar spent more time in the smoke pit on his workup training than that, and I guarantee you if we didn't figure out how to optimize whitespace in predeployment training during an actual shooting match, it's not going to get any better in a peacetime military. The next complaint will be that predeployment training is too condensed and not enough down time because we're cramming in basic soldier skills on R2HR.



Halifax Tar said:


> OR Stop with the purpleness for god sake and start employing sailors at sea, soldiers in the field and zoomies in hotels.  Like god intended.


Great point, although I suspect a lot of folks who are in "DEU of convenience" would be asking for changes because they didn't like the postings they were starting to get.


----------



## Furniture (20 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Do we have ships that can carry more than 10 or 20 "riders"? If we had an amphibious assault ship then the embarked Inf Coy should definitely have DC training, it's in their best interest to keep themselves alive.
> 
> I'm hearing this was a top down decision, with no feedback solicited from the AJLC WG that's currently sitting to update the course. Another case of senior leadership trying to fix one problem, with no estimate on the effects that one change would cause. One of the largest Branches in the Army (RCCS) now does no Land Environment training, and must figure it out on their own or rely on overworked+undermanned CMBGs to make up the delta. To save what? 8 weeks over the span of a 6-9 year career to get to MCpl? HFXTar spent more time in the smoke pit on his workup training than that, and I guarantee you if we didn't figure out how to optimize whitespace in predeployment training during an actual shooting match, it's not going to get any better in a peacetime military. The next complaint will be that predeployment training is too condensed and not enough down time because we're cramming in basic soldier skills on R2HR.
> 
> ...


My counter to what you are saying is fairly straightforward, if in the RCCS world soldier skills are part of the core competency for the trades, why are they not part of the trades training? if it's only 6-8 more weeks of training why not make it an official part of the DP1-DP3? I understand it wasn't done that way because the army has since the early 2000s had SQ/BMQ-L, but what did they do prior to that?


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 May 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Great point, although I suspect a lot of folks who are in "DEU of convenience" would be asking for changes because they didn't like the postings they were starting to get.


I have no issue with this.  It has to happen at the WO/PO1 level now anyway if individuals want to be succession managed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> My point is current pre-deployment training leaves enough time to bring the nonexperience folks up to speed.  OR Stop with the purpleness for god sake and start employing sailors at sea, soldiers in the field *and zoomies in hotels.*  Like god intended.


 
Amen brother! 

The cult of pre-deployment training seems to be designed to attempt to remove every possible variable from an inherently dangerous and unpredictable environment, primarily for ass covering purposes. Courses can be the same. This is not necessarily good thing.

At some point you have to augment training with leadership. If you can't trust your leaders to figure it out, and support them as required, there's your training and development goal.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> My counter to what you are saying is fairly straightforward, if in the RCCS world soldier skills are part of the core competency for the trades, why are they not part of the trades training? if it's only 6-8 more weeks of training why not make it an official part of the DP1-DP3? I understand it wasn't done that way because the army has since the early 2000s had SQ/BMQ-L, but what did they do prior to that?


BMQ-L was a prereq to DP1, which then provided the basis for learning detachment/hide defensives for the FTX. It's still there, but now the prereq training is gone before CFSCE even knew about it. By the pace of CTC's approval of QS and TP boards/amendments, it'll be a minimum of 5 years to include that training in the DP1, and RCCS only got lucky because we're doing a trade shuffle (again #facepalm) so they have a strategic opportunity to fix DP2. CFSCE also has a massive throughput problem, in that before COVID it was able to produce 60 officers and 30 NCMs in a year. Adding in 4 weeks to DP1 after ACISS cut the Sig Op QL3 from 6 months to 3 months is likely a non starter, and will push the task onto the Bdes to figure out, because they're not busy enough as it is.

I can't speak early than 2002 to what the Rad Op trade did, but my QL3 course in 2003 was designed to lead up to operating a detachment in a field environment, which included defending the position from attack.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 May 2021)

I think if you can teach an infantry goon how to use MonitorMass, Guardian, Excel, and work in the OR/CQ then you can teach army support people how to run around and pretend to do combat arms stuff. 

My experience observing/teaching PLQs is that people work themselves up about it and make themselves sick with anxiety. When they get on course they're fine. The biggest hurdle for people is being in shape. Lots of people seem inclined to show up with can't run or can't ruck or can't do drill chits. Ever see someone teach drill while sitting in a chair because they have a no standing for longer than 15 minutes chit? It's pretty fucked up.

As much as the CAF wants to think we're back to cold war style trench warfare with frontlines, the threats our non-combat arms army people will face are attacks from the rear and insider attacks.


----------



## MilEME09 (23 May 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> As much as the CAF wants to think we're back to cold war style trench warfare with frontlines, the threats our non-combat arms army people will face are attacks from the rear and insider attacks.



In a cold war mindset the biggest threat to our rear lines is lay back patrols, Special forces, Recce patrols, and para troopers, essentially the best of the best. Which is why it is important that CSS, who are in charge of rear area security get a sufficiant amount of weapons, and tactics training, not to win, but to survive. We can go back to cold war doctrine, that is all fine, but at least fully commit to it, not half baked like it is right now.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> In a cold war mindset the biggest threat to our rear lines is lay back patrols, Special forces, Recce patrols, and para troopers, essentially the best of the best. Which is why it is important that CSS, who are in charge of rear area security get a sufficiant amount of weapons, and tactics training, not to win, but to survive. We can go back to cold war doctrine, that is all fine, but at least fully commit to it, not half baked like it is right now.


It was half baked in the 80s too


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2021)

Sometimes reddit users hit the nail on the head...


----------



## ballz (24 May 2021)

I doubt this has anything to do with funding... if it's money-related, it's financial mismanagement, not funding. If there are savings from this, they will be pissed up a rope.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 May 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I think if you can teach an infantry goon how to use MonitorMass, Guardian, Excel, and work in the OR/CQ then you can teach army support people how to run around and pretend to do combat arms stuff.
> 
> My experience observing/teaching PLQs is that people work themselves up about it and make themselves sick with anxiety. When they get on course they're fine. The biggest hurdle for people is being in shape. Lots of people seem inclined to show up with can't run or can't ruck or can't do drill chits. Ever see someone teach drill while sitting in a chair because they have a no standing for longer than 15 minutes chit? It's pretty fucked up.
> 
> As much as the CAF wants to think we're back to cold war style trench warfare with frontlines, the threats our non-combat arms army people will face are attacks from the rear and insider attacks.



I would agree. That's why CSS should be trained and effective in defensive fighting.  Being able to hold on until the Cbt Arms can show up and ease the pressure.  I have argued for years that the different schools, CFLTC for example, should be running PLQ/ILP/ALP as its a career course no different than a QL/DP level.  And the corps school should be the epicenter for corps doctrine and employment strategy.

The caveat is, how do you accomplish this for *purple trades ?* Who are getting less and less purple all the time, at least in the Logistics NCM realm. 

I will also say I'm the guy who went on PLQ and ILP and took nothing from it.  It was a waste of time, and I contend that leadership training is a waste of time, I expect that many will disagree with me on that.  In our PER system we identify leaders and promote them on that merit, after successive years of proving that.  Then they need a course to prove it again ? 

What the Army needs is something akin to the RCNs OSQAB/NETP for REMFs.  And then further training in that as your field responsibilities change from worker to leader.  And the Army needs to come out and state that CMs need to stop posting them people at the MCpl level and above with no prior extended field time.  The RCN should be doing the same.  Purple shouldn't exist past the S1/Cpl level.


----------



## 211RadOp (25 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> My counter to what you are saying is fairly straightforward, if in the RCCS world soldier skills are part of the core competency for the trades, why are they not part of the trades training? if it's only 6-8 more weeks of training why not make it an official part of the DP1-DP3? I understand it wasn't done that way because the army has since the early 2000s had SQ/BMQ-L, but what did they do prior to that?



I joined as a Rad Op in '88.  After Basic we went to Borden for Driver Training then onto CFSCE for the remainder.  This included Land Tactical Training where we learned how to live and fight in the field.  With the creation of BMQ-L, LTT disappeared.



PuckChaser said:


> CFSCE also has a massive throughput problem, in that before COVID it was able to produce 60 officers and 30 NCMs in a year.



I don't know where you got your numbers, but when I was in 2 Sqn (2018) we were putting through alot more than 30 NCMs a year.  Yes the change over from ACISS to Sig Op did drop the numbers, as it happened right before COVID hit.


----------

