# FORCE Combat standard [Merged]



## stellarpanther

I don't mean to take this thread in too many different directions but since we're on the topic of CF fitness testing, here's another question.  I was recently told by a CWO and a Major that the BFT is only a unit test and that nothing can be done if a mbr fails or can't complete it.  Is this true?  If a RMS clerk or some other person from a support trade ends up in a unit that does the BFT what actually happens to that person?  I would find it hard to believe that they would simply say "don't worry about it".


----------



## Old EO Tech

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't mean to take this thread in too many different directions but since we're on the topic of CF fitness testing, here's another question.  I was recently told by a CWO and a Major that the BFT is only a unit test and that nothing can be done if a mbr fails or can't complete it.  Is this true?  If a RMS clerk or some other person from a support trade ends up in a unit that does the BFT what actually happens to that person?  I would find it hard to believe that they would simply say "don't worry about it".



There is an Army message from the CCA that states that the Load Bearing March is an IBTS requirement, and that though failing it is not a fitness fail, your unit CoC is completely within their rights to place the member on administrative measures if appropriate.  As it means you are not operationally deploy-able if you fail IBTS training.  So that CWO/Maj are either not in the Army or are completely ignoring the direction of the CCA.


----------



## MedCorps

To elaborate a little more on the post above.  The Commander Canadian Army has ordered that the Battle Fitness Test is part of Individual Skill Level Two (IS-2) for Fitness part of the Individual Battle Task Standards (IBTS).  

For the Fitness IBTS, IS-1 is the FORCE and IS-2 is the Battle Fitness Test (there is no IS-3 for the fitness IBTS). 

This is not unlike say the C7 IBTS where IS-1 is the handling test  + PWT 1.  IS-2 is the handling test + PWT 1 + PWT 2, and IS-3 is handling test + PWT 1 + PWT 2 + PWT-3 + night supplement + weapon sight system supplement if required. 

Look at Chapter 2, of B-GL-383-003/FP-001, dated 2012-10-03 (IBTS  for Land Ops).  In this chapter there is a section titled Failure Consequences and it makes it clear that "Commanders can initiate administrative actions and procedures to address these deficiencies in accordance with CFAO if repeated failures occur.  Additionally, failure to meet the required IBTS standards (sic) may represent a breach in the Universality of Service". This pub also talks about the BFT as the IBTS fitness IS-2 in Annex C, Appendix 6.   

So, if the CO (or higher) requires his unit at IBTS IS-2 then the BFT is part and parcel of that standard.  

I hope that is of some interest / help.  

MC


----------



## dapaterson

Except in CANARMYGEN 021/13 the Commander of the Army stated



> 4. UNTIL INDIVIDUAL BATTLE TASK STANDARDS (IBTS), CANADIAN ARMY
> ORDERS AND THE ARMY FITNESS MANUAL ARE UPDATED, I AM DIRECTING THE
> FOLLOWING COMMENCING 1 APRIL 2014:
> A. MPFS ASSESSED BY THE FORCE EVALUATION IS THE ONLY FITNESS
> STANDARD.  THIS STANDARD INCLUDES ELEMENTS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
> OF THE TRENCH DIG AND CASUALTY EVACUATION OF THE OLD LFCPFS,
> THEREFORE THE TRENCH DIG AND CASUALTY EVACUATION WILL NOT BE PART OF
> THE MANDATED ANNUAL LOAD-BEARING MARCH,
> B. ALL FULL-TIME CAF PERSONNEL POSTED TO CANADIAN ARMY OPERATIONAL
> UNITS, DEPLOYABLE HQS, AND TRAINING INSTITUTIONS WILL COMPLETE 13 KM
> LOAD-BEARING MARCHES ANNUALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS FITNESS
> STANDARD (LFCPFS), LESS THE TRENCH DIG AND CASUALTY EVACUATION.
> DESPITE THE OBVIOUS NEED FOR LEADERS TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT WORK-UP
> TRAINING AND PREPARATION REQUIRED BEFORE COMPLETING ANY PHYSICAL
> TRAINING, LOAD-BEARING MARCHES WILL BECOME PART OF WHAT WE DO ON A
> ROUTINE BASIS.  INCREASED INDIVIDUAL STRENGTH AND FITNESS DEVELOPED
> OVER TIME WILL EVENTUALLY REDUCE THE NEED FOR LONG WORK-UP TRAINING
> BEFORE AND FORMAL RECOVERY PERIODS AFTER LOAD-BEARING MARCHES,
> C. TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH TERMINOLOGY SUCH AS THE LFCPFS AND BFT,
> THE 13 KM MARCH WILL BE REFERRED TO AS THE LOAD BEARING MARCH (LBM).
> ONCE LBM WEIGHT AND MARCH PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN VALIDATED AND IT HAS
> BEEN CONFIRMED AS IBTS 1, FULL TIME CAF PERSONNEL POSTED TO CANADIAN
> ARMY OPERATIONAL UNITS, DEPLOYABLE HQS AND TRAINING INSTITUTIONS WILL
> COMPLETE THE LBM ANNUALLY.  THIS INTENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE COMMANDERS
> AND COMMANDING OFFICERS OF NON-OPERATIONAL UNITS, HQS OR NON-TRAINING
> INSTITUTIONS FROM DOING LBM TRAINING, IN FACT, IT IS TO BE
> ENCOURAGED,
> D. AS THE MPFS IS THE ONLY CANADIAN ARMED FORCES FITNESS STANDARD,
> ADMINISTRATIVE OR CAREER ACTION BASED ON FITNESS CAN ONLY BE TAKEN AS
> A RESULT OF FAILURE OF THE FORCE TEST.  AS WITH OTHER TRAINING
> SHORTFALLS, LEADERS RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OR
> CAREER ACTION AGAINST THEIR PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT COMPLETE THE ANNUAL
> IBTS, TO INCLUDE THE LBM.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except in CANARMYGEN 021/13 the Commander of the Army stated



Sorry, I'm slow. What are you trying to say has been contradicted by the CANARMYGEN?


----------



## dapaterson

CANARMYGEN states that BFT/LBM is no longer a fitness standard.

So failing it is not a fitness failure, but an individual readiness failure.


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANARMYGEN states that BFT/LBM is no longer a fitness standard.
> 
> So failing it is not a fitness failure, but an individual readiness failure.



So fail BFT = no tour? How about a tasking away from the unit?


----------



## GnyHwy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANARMYGEN states that BFT/LBM is no longer a fitness standard.
> 
> So failing it is not a fitness failure, but an individual readiness failure.



Very true and ironically now that it is not just a fitness standard the repercussions for failing are probably greater.  



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> So fail BFT = no tour? How about a tasking away from the unit?



It would mean that you have failed IBTS, therefore you are not fit for operations.  A tasking away from unit?  If you are unfit, don't tempt them, as you may never get to come back.   >


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANARMYGEN states that BFT/LBM is no longer a fitness standard.
> 
> So failing it is not a fitness failure, but an individual readiness failure.



I don't see anyone stating the contrary to that, but the important part of the CANARMYGEN is this:\\



> AS WITH OTHER TRAINING SHORTFALLS, LEADERS RETAIN THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OR CAREER ACTION AGAINST THEIR PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT COMPLETE THE ANNUAL IBTS, TO INCLUDE THE LBM.



People can and should have their feet held to the fire. Hopefully they use this opportunity to change the format to something more physically challenging than the 2h26m time limit when they rename it a "load-bearing march." A big problem with Army's overall fitness level, IMO, is the fact that mbrs were no longer made to do the EXPRES test and the BFT was truly a test that favoured the big, overweight dudes that couldn't make it out of the parking lot on a unit-led run.


----------



## GnyHwy

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't see anyone stating the contrary to that, but the important part of the CANARMYGEN is this:\\
> 
> People can and should have their feet held to the fire. Hopefully they use this opportunity to change the format to something more physically challenging than the 2h26m time limit when they rename it a "load-bearing march." A big problem with Army's overall fitness level, IMO, is the fact that mbrs were no longer made to do the EXPRES test and the BFT was truly a test that favoured the big, overweight dudes that couldn't make it out of the parking lot on a unit-led run.



It's interesting you say "feet to the fire".  When it was a CAF standard that CoC was held accountable for preparation.  Now that it is not, they aren't.  The only person's feet to the fire are the individuals; which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the CoC seems to be absolved.


----------



## GnyHwy

If you want it standardized then great, but pushing/marching ones body weight is not necessarily a standard.  A 60kg person carrying 30kg extra is far from a 100kg person carrying an extra 30kg. 

While I agree it shouldn't give fat guys a break, it shouldn't give scrawny guys a break either; which brings females into the mix now too.  

With the diversity of persons in this world and the variety of ways to test fitness/strength, a standard is not achievable and no large group will ever agree.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> If you want it standardized then great, but pushing/marching ones body weight is not necessarily a standard.  A 60kg person carrying 30kg extra is far from a 100kg person carrying an extra 30kg.
> 
> While I agree it shouldn't give fat guys a break, it shouldn't give scrawny guys a break either; which brings females into the mix now too.
> 
> With the diversity of persons in this world and the variety of ways to test fitness/strength, a standard is not achievable and no large group will ever agree.



History shows that just about everyone goes into battle carrying at least 60lbs of stuff. So let's acknowledge that fact and move on from there.

Combat is not an equal opportunity endeavour so we should not be an equal opportunity employer or we will kill more of our people than necessary (with kindness)


----------



## ballz

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> If you want it standardized then great, but pushing/marching ones body weight is not necessarily a standard.  A 60kg person carrying 30kg extra is far from a 100kg person carrying an extra 30kg.
> 
> With the diversity of persons in this world and the variety of ways to test fitness/strength, a standard is not achievable and no large group will ever agree.



It's not about a "standard" or creating a standard that encompasses all the varieties of fitness/strength/body types/gender/etc. It's about identifying what are honest, bona fide occupational requirements*, and ensuring that everyone is able to meet them. If not, their strengths/weaknesses/body type/gender is not relevant.

The FORCE test has at the very least gone this route, which is the right direction, but executed terribly.

I think, for example, an IBTS IS3 could be made that encompasses some of the more exhausting stuff infanteers do, such as a loaded march with 60lbs over 10km, sling sand bags, carry jerry cans / ammo cans "x" distance in "y" time, complete a long-ass series of "up he sees me down," complete a series of 100m sprints in FFO w/ frag and weapon, etc. This would be a bona fide occupational requirement* and would surely pass the litmus test used to establish a BFOR.** Infanteers could then be required to complete this IBTS every year.

*Bona Fide Occupational Requirement -  "a requirement that is necessary for proper or efficient performance of a job"

**The litmus test is that a BFOR must be:
1. Made honestly, in good faith, and in the sincere belief that it is made in the interests of effectiveness, safety, and productivity; and
2. Objectively reasonable. In other words, it must have a sensible connection to the ability of an employee to do the job.\

BFORs are a very important part of law. A BFOR exception is included in virtually all human rights codes in Canada. Without BFORs being written into law the way they are, all kinds of jobs that require even simple things like vision requirements, etc, wouldn't be able to function.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> History shows that just about everyone goes into battle carrying at least 60lbs of stuff. So let's acknowledge that fact and move on from there.
> 
> Combat is not an equal opportunity endeavour so we should not be an equal opportunity employer or we will kill more of our people than necessary (with kindness)



I agree with your point, but I have to play devil's advocate and add that, when was the last time someone non-combat arms had to march 13km or more besides on operations/ex, etc??

I would love to know where they got this distance from, and what the significance of it is.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MrBlue said:
			
		

> I agree with your point, but I have to play devil's advocate and add that, when was the last time someone non-combat arms had to march 13km or more besides on operations/ex, etc??
> 
> I would love to know where they got this distance from, and what the significance of it is.



I agree that there needs to be a difference in the fitness testing for Combat Arms vs. everyone else. No arguments there.

In the Parachute Regiment the '10 miler' is the standard march, to be completed within 2 hours. This distance evolved from the need to move quickly from a drop zone to a target to do the business. 10 miles was the usual distance, apparently, because airplanes are big, easy to spot from the ground, noisy things and we like to try and sneak up on the bad guys as much as possible. This standard has been in place since WW2. On P Company they cover other distances too, such as the 20 miler, as standard tests. Battalions sometimes completed an annual 50 miler, in fighting order, with all weapon systems including MILAN and mortars.

In the UK they used to have an 8 miler, carrying personal weapon and 35lbs in fighting order, to be completed in 1:30 or something like that. In the Cold War days the rationale was that you would debus out of range of the (Soviet) enemy's BM-21 systems, then head into the combat zone on foot. There was also a 2 miler, to be completed in 18 minutes carrying the same load, which apparently simulated the need to move quickly within the combat zone. The 1 1/2 miler was to be completed in 10

The Royal Marines have a 4 miler, 12 miler and 30 miler on their commando course. These have been the same tests since WW2. 

IIRC SAS selection week keeps the 20, 35 and 45 milers, all completed consecutively within 4 days carrying 55lbs and personal weapon. 

In Canada we used to have a 2 x 10 miler. Not sure about the rationale there.

The Norwegian Army uses a 5, 10, 20 and 30km (in under 4 hours) ski biathlon, carrying 15kg rucks and personal weapon, as their basic combat arms test.

But, apart from history and some cold war era logic, I'm not sure what the rationale has been for those distances other than ensuring that those tested are put under enough stress to figure out if they are ready for some kind of battle.


----------



## stellarpanther

I often find it ridiculous when people talk about universality of service.  For example, someone in a purple trade may never touch a ruck sack or march one step during their entire career depending on where they are posted however someone else in the exact same trade could get released possible if they continued to fail these tests.  I think there should be some fairness.


----------



## Jarnhamar

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I often find it ridiculous when people talk about universality of service.  For example, someone in a purple trade may never touch a ruck sack or march one step during their entire career depending on where they are posted however someone else in the exact same trade could get released possible if they continued to fail these tests.  I think there should be some fairness.



Could be someone thinking the bar should be set towards what we may face deployed overseas instead of an 8-4 career in a CFB.


----------



## stellarpanther

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Could be someone thinking the bar should be set towards what we may face deployed overseas instead of an 8-4 career in a CFB.



I understand but if it's going to be universal then shouldn't it be the same requirement for everyone regardless of where they are posted?  The RMS Clerk in Edmonton for example shouldn't be required to complete different tests in order to stay employed while the RMS clerk in Borden does nothing other than a FORCE test.


----------



## PuckChaser

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I often find it ridiculous when people talk about universality of service.  For example, someone in a purple trade may never touch a ruck sack or march one step during their entire career depending on where they are posted however someone else in the exact same trade could get released possible if they continued to fail these tests.  I think there should be some fairness.



And yet if we end up in a giant shooting match somewhere that person could be expected to do all those things.

I'm a Snr NCO ACISS. If I'm firing a M72 at something, we're in a world of hurt, but best believe I pay attention and make sure I know the drills every year for IBTS.


----------



## ballz

I realize this thread is old, but is anybody tracking if the IBTS PAM has been updated with the Load Bearing March yet? And what that entails?

We have had someone thunder in on the 13km and before moving forward someone pondered that the new Load Bearing March didn't have a time limit attached to it. I have never heard this before but without knowing if the old BFT time limit is in play or whether there is a new LBM format we are supposed to have followed its hard to move forward on this.

On that note, is there any centralized place where I can find the most recent editions of all PAMs? One where I know that the version being presented is the version currently in use?

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> If you want it standardized then great, but pushing/marching ones body weight is not necessarily a standard.  A 60kg person carrying 30kg extra is far from a 100kg person carrying an extra 30kg.
> 
> While I agree it shouldn't give fat guys a break, it shouldn't give scrawny guys a break either; which brings females into the mix now too.
> 
> With the diversity of persons in this world and the variety of ways to test fitness/strength, a standard is not achievable and no large group will ever agree.



I will have to disagree with you here Gny. A GPMG weighs 11kg without ammunition or the SF kit. This does not change if a scrawny individual or female has to carry it, and the reason I am dead set against "differential" standards regardless of how "scientific" they are is the *plain fact* that kit, ammunition, water etc. does not magically change mass when someone else is manipulating it.

In fact, differential testing and standards could leave me in the situation where only the small person is left and we need to take the GPMG. Do I leave it behind because soldier "X" passed the lesser test but is unable to shoulder the mass of the weapon? I'd frankly leave solider "X" behind before I go into the fight without the GPMG. Suggestions like "well, soldier "Y" can carry the GPMG" miss the point; how is it effective man management to constantly saddle the same small cadre with the most difficult and demanding tasks because the others are simply not physically capable?

So in my mind, for the standards to be _valid_, they have to reflect the _real world conditions_ that are being faced. If the job entails carrying 30kg of kit (including section and platoon stores), then everyone needs to carry 30kg, and be able to move together as a unit (having to wait around while the person bearing the SF kit catches up is also going to have negative consequences).

Given the increasing emphasis on unconventional warfare (including constructs like Hybrid War, "Unrestricted Warfare", "Next Generation War", 4GW etc.), to say that the RMS clerk is never going to have to face these conditions is frighteningly ignoring the new realities. It is far more likely the RMS clerk is _more_ likely to face attack, since logistics and administration are high value/high payoff targets.


----------



## PanaEng

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I will have to disagree with you here Gny. A GPMG weighs 11kg without ammunition or the SF kit. This does not change if a scrawny individual or female has to carry it, and the reason I am dead set against "differential" standards regardless of how "scientific" they are is the *plain fact* that kit, ammunition, water etc. does not magically change mass when someone else is manipulating it.



I don't think he was saying that at all: 





> While I agree it shouldn't give fat guys a break, it shouldn't give scrawny guys a break either;


----------



## Infanteer

ballz said:
			
		

> I realize this thread is old, but is anybody tracking if the IBTS PAM has been updated with the Load Bearing March yet? And what that entails?
> 
> We have had someone thunder in on the 13km and before moving forward someone pondered that the new Load Bearing March didn't have a time limit attached to it. I have never heard this before but without knowing if the old BFT time limit is in play or whether there is a new LBM format we are supposed to have followed its hard to move forward on this.



The IBTS PAM has not been updated.  The Army Op Plan only states that Physical Fitness Testing will consist of a 13 KM LBM and casualty drag to be completed.  No mention of time.

You can likely cite a member for performance issues for failing to achieve IBTS if they cannot complete the march.



> On that note, is there any centralized place where I can find the most recent editions of all PAMs? One where I know that the version being presented is the version currently in use?



Army Electronic Library.  It's a sharepoint version now and is on the DWAN.


----------



## ballz

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The IBTS PAM has not been updated.  The Army Op Plan only states that Physical Fitness Testing will consist of a 13 KM LBM and casualty drag to be completed.  No mention of time.
> 
> You can likely cite a member for performance issues for failing to achieve IBTS if they cannot complete the march.
> 
> Army Electronic Library.  It's a sharepoint version now and is on the DWAN.



Thanks, found that stuff today, very happy we are working off live documents more and more these days. 

The IBTS PAM states that Fitness IS2 is the "Load Bearing March" as per the Army Fitness Manual. The Army Fitness Manual defines the LBM as "13km, xx kg, blah blah blah, to be completed in 2h 26m," so there is still a time limit.

The member completed the march but did not complete it in the required time unfortunately. When the BFT was an actual physical fitness standard, the good book dictated that this would result in an Initial Counselling. Now that it is an IBTS, an IC is no longer dictated, and its more of a command decision. Given the member's circumstances we are not using formal Remedial Measures but a 5b PDR will be issued with a plan put in place to ensure they are given the opportunity to improve and pass in 3 months time, and it will be made clear that a failure in 3 months time will very likely result in an Initial Counselling.

Cheers


----------



## Halifax Tar

I am assuming the writers of, and General, in this article are speaking army centric here.  As this test isn’t worth peanuts to a ships coy deploying... Not sure about the RCAF... 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/troops-fitness-deployed-test-1.4402024


----------



## Stoker

From what I have read in the original document it supposed to be the March, followed by dropping the small pack, 5 min rest and then right into the FORCE test with no breaks in between. All with weapon and gear.


----------



## Halifax Tar

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Current force is, honestly, fairly relevent. Seeking cover, moving a load, pulling a casualty, all are tasks that can reasonable to expected to be preformed. Even air crew can get hit with mortars and rockets, or in a conventional sense enemy air. Easily justified for Navy too.



We cant march anywhere, we very rarely lift sand bags, we cant pepper pod on a ship, the cas drag perhaps but doing it in buker gear would be more realistic. 

Not to mention we arent issued field kit...

Tell me how this relates to naval deployments again ?


----------



## dimsum

I have a sneaking suspicion that this will end up being just for Army-centric deployments.  It's not super-relevant for, say, a fast-jet deployment or the majority of Aurora deployments where we aren't issued helmets or weapons.


----------



## FSTO

Once again the Canadian Media continues the idea that the CAF is Army only.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What does your navy deployment pt test look like?



Unless things have changed, the navy doesn't do that silly stuff.  If the ship's going, you go with it.  We practice the battle/damage control drills that we would be doing on a regular basis and would do a good deal of it in workups for a mission anyhow.  Why do a test to do what you're already doing to begin with?

When I was going into the sandbox with Roto 7, that was a different matter.  While in Rome...  we may be in the same CAF but we're different animals with different needs.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Not sure how this will make sure I can do my job properly, which is stay to focused for up to 10 hours straight sitting in place...

If I have to get out, you can be sure I'll carry a lot less than 35kg and I won't have to drag anybody around.

From my perspective, a waste of time rather than something meaningful.


----------



## Stoker

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm reading it wrong but to me it looks like he's singling out Navy cooks?But isn't this a common enough practice already?  If someones skills are deemed essential then we deploy them anyways.
> 
> I'd say there needs to be some kind of common test or baseline.



I thought the FORCE was the baseline with the other operational tests for the various elements. Wasn't FORCE developed by taking into account what happened on a ship as well as other activities. I honestly don't see the need for another test for a ship deploying as our job at sea doesn't really change.


----------



## dapaterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I thought the FORCE was the baseline with the other operational tests for the various elements. Wasn't FORCE developed by taking into account what happened on a ship as well as other activities. I honestly don't see the need for another test for a ship deploying as our job at sea doesn't really change.



My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).


I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.

Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).
> 
> 
> I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.
> 
> Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.



Thanks I suspected so much.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).
> 
> 
> I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.
> 
> Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.



Work ups (WUPS) for a ship is the deployment readiness training/test. It is difficult and physically demanding on everyone.

It is not the same as an individual physical fitness test. Which the FORCE test already seems to do a pretty good job of testing what I have to do on a ship. The sandbags could be firehose or AFFF cans, for all I care. The up/down part of the rush actually simulates utility work in the aft cabin of the of the helicopter remarkably well.

It is a good test.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Work ups (WUPS) for a ship is the deployment readiness training/test. It is difficult and physically demanding on everyone.



Thanks for the clarification.



> It is not the same as an individual physical fitness test. Which the FORCE test already seems to do a pretty good job of testing what I have to do on a ship. The sandbags could be firehose or AFFF cans, for all I care. The up/down part of the rush actually simulates utility work in the aft cabin of the of the helicopter remarkably well.
> 
> It is a good test.



Indeed.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understanding is that ST(A) and ST(P) are the "test" for ships deploying, ensuring their readiness.  (Although, to be fair, it's a collective and not an individual validation).
> 
> 
> I believe the confusion here is that the Army is recycling the FORCE name for a different test - an Individual Battle Task Standard (IBTS), not a fitness test.
> 
> Or, in other words, FORCE remains the CAF fitness test.  FORCE Combat is now an Army IBTS.  But the IBTS does not replace the fitness test.



The LBM - Load Bearing March (13km) is the Army IBTS standard... Force Combat is for deployable and CADTC Units IIRC....


----------



## dapaterson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The LBM - Load Bearing March (13km) is the Army IBTS standard... Force Combat is for deployable and CADTC Units IIRC....



No.  LBM has been replaced by FORCE Combat.

https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx

This is not an employment standard, FORCE remains the CAF physical employment Standard. FORCE Combat will replace the 13km march (BFT) as the physical fitness check in Individual Battle Tasks Standards (IBTS).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

How about they first give us all the kit needed to do this stupid test... ;D


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

> This is not an employment standard, FORCE remains the CAF physical employment Standard. FORCE Combat will replace the 13km march (BFT) as the physical fitness check in Individual Battle Tasks Standards (IBTS).



Hence the reason why they can waive it if someone doesn't meet the test requirement. The Force test remains the one that goes on your MPRR and PER.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I thought the FORCE was the baseline with the other operational tests for the various elements.


Absolutely right,my mistake.  I was mixing up FORCE test with FORCE Combat.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

To confuse things further, the deployment fitness test will either be the LBM (13 km BFT) for non-Army, or the FORCE Combat test for Army types


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To confuse things further, the deployment fitness test will either be the LBM (13 km BFT) for non-Army, or the FORCE Combat test for Army types



Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## dapaterson

Clearly, CJOC needs another GOFO to sort this out - call him DCOS Fitness or something...


----------



## McG

... wait ... so the IBTS  requirement to deploy on an operation is decided by colour of uniform and not by the environment of the operation? A green cook will have to to Force Combat to deploy on a ship, and a blue clerk will do the old LBM to deploy on a Land Op?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To confuse things further, the deployment fitness test will either be the LBM (13 km BFT) for non-Army, or the FORCE Combat test for Army types



So where do I get issued my gear to actually do the LBM?

And then I turn it right back in again to...hop on a ship for 6 months?  rly:


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So where do I get issued my gear to actually do the LBM?
> 
> And then I turn it right back in again to...hop on a ship for 6 months?  rly:



You make is sound like its nonsensical.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The article is wrong.  This test replaces the Army IBTS requirement to do a LBM.


----------



## Strike

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To confuse things further, the deployment fitness test will either be the LBM (13 km BFT) for non-Army, or the FORCE Combat test for Army types



So how do the purples fit in?


----------

