# Canadian army to privatize some weapons training



## Navalsnpr (6 Jul 2005)

I don't know if this has already been posted elsewhere, but I would think that it should be in this section

Canadian army to privatize some weapons training

Last Updated Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:17:12 EDT 
CBC News
Federal opposition parties are criticizing plans by the Canadian Forces to hire private contractors to train new soldiers to use weapons. 

The army is looking for outside help to teach soldiers, drivers and maintenance crews at its Combat Training Centre (CTC) in Gagetown, N.B., as it begins to boost its numbers by 5,000 regular troops and 3,000 reservists. 

The successful applicants will have experience in heavy equipment and weapons. Among other things, they will train recruits how to fire the cannon on the army's LAV-III armoured vehicle. 

Until now, the army has handled such combat training in-house. 

"This will be fairly new ground for us," said Lt.-Col. Steve Strachan, chief of staff at the Gagetown CTC. 

He expects the winning contractors to be people who have left or are thinking of leaving the Armed Forces. 

"We are anticipating a little risk that some of the people we have on staff now may opt to take their retirement and take some of these positions," Strachan acknowledged. 

Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer of the New Democratic Party blames a trend that has seen the military privatize areas such as pilot training and medical services. 

"They should have the people on board and in-step in order to do it in-house," he said. 

"The minute you start giving it over to companies, when does it stop? What's next?" 

The Conservative Party doesn't necessarily oppose privatization of government services. 

However, defence critic Gordon O'Connor said the army is being forced into this latest move because military budgets have been cut so often and so drastically over the years.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jul 2005)

First thought:  they're out of their f*****g minds!

Second thought:  hrm...if they privatize MG training, I could make WAY more than I do now....


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2005)

It was previosuly posted (somewhere sometime ago)

 Personally it might be a good thing -- as long the people doing it have REAL qualifictions - not just retired NCO's who may or may not know how to shoot or teach shooting


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2005)

"not just retired NCO's who may or may not know how to shoot or teach shooting"

Of course it will be.  Brotherhood of the sash baby.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jul 2005)

We'll just form our own union.  Kevin can be in charge.  Weed out all the hacks and only let the truly qualified in.


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> "not just retired NCO's who may or may not know how to shoot or teach shooting"
> 
> Of course it will be.   Brotherhood of the sash baby.


damn straight. *IF* we're real lucky, the first couple guys will be actual shooters, and they'll make sure it's only fellow gunbunnies who get in the club.


----------



## Navalsnpr (6 Jul 2005)

This type of training has worked before with other systems..... you never know, it may work here.

only time will tell....


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2005)

CFL -That was my assumption - only Sgt's and WO's know how to teach weapons   :

They should hire DCRA Master class shooters (dusts off resume    ) rather than someone who regugitates crap from the Small Arms course and does not really understand it 


48th - sounds good to me


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer of the New Democratic Party blames a trend that has seen the military privatize areas such as pilot training and medical services.



Hahaha, the NDP criticizing military cutbacks! I think they're more concerned with whether or not it is a union shop rather than the welfare of the CF.


----------



## Donut (6 Jul 2005)

I've seen a fair number of really skilled Cbt Arms Sr NCO's, guys who could shoot, teach, been there done that getting released for medical reasons.  Perhaps if we could hire these guys back as our instructors we could free up a lot of other good troops for things like, hmmmm, posting back to the regiments?

These released guys can't be in the CF due to the universality of service requirements, and I know that "retain with limitations" is rarer the higher in ranks one gets.  We've spent a huge amount in training these guys, they've got a fantastic amount of experience, why waste it by giving them a medical release and booting them out onto the civi economy where they may not do as well?

Besides, the instructors will have much more credibility as former Sr NCO's with a few hard tours under their belts.

That being said, I've also seen school standards positions go to retirees without any credible experience in the field, and the total fiasco they've made of things, too.

DF


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2005)

This isn't a bad idea at all.   The Air Force use civilian instructors quite extensively as does the US military.   The army has used Calien to run its CAX training for years and by all accounts it is a success.   The use of civilians will not be a money saving endeavour but it will provide additional stability for members of units that are tasked all over the country during the summer or for Reserves that are tired of courses being cancelled due to a lack of qualified instructors.   The crux of the matter will be determining what a civilian can and should teach vice what military NCOs must teach.   Part of our individual training system, particularly in the army, rests with socializing the soldier into the military and instilling leadership, ethos, and discipline.   This should not and can not ever be turned over to civilians.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2005)

I am not overly concerned. I think you'll find most of the civie weapon instructors will be ex military combat arms. If you look at the job ads for them, unless you have our specific military nuances, your not skilled enough for an interview. So one day it's MCpl, Sgt or WO Smith teaching, next week it's Mr Smith. And I doubt Mr Smith will take any more guff than he did in uniform.  I really don't see the heartache, you got the same people, different set of clothes, and there's no doubt in anyones mind, we have a shortage of skilled instructors.


----------



## onecat (7 Jul 2005)

"Besides, the instructors will have much more credibility as former Sr NCO's with a few hard tours under their belts"

so these Sr NCO would be double dipping then, getting paid big bucks to be instructors and most likely collectlng very pensions too.  Doesn't rigjht to me.  Of course I want the best instructors and mostly they are former CF members, but I don't think helps the cash strapped CF.


----------



## Donut (7 Jul 2005)

In fact, some might be triple-dipping, receiving a medical pension on top of a release pension on top of a civi salary.

I never said it was right, but we've adopted the mantra of universality of service, and now we must live with it.  

*If you're not deployable, you're not employable.  * 

As a result we've released some fantastically skilled NCOs whose expertise we badly need in positions which don't, as a matter of fact, require deployability, and then have to take medically fit, deployable leaders from the pointy end to teach narrow, but critical, technical skills when they should be staying at the pointy end leading the soldiers.  

Now, we COULD recognize that not every job in the CF needs to be done by someone who can jet off to Kandahar tomorrow, and accomodate more of these SMEs with medical restrictions...but that would violate universality of service.

DF


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

Hey if anything reduces the stress on guys and taskings I'm all for it.


----------



## devil39 (7 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Hey if anything reduces the stress on guys and taskings I'm all for it.



Absolutely.  We are putting way to much stress on the MCpl to WO rank wrt taskings as far as I am concerned.  And we have been for at least the last 6 or 7 years.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jul 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Absolutely.   We are putting way to much stress on the MCpl to WO rank wrt taskings as far as I am concerned.   And we have been for at least the last 6 or 7 years.



1992 would be the date I figure 

UNPROFOR
SOMALIA
CYPRUS

Some guys did triple UNPROFOR gigs...
  Of course many of those guys won't walk on grass now.


----------



## McG (7 Jul 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> The successful applicants will have experience in heavy equipment and weapons. Among other things, they will train recruits how to fire the cannon on the army's LAV-III armoured vehicle.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I'd be concerned that we would be creating an entire industry that is dependant on luring qualified pers out of the military in order to fill instructor spots to teach the military.



			
				CFL said:
			
		

> Hey if anything reduces the stress on guys and taskings I'm all for it.


Intelligent use of some of the 5,000 new positions should do this.  In addition to building up units, put some in the schools & training centres.



			
				ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I've seen a fair number of really skilled Cbt Arms Sr NCO's, guys who could shoot, teach, been there done that getting released for medical reasons.   Perhaps if we could hire these guys back as our instructors we could free up a lot of other good troops for things like, hmmmm, posting back to the regiments?


Could we not also create established positions for pers on medical accommodation?  Instead of a Sgt being medically released, he could be posted to a medical accommodation posn in CTC as a LAV gunner instr.  It makes more sense than releasing him only to have him come back as a civi with higher pay and two pensions.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Intelligent use of some of the 5,000 new positions should do this.   In addition to building up units, put some in the schools & training centres.


I'm not sure I'm following here.


----------



## Gunner (7 Jul 2005)

> I'd be concerned that we would be creating an entire industry that is dependant on luring qualified pers out of the military in order to fill instructor spots to teach the military.



Well, if you recall when CANCAP stood up in Bosnia, the company lured alot of military members (from the distressed trades that CANCAP was supposed to help alleviate) to work for ATCO-Frontec and later SNC Lavelin.  There will be short term pain as they stand up to meet the requirements of the contract but afterwards, it should settle down.  Bonus side is it may get rid of some of the deadwood in the Sr NCO/WO ranks and provide some movement for the younger fellows.


----------



## MdB (7 Jul 2005)

Isn't it a good way to undermine the esprit de corps as well as professionalism in the CF?

The CF are the profressional and should be self-sufficient in the training. I understand though that the pilots can be trained on CAE and Bombardier simulator, thus needing CAE and Bombardier civvy personnel. But, let's not forget that this training is very specialized. So specialized that they train other NATO members as well. So, overall, I think this is quite different in that the weapons training for LAV or this kind of weapons systems aren't that specialized that we need a unique and dedicated civvy personnel.

That said, it's utterly unproductive, expensive and completely out of mind to release military personnel that we NEED in order to train others. It's the organization of it that's faulty here, we don't have to search very far. This view that all personnel should be deployable is looking backwards and stucking the head in the sand, but that's what bureaucrats do? They see numbers and rules, without exception. The guy is not deployable, but we don't have enough personnel, let's scrap the investment we did and recruit more.

And if the government want to save bucks, don't pay them two pensions in the first place rather than cutting in procurement programs. Furthermore, it has two effects that I can see: first, it furthers the occupational frame of mind the military personnel has grown in the last 25 years, and second, it undermines credibility and professionalism that the CF can do the training themselves. Eh, after all, what a private would think being on LAV gunnery training and taught by a civvy when the specialists are supposed to be the CF? ??? You'd answer that that's the same guy anyway with different shirt. But in my mind, a guy in uniform isn't a guy in civvy shirt. I let you continue the idea.


----------



## McG (7 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'm following here.


The government has authorised the regular force to grow by 5,000 established positions.   Some of these need to go into the training establishments.  This will reduces the stress on guys caused by tasks to the ATCs.


----------



## mover1 (7 Jul 2005)

I knew guys who jumped ship to work as instructors for the ADATs and other sytems for the UAE and in Saudi. I also know that my brother who is on his 22nd year and teaching gunnery is hoping that this goes through because he would love to keep teaching rather than go back to "the family"





			
				MdB said:
			
		

> Isn't it a good way to undermine the esprit de corps as well as professionalism in the CF?
> 
> The CF are the profressional and should be self-sufficient in the training. I understand though that the pilots can be trained on CAE and Bombardier simulator, thus needing CAE and Bombardier civvy personnel. But, let's not forget that this training is very specialized. So specialized that they train other NATO members as well. So, overall, I think this is quite different in that the weapons training for LAV or this kind of weapons systems aren't that specialized that we need a unique and dedicated civvy personnel.
> 
> That said, it's utterly unproductive, expensive and completely out of mind to release military personnel that we NEED in order to train others. .



If we need them them to train others then we should let them get out and do it full time.  CAE and Bombardier are full of ex-military guys who jumped ship.(next time you are out on the ranges go and talk to the Lockheed Martin guys) So Why not Gunnery or D & M. Instead of someone who is newly posted into the job and or on a posting slump. You would have dedicated experienced people who are there on a full time baisis. The Army could benifit from these guys who might just think out of the box and come up with some new ideas on how to teach. 

My biggest gripe when going through Leo Gunney was the reciting things Verbatum out of a text book. No one learns like that. I could tell you the theory of lazing ( I had to write it out 100 times for not knowing it Verbatum) but could I tell you what it meant. No. 

In all I think the whole privatisation of gunnery would be good


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

MCG don't you think training this amount of people will further hurt the instructors for quite awhile before things get better.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The government has authorised the regular force to grow by 5,000 established positions.   Some of these need to go into the training establishments.   This will reduces the stress on guys caused by tasks to the ATCs.


yes, but those 5,000 pers are primarily going to be recruits. They aren't going to help take the strain off the NCO's, rather quite the opposite. Those 5,000 troops have to be trained up to an acceptable level then go through several years OJT before they can train others. 
Or have I missed something?


----------



## KevinB (7 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Or have I missed something?



Clones


----------



## McG (7 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> MCG don't you think training this amount of people will further hurt the instructors for quite awhile before things get better.


I think the least painfull approach to this mass training of 5,000 would be for surge 06 to be tasked to run several BMQ/SQ serials out of Shilo.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, but those 5,000 pers are primarily going to be recruits. They aren't going to help take the strain off the NCO's, rather quite the opposite.


They will be able to "displace" less senior NCOs upwards.   Don't confuse the new pers with the new positions that have been authorised.  These new 5,000 pers will not take-up the strain.   However, some of the new pers will fill old position while the current occupants of those positions will be promoted into new leadership positions.

This is not an overnight fix.  It is a long term solution.


----------



## Gunner (7 Jul 2005)

> I think the least painfull approach to this mass training of 5,000 would be for surge 06 to be tasked to run several BMQ/SQ serials out of Shilo.



I think you will find Surge 06 well engaged throughout 06 on support to SAT 3, BTE 06, summer tasks across the army and support to the SCTF that will be exercised next Fall.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

oh he's just trying to get my goat, which is on loan to 48 btw.


----------



## MdB (7 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> You would have dedicated experienced people who are there on a full time baisis. The Army could benifit from these guys who might just think out of the box and come up with some new ideas on how to teach.



Why is the Army not able to that?? Are they so stubborn or stuck in the fresh concret up to the knee not to recognize new way to do things, to learn and to teach?? Why isn't it possible inside the Army to have full-time basis training personnel? Why would be better or worse to have them out of the Army to train military personnel aside from granting them 2 pensions and bringing them a 5-star post-release job?


----------



## Vigilant (7 Jul 2005)

I think it is important to remember that the actual number of people retiring to come back on contract would be far less than the people we are bring out of retirement, other civvy jobs, and other countries to help train our soldiers. Don't forget the point of what they are doing!


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> I think it is important to remember that the actual number of people retiring to come back on contract would be far less than the people we are bring out of retirement, other civvy jobs, and other countries to help train our soldiers. Don't forget the point of what they are doing!


oh, to be that young again!


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2005)

"Whatever works" should be presumed to be accompanied by "Whatever it costs".  The funds have to come from somewhere.


----------



## mover1 (7 Jul 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> Why is the Army not able to that?? Are they so stubborn or stuck in the fresh concret up to the knee not to recognize new way to do things, to learn and to teach?? Why isn't it possible inside the Army to have full-time basis training personnel? Why would be better or worse to have them out of the Army to train military personnel aside from granting them 2 pensions and bringing them a 5-star post-release job?


I just think that people in uniform have a tendency to teach it, because "thats the way we did it before" Or some regiments my differ in procedure than others. An aquaitnace who works in the Armd School is RCR and when he got there he was trying to wrap his mind around some of the fire commands, which were throw back to the leopard   days. He teaches gunnery there and is cannot understand how anyone can learn from being a parrot and reciting verbatim..( I was taught that way and it was like reciting latin sometimes) Plus the turret commands the RCR and the Armd corps were slightly different from each other. 
If you have no tribalism in the training cadre ( And lets be honest there is some, to a point.) you might get a higher standard of training.   And you might have equal standards across the board. Plus that young private who is to scared to speak up for fear of being ridiculed by the instructors. Or intimidated by rank, may just open up if he were taught by Bob or Jane. Instead of Sgt Bloggins and WO Jones.

What is your hostility in the "2 pensions ..... 5-star post-release job" is is a little jealousy that your not in the "window" to take advantage.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jul 2005)

Fire Orders and gunnery used by the Corp are done that way cause it works. They're tried and true. We've turned out some of the best crews in the world using the techniques. Don't fool yourself, the civvie cadre will be told what to teach and how to teach it. It won't be like some tree hugging polysci proffessor putting his own spin on world affairs.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> If we need them them to train others then we should let them get out and do it full time.  CAE and Bombardier are full of ex-military guys who jumped ship.(next time you are out on the ranges go and talk to the Lockheed Martin guys) So Why not Gunnery or D & M. *Instead of someone who is newly posted into the job and or on a posting slump. You would have dedicated experienced people who are there on a full time baisis. The Army could benifit from these guys who might just think out of the box and come up with some new ideas on how to teach.
> *
> ......
> 
> In all I think the whole privatisation of gunnery would be good





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Fire Orders and gunnery used by the Corp are done that way cause it works. They're tried and true. We've turned out some of the best crews in the world using the techniques. *Don't fool yourself, the civvie cadre will be told what to teach and how to teach it.* It won't be like some tree hugging polysci proffessor putting his own spin on world affairs.



recceguy is right, any contracted instructors will be bound by the terms of the contract. And if those terms are simply to deliver existing packages by approved methods, then that is all we will receive. The creation of new content, or changes to instructional techniques, are separate issues and unlikely to be defined in the contracts because the required 'deliverables' are intangible.

Also, the contracts will most likely be with a corporate entity, rather than the preferred individuals, and may not allow the receiving school to identify preferred instructors or to veto hired instructors that meet the stated requirements (probably rank, trade and specific course qualifications) simply because others remember the quality of work they may have done while serving. Contracts should allow for the checks and balances of comprehensive standards assessments but those, again, must reflect what is required under the terms of the contracts.


----------



## MdB (8 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Plus that young private who is to scared to speak up for fear of being ridiculed by the instructors. Or intimidated by rank, may just open up if he were taught by Bob or Jane. Instead of Sgt Bloggins and WO Jones.



At that point, I think it's a matter of Army culture. The concept of team include teamwork and this comes from every member of that team. The rank shouldn't be a barrier in learning. Look at junior officers learning from senior NCOs even though they are higher in rank. When a team is learning, all elements should come up with ideas. This the leader's job to make it happen.



			
				mover1 said:
			
		

> What is your hostility in the "2 pensions ..... 5-star post-release job" is is a little jealousy that your not in the "window" to take advantage.



Eh, I'm 27 and not in yet, how could I be jealous? Seriously, this is just a rationale, I think with my pocket here. Still, deadwood should be weeded out and make their way in the private sector anytime. But good and recognized senior NCOs should be encouraged to stay in by being, well, recognized as a precious asset and by being given some autonomy to make profit from his experience and develop new learning/thinking/teaching/leading ways. Lessons learned...



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> recceguy is right, any contracted instructors will be bound by the terms of the contract. And if those terms are simply to deliver existing packages by approved methods, then that is all we will receive. The creation of new content, or changes to instructional techniques, are separate issues and unlikely to be defined in the contracts because the required 'deliverables' are intangible.
> 
> Also, the contracts will most likely be with a corporate entity, rather than the preferred individuals, and may not allow the receiving school to identify preferred instructors or to veto hired instructors that meet the stated requirements (probably rank, trade and specific course qualifications) simply because others remember the quality of work they may have done while serving. Contracts should allow for the checks and balances of comprehensive standards assessments but those, again, must reflect what is required under the terms of the contracts.



Then, is the private sector that flexible?

For me, business thinks business and that's making cash. The new ways they develop will be efficient in reducing costs... Anyway, is there enough companies that they will be in competition and will be obliged to develop better methods. And who's to say that one is better than the other? Think it's better it stays in the 'house'.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> Then, is the private sector that flexible?
> 
> For me, business thinks business and that's making cash. The new ways they develop will be efficient in reducing costs... Anyway, is there enough companies that they will be in competition and will be obliged to develop better methods. And who's to say that one is better than the other? Think it's better it stays in the 'house'.



It's not really PRIVATE SECTOR though is it? What you have RIGHT NOW are basically temp agencies that are hiring ex military instructors that meet the desired criteria set by the CF. In uniform today and civvies tomorrow, doing exactly the same job. We've seen it before in the CF. Guys retire and come in two weeks later doing the same job in QM, graphic arts and survey. They have the expertise the CF want, but have timed out in years or medical. Hey, it's not my money (well it is kinda) but who wouldn't jump at the chance to get paid their pension AND collect a good wage for doing something they love. Besides, really, most of these guys will likely have done a fair number of tours and busted themselves up pretty good over the years for a shit pension we give. I'm willing to let them teach and tell the odd war story to the newbies. It's the least they deserve from an ungrateful government and public. Just look south. The US has used this system for years, and it works great for them. Next time you check in at Range Control at 29 Palms, the civvie calling a Sgt sir and treating him like gold is likely a retired Chief.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Jul 2005)

From what I understand from the briefing I heard, the civilian hired to teach LAV gunnery will have to be qualified Advanced Gunnery, which almost certainly means retired Snr NCO's, WO's and Officers.  The personnel hired also must be fit enough to carry ammunition cans around, remove barrels, and set up the LAV CGT.  This will mean that those on medical pension for backs, knees, shoulders and other common ailments need not apply.  It also means that the job is basically only for retired armour and infantry types.

On the plus side, there are quite a few available personnel, with over 25 years in, fully qualified, that have been given notice of release.  Most of these guys are fit, so it looks like we may be able to take advantage of a huge amount of experience out there.

Also, the Standards cell will still be overseeing all training, so it will be done by the book.


----------

