Author Topic: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion  (Read 207423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chapeski

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,482
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 406
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #150 on: June 11, 2008, 12:23:55 »
- The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?

Sure, why not, the name sounds cooler anyway. :D
"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope."
-Winston Churchill
"Nine times of ten an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been severed"
- Macarthur, August 1950 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,331
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #151 on: June 11, 2008, 12:38:26 »
Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.
Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.
You never know when that might come in handy...or where.

So train them in those weapons then.  That doesn't have to be done on SQ.  How would people react to me saying "everyone should do NETP because you never know when fire fighting and damage control would be used"?

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,331
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #152 on: June 11, 2008, 13:01:16 »
The Air Force is where this gets tricky.  I am not aware of any air environmental training for non aircrew types (somebody can let me know if such a thing does exist).  At the same time, if things go really bad it is the non-aircrew types that will be fighting the ground fight for the airfield.  On this line of thinking, it would most certainly be reasonable to consider SQ for these pers.  I personally think the construction engineering trades should do the SQ and PLQ-L despite being purple and under the managing authority of the air force.  You find construction engineering trades on all bases with units in the Air Force and a Naval Troop on each coast.  If base defence is required, then construction engineering provides a manpower pool along with MPs and non-flying occupations.  Further, construction engineering trades deploy on land operations.

There are courses, namely BAEQ, PAEQ and IAEQ, which are ran out of the Air Command Academy in Borden.  When they are taken is found in A-PD-055-002/PD-002 Section 4, Sub-Section B, Table 4B-1 (NCMGS is the short title).  Having quickly reviewed the TPs, they do not cover anything in the line of SAs or MMGs though  8)

DIN link is: http://16wingweb.borden.mil.ca/aca/pages/courses_e.html


Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,331
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #153 on: June 11, 2008, 13:04:46 »
I still say everyone who joins the CF should undergo SQ, NO MATTER what element.



Great.  Because the training system has NO backlogs in it now, lets also be fair to the other 2 Environment, and load everyone on NETP and BAEQ as well!  Then everyone can go to any environment and have a smick about it.  I'll talk to the CDS and MND tonight, over supper.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,941
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #154 on: June 11, 2008, 13:12:46 »
- This SQ business came about because the Army wanted the old 'depot' level recruit trg and the air side wanted RCAF St-Jean 1950s trg. A compromise was reached, resulting in a new course - SQ - just when our availability of trained instructor-grade NCOs was at a nadir (thank-you FRP).  Thus, we now run too many courses to a lower standard.

- Solution?  If the Purple can pull out of the Army PLQ, then the Army can pull out of the Purple BMQ.  Back to Regimental Depots for combined Army Recruit SQ ('Basic Training'), and then off to the units they go. 

- Longer courses are needed to reduce a high injury rate for today's recruits, so this will work out.  Those who are injured should be given Driver Wheeled/DDC/SBC Crses while in PAT Pl.

- If no grad possible before end of two years, release as NET (Not Economically Trainable).

 

 
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 246,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,962
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #155 on: June 11, 2008, 13:15:53 »
Eye in the Sky, sarcasm does nothing for your case.

I know there are backlogs. I also know that in the COE, which is Afghanistan, the purple trades don't always have the luxury of combat arms around to protect them. SO, Eye, who should do the protecting? Contract it out to private companies?

The soloution is simple. Everyone who wants to go to Afghanistan must be qualified SQ, at minimum.

Now as for loading everyone on naval or air course, you know that is blatantly ridiculous. We were only talking "purple" trades. We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.
And its very unlikely that an infantry officer will ever serve aboard the HMCS Winnipeg.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #156 on: June 11, 2008, 13:20:19 »


We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.


Some AES Ops are indeed headed for the sandbox to operate the new UAV. Should we now add SQ to the trade ? Or can the weapons stuff be covered on pre-deployement training. ? Should we add yet another course to AES Op training ( alredy takes 3 years to crank out a fully operational AES Op) just in case they deploy with UAVs ?

Offline PMedMoe

    is retired and loving it!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 265,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,541
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #157 on: June 11, 2008, 13:22:35 »
Everyone who joins the CF SHOULD undergo SQ.
Why? Because as a soldier, sailor or airperson, you should at least know the basics of handling drills and firing the C7, C9 and C6. Every member of the CF should also know how to throw grenades.

I have never had an SQ (or LET or whatever) course and I have been taught to handle all those weapons.  We did IBTS yearly, including Field Craft, Navigation, weapons handling, the BFT, the PWT, grenades, gas huts and more.  I have also fired some of those weapons even though, if I were overseas, the Geneva Convention would preclude me from doing so, unless it was the only weapon I had to protect myself (or a patient).  
I was at 2 Fd Amb for 10 years and did this at least yearly, if not more often and now they want me to go on an SQ?  Well, maybe I won't have to as I am no longer a Med Tech.  ::)  You'd think all that training would be considered equivalent to an SQ.
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
~ Lao Tzu~

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,331
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #158 on: June 11, 2008, 13:31:03 »
But your arguement is everyone in the CF should do SQ, is it not?  My point, while perhaps made in a stupid way, was what if the CMS and CAS staff weinies start saying the same about NETP and BAEQ for the newly trained purple trade folks?  Then we could be spending a ton of time pumping people thru environmental trng.  It would be a dangerous precedent to set, no?

Now, to be clear, I am not advocating on the validity of this new policy as it affects purple trades.  Personally, being former army (and not that long ago either) I believe in the soldier first perspective.  I agree with your point, everyone who is deploying and tasked with land units SHOULD HAVE a SQ (as a minimum).  Qualified and competent do not necessarily go hand in hand but better qualified than not. 

I do not, however, think that sending someone on an SQ course, then posting them to a Wing or a navy base for 4 years, and then posting them to a field unit with the 'tick in the box' for SQ is the right answer either.  If they are posted to a field unit, they take the training as close as possible to that posting or immediately into it. 

Agreed on your comment on my sarcasim.  Good call.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 13:35:25 by Eye In The Sky »

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 208,636
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,568
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #159 on: June 11, 2008, 13:36:05 »
I have never had an SQ (or LET or whatever) course and I have been taught to handle all those weapons.  We did IBTS yearly, including Field Craft, Navigation, weapons handling, the BFT, the PWT, grenades, gas huts and more.  I have also fired some of those weapons even though, if I were overseas, the Geneva Convention would preclude me from doing so, unless it was the only weapon I had to protect myself (or a patient).  
I was at 2 Fd Amb for 10 years and did this at least yearly, if not more often and now they want me to go on an SQ?  Well, maybe I won't have to as I am no longer a Med Tech.  ::)  You'd think all that training would be considered equivalent to an SQ.

No offense Moe,

But we all do IBTS each and every year. That's called a refresher.

No worries, as a JLC MCpl - you'd end up being grandfathered anyway. I suspect that you fell into the exemption period as per below.

It all reminds me of the roll-over from the LET to the LLQ ... and someone dictated that ALL pers not LLQ qualified, regardless of rank & experience, WOULD undergo LLQ Course if in field positions.

When I went to my first field posting the pre-req was the LET. We all got it in that time-period. But, the pers who were already posted in field positions when the LET came on-line and became mandatory were all "grandfathered" and thus were not required to undergo the LET because of their experience in the field already.

When the LET was phased out and the new requirement became the "LLQ" course -- there was NO grandfathering. The rules for the LLQ stated that ALL pers in field positions WOULD be LLQ qualified if they did not hold the LET qualification. Ergo all those senior ranks that didn't have to do the LET(because they were exempted by grandfathering) ... now HAD to do the LLQ if they were still serving in field positions.

Made for interesting times in Petawawa as we young Ptes & Cpls who had the LET qualification ended up instructing our superiors as they underwent their LLQ.  >:D
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,331
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #160 on: June 11, 2008, 13:39:09 »

Made for interesting times in Petawawa as we young Ptes & Cpls who had the LET qualification ended up instructing our superiors as they underwent their LLQ.  >:D

Now that is something I would have loved to see!

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #161 on: June 11, 2008, 13:41:31 »
Now that is something I would have loved to see!

Its not uncommon in the trade you are going into. I've done 60-day checks on Majors and Sgts regularly instruct CWO on course when they return to the aircraft.

Offline PMedMoe

    is retired and loving it!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 265,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,541
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #162 on: June 11, 2008, 13:44:57 »
No offense Moe,

But we all do IBTS each and every year. That's called a refresher.

None taken.  Just reminds me of my one week TCCS (radio) course, which was also a refresher.  Pretty hard to be refreshed on something you've never learned.  ::)

Besides, I'm not a JLC MCpl, I did a PLQ Common. (gasp!  :o )
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
~ Lao Tzu~

Offline scoutfinch

  • Groovy...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,139
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #163 on: June 11, 2008, 13:51:39 »
I apologize if I have missed it (I have been following this thread, I swear!), but... what is the reason for the change?

It's hard to get a sense of good/bad unless the rationale for the changes is considered as well.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing ~ Edmund Burke

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 208,636
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,568
Re: On Being Purple
« Reply #164 on: June 11, 2008, 13:53:12 »
Besides, I'm not a JLC MCpl, I did a PLQ Common. (gasp!  :o )

Tomato / Tomata ...

I'm willing to bet they'll regard them the same way wrt SQ requirement.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 208,636
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,568
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #165 on: June 11, 2008, 14:01:05 »
I apologize if I have missed it (I have been following this thread, I swear!), but... what is the reason for the change?

It's hard to get a sense of good/bad unless the rationale for the changes is considered as well.

No reason has been given; it's just the CANFORGEN and that's it. My CoC has been trying to find out the reasoning behind this from Careers since the message was cut ... waiting ... still ...

Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline N. McKay

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,255
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #166 on: June 11, 2008, 14:03:56 »
I wonder if now's the time to reconsider having the "purple trade" concept at all.  Would it make more sense to enrol and train X number of army supply techs (e.g.) to meet the needs of the army, Y number of navy supply techs to meet the needs of the navy, etc.?  In other words, would the reduced training cost (because of more focused training) outweigh the loss of flexibility of the current purple system?

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 531,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,265
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #167 on: June 11, 2008, 14:18:23 »
Neill:  SO we'll build three schools with three staffs?  We'll leave some positions vacant in the NDHQ matrix becasue it's an Army Job to fill, while there's a Navy tradesman available?

KISS applies in personnel structure as well.  It's when eGOs get involved, and a desire to own everything under the sun without an understanding of the complexity of the underlying systems that things like this happen.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline N. McKay

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,255
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #168 on: June 11, 2008, 14:50:10 »
Neill:  SO we'll build three schools with three staffs?  We'll leave some positions vacant in the NDHQ matrix becasue it's an Army Job to fill, while there's a Navy tradesman available?

I suppose the question I'm asking (and it's a question for discussion, not a suggestion) is about where the balance point is.  Is it better to train everyone in a purple trade to serve in more than one environment (which is costlier than training them to serve in only one environment each) at the cost of losing the flexibility to post soldiers to ships and send sailors to Afghanistan?  Would it make more sense to have purple trades but with element-specific sub-trades that are only employed in their own element?  The answer may differ for each purple trade as the size and employment of the trade would dictate the economics of the situation.

It's worth noting, though, that Canada is just about the only western country that has the purple trade concept at all, and our 40 years of experience have not yet inspired anyone else to try it.

Offline Navy Chief

  • New Member
  • **
  • 730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
  • West Coaster forever more!
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #169 on: June 11, 2008, 15:07:40 »
I have been following this discussion for a while, and while not an expert in purple trades or the requirement for SQ. There seems to be a call for '"more " training, including some which would require a maintenance of a qual. There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved:

1. A very large portion of the CF, especially "purple trades" have day jobs, for lack of a better term. The job exists and needs to be done whether they are deployed or not. When we pull them away for training with out replacement (one man, one job), the work doesn't get done. I see this as an issue in the Navy as well. When a ship is training and doing battle problems etc, all the routine work is not being progressed. A large portion of a ship's company has maintenance responsibilities which go undone during "Training". It is all a matter of balance, too much training and the equipment doesn't work or nice shiny clean well oiled ship and the sailors don't know what to do with it.

2. Away time for the purpose of training is increasing. No one that I know in the military has an issue with deploying for a real world operation. They also understand the requirement to deploy for exercises at multi-unit levels. What becomes wearisome is to constantly be away IOT maintain this qual or that qual. For trades which have a day job, it also means being away from work which needs to be done even if you are remaining in the geographical area. It just means more hours at work making up for time due to training. It is my feeling that this is the source of more stress than actually deploying for a purpose.

So before we do a blanket call for more training, we need to assess the costs of doing and not doing the training. I'm not talking about dollars, those are easy. but the cost to personnel, those required to do the training who now can't used to deploy. There is fatigue and stress caused by not being able to get your own work done and being away from family before being away from the family for an operational deployment. There is some merit to conducting trining like SQ and NETP at the beginning of a career while pers are still on BTL vice later when they are taken away from their real job to complete the training.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,941
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #170 on: June 11, 2008, 15:39:59 »
...
KISS applies in personnel structure as well.  It's when eGOs get involved, and a desire to own everything under the sun without an understanding of the complexity of the underlying systems that things like this happen.

... There seems to be a call for '"more " training, including some which would require a maintenance of a qual. There are a couple of issues which need to be resolved: ...

- Good points all.  Perhaps we should, in these cases, target trg to those who need it when they are posted/attached/CFTPOd.  In some cases the annual refresher trg (IBTS) may be sufficient.  In others, a more robust timetable/SQ may be needed.

- As for leaders: a case by case basis. At what level is the need, and how much risk are we willing to accept?

- Just plain inefficient MHR to train everyone as a Ninja. 
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 531,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,265
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #171 on: June 11, 2008, 16:20:42 »
- Just plain inefficient MHR to train everyone as a Ninja. 

Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 208,636
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,568
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #172 on: June 11, 2008, 18:19:01 »
Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...

I know only of me and 5 others. They're all men. I'm IN!!!  ;D
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Chapeski

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,482
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 406
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #173 on: June 11, 2008, 18:22:21 »
Darn.  I was hoping to have some Ninja supply techs... but wearing chaps, of course...
I'll volunteer. I always thought ninjas were cool, and I love wearing black and sneaking around all over the place.
"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope."
-Winston Churchill
"Nine times of ten an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been severed"
- Macarthur, August 1950 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,871
Re: Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion
« Reply #174 on: June 12, 2008, 22:20:57 »
There are courses, namely BAEQ, PAEQ and IAEQ, which are ran out of the Air Command Academy in Borden. 
Interesting.  On the recruiting site, SQ and NETP are respectively mentioned in the basic training program for hard Army and Navy MOS.  There is no mention of BAEQ.  Then again, the banner across the top of the Army jobs page is a Romanian TAB APC so, I will not be accusing the site of being the most accurate source of information.  For now, because it does not really affect the larger argument, we can assume that BAEQ does impart some essential knowledge for operating in an Air Force setting (but we can leave it to other threads to flesh that out for certain).

I wonder if now's the time to reconsider having the "purple trade" concept at all.  Would it make more sense to enrol and train X number of army supply techs (e.g.) to meet the needs of the army, Y number of navy supply techs to meet the needs of the navy, etc.?  In other words, would the reduced training cost (because of more focused training) outweigh the loss of flexibility of the current purple system?
The return of The Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps?
Not to that extreme.  Environmental sub-MOS would be the way to go in my opinion.  Some jobs require an Army Sup Tech, some jobs require a Navy Sup Tech, and some jobs just require a Sup Tech.  Sub-MOS would allow a mechanism for individuals to be trained in the occupation and trained in a single environment.  Training would be reduced (as pers are only trained in one environment) and competency would increase (as pers would be employed in the environment of their training & practice/gain experience in that environment) but we would not loose all the flexibility that would occur in a complete split of an occupation.

....  Qualified and competent do not necessarily go hand in hand but better qualified than not. 

I do not, however, think that sending someone on an SQ course, then posting them to a Wing or a navy base for 4 years, and then posting them to a field unit with the 'tick in the box' for SQ is the right answer either.  ...
Exactly.  Environmental specific sub-MOS (which is the effective if not formal result of the CANFORGEN) is a means to resolving this problem.

Some AES Ops are indeed headed for the sandbox to operate the new UAV. Should we now add SQ to the trade ?
There is probably no requirement for such a move, and I suspect a trg needs analysis would identify that for such a move there are too few AES Ops that will require the training.  However, SQ should required training for the formation of and later postings into a TUAV Flt (and a PLQ-L conversion for junior leaders too). 

Now as for loading everyone on naval or air course, you know that is blatantly ridiculous. We were only talking "purple" trades. We aren't talking bosuns and AESOPs going on a recce with the infantry, so SQ for them isn't going to happen, UNLESS there are positions in Afghanistan.  ... And its very unlikely that an infantry officer will ever serve aboard the HMCS Winnipeg.
The TF HQ during Somalia was off shore on a ship, and the next generation of ship will include a multi-purpose room (I forget the appropriate technical name) that will have as one of its roles to serve as a joint or land operations centre.  Therefore, we will always require the ability to indoctrinate members of one environment to the operational essential skills of another environment.  If you work on the ground, you must know how to fight on the ground; if you work in the air, you must know how to fight in the air; if you work at sea, you must know how to fight at sea.  Individual soldier skills will do an infantryman no good when he is in an off-shore CP that's under attack.

There has been a lot of focus in this thread on the environmental specific individual skills.  These are vital.  However, equally if not more vital is the environmentally specific junior leadership.  Now, somebody can pipe in and tell me that in ships & aircraft there will always be a hard trade of that environment close enough that this is a non-issue.  In land warfare, where there is plenty of room for dispersion, this is essential for all the participating leaders to know how to lead the fight at the very least with a small team.