Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The only grenade that performed above my expectations was the British ‘Smoke, Screening, Delay’ as I wasn’t expecting a WP bursting grenade. Neither was the car I threw it beside, or the people shooting at me from that car

RP, but yeah. We had to retrain our convoy drivers who kept a few smoke in the cab. Normal screening they would just drop on contact side to make a long screen.
Good recipe for tyre fires doing that with RP bursting. Also surprised top cover gunners.

 

[KevinB]

RP, but yeah. We had to retrain our convoy drivers who kept a few smoke in the cab. Normal screening they would just drop on contact side to make a long screen.
Good recipe for tyre fires doing that with RP bursting. Also surprised top cover gunners.

Hmm it wasn’t the L84 RP as that is clearly marked RP. I was told it was British, but had snagged them from the JSOC ASP. So now I’m going down a rabbit hole trying to ID it.

It was very similar body to the Mk3A2 Concussion grenades I picked up. And some of the Mk3’s had a subdued white/grey lettering as opposed to STANAG yellow.

 

[MilEME09]

Speaking of grenades, seeing how much kit gets captured in ukraine, perhaps we need to start manufacturing and issuing out thermite grenades in order to facilitate denial of equipment

 

[KevinB]

Speaking of grenades, seeing how much kit gets captured in ukraine, perhaps we need to start manufacturing and issuing out thermite grenades in order to facilitate denial of equipment

Well those work great, but are dangerous AF.

Plus for Canada you would need equipment first

 

[GR66]

Well those work great, but are dangerous AF.

Plus for Canada you would need equipment first

 

[Ludoc]

You'd be surprised how few people outside the field Army have thrown grenades and fired CarlGs and MGs.

After getting rid of SQ/BMQ-A for support trades you would be surprised how few inside the field Army have done those things.

 

[Furniture]

After getting rid of SQ/BMQ-A for support trades you would be surprised how few inside the field Army have done those things.

The problem was, SQ/BMQ-A was limited in positions, which meant some support trades were being held back because they couldn't get the course to go on PLQ. Also, many support trades are so desperate for people to do the core jobs, that sending people away for a month or two at a time was hurting their operational outputs.

As an example, I was in charge of a a 24/7 section of 7 people. Between career, trade, and element courses I was always down at least one person. Add in medical, parental, and annual leave, and often times I was down to 4 people to run a 24/7 365 section. Do that for a few years, and suddenly your section of 7 becomes a section of 6, because someone gets tired of never having a real leave period, or a chance to do something beyond 12hr shifts by themself.

Getting rid of BMQ-A was likely a bad idea, but the Afghanistan era system was unsustainable for a lot of trades.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

After getting rid of SQ/BMQ-A for support trades you would be surprised how few inside the field Army have done those things.

CTC changed this in 2024. All DP1 courses are to have the POs that were in the previous SQ included in their QSTP.

Made it really fun when CFSCE started sending massive TD money towards getting folks to do ranges in Petawawa. Apparently CTC forgot that not all schools are in Gagetown, and that not every 600m range can be templated for C6/C9.

 

[lenaitch]

close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades

And slow dancing.

 

[Ludoc]

The problem was, SQ/BMQ-A was limited in positions, which meant some support trades were being held back because they couldn't get the course to go on PLQ. Also, many support trades are so desperate for people to do the core jobs, that sending people away for a month or two at a time was hurting their operational outputs.

As an example, I was in charge of a a 24/7 section of 7 people. Between career, trade, and element courses I was always down at least one person. Add in medical, parental, and annual leave, and often times I was down to 4 people to run a 24/7 365 section. Do that for a few years, and suddenly your section of 7 becomes a section of 6, because someone gets tired of never having a real leave period, or a chance to do something beyond 12hr shifts by themself.

Getting rid of BMQ-A was likely a bad idea, but the Afghanistan era system was unsustainable for a lot of trades.

I get it. We have the same problem. There is so much to know and courses are so long that we are constantly short people, as well.

I don't know what the solution is, but firmly believe, no longer teaching them to be soldiers isn't going to do us any favours in the long run.

CTC changed this in 2024. All DP1 courses are to have the POs that were in the previous SQ included in their QSTP.

Made it really fun when CFSCE started sending massive TD money towards getting folks to do ranges in Petawawa. Apparently CTC forgot that not all schools are in Gagetown, and that not every 600m range can be templated for C6/C9.

So a bunch of Sigs are teaching pers to throw grenades and shoot machine guns instead of combat arms pers doing so? Can that work? Yes, but it's dumb. If I ever heard someone holding a C9 utter the phrase "Don't worry CFSCE taught me to use a machine gun" I would be very concerned and make sure that person was always in front of me.

There are real problems with the IT (individual training) system, the quality of its outputs, and the time it takes to produce pers. This could be a pretty deep discussion and I think one we should have. I also think a lot of people on this board might want to say something about it. No one I talk to in real life, in any trade, seems very happy with IT right now. Maybe a Mod can give us a split so everyone else can go back to talking about how we are going to spend all the money the government has promised to give us.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So a bunch of Sigs are teaching pers to throw grenades and shoot machine guns instead of combat arms pers doing so? Can that work? Yes, but it's dumb. If I ever heard someone holding a C9 utter the phrase "Don't worry CFSCE taught me to use a machine gun" I would be very concerned and make sure that person was always in front of me.

CFSCE did the practical thing and REOed in a small GMTI cadre of Combat Arms NCOs to teach those POs and will be getting a Combat Arms Advisor (Infantry Officer) this APS to help with course development.

Additionally, the BMQ-A/SQ model created a massive strain and bottle neck on getting folks through to OFP. If folks not doing SQ were a friction point, so was having 400 PATs hanging about waiting to get their prerequisites. And then there were the field units who threw their hands up and said they were too busy to train those skills once those folks got to them.

We don't get to bemoan SQ/BMQ-A being removed due to sustainability issues, then once a marginally decent alternative is created say "Well, not like that..."

There are real problems with the IT (individual training) system, the quality of its outputs, and the time it takes to produce pers.

I can agree, but to a point. Quality, Fast, Cheap. Pick 2.

I hope that the new priority from the VCDS to staff trg establishments effectively will see a better quality of output. That said, "cool army shit" costs a hell of a lot of money, and adds training days towards getting those folks to OFP and force employed in the real world.

In a world of $3 costs, we still only have $1.86 to play with. No amount of shifting the currency will get us the $3 solution with $1.86.

This could be a pretty deep discussion and I think one we should have. I also think a lot of people on this board might want to say something about it. No one I talk to in real life, in any trade, seems very happy with IT right now. Maybe a Mod can give us a split so everyone else can go back to talking about how we are going to spend all the money the government has promised to give us.

Agreed

 

[ueo]

After getting rid of SQ/BMQ-A for support trades you would be surprised how few inside the field Army have done those things.

More surprising might be the number in the FA who have only done so once and not maintained proficiency!

 

[McG]

Additionally, the BMQ-A/SQ model created a massive strain and bottle neck on getting folks through to OFP.

Much of this was the result of how CAF chose to implement, and how the army insisted it maintain the LF Area symmetry down to the area training centres. Graduates of BMQ were sent to their branch school with infantry going to an ATC according to the capbadge they were likely to wear. It was then left to branch schools to search the country to find BMQ-L/SQ spots for their PATs; there was nothing to centraly allocate, prioritize, or otherwise control the process. Army should have designated a specific ATC (let’s say Meaford) as the Soldier Academy and sent every every recruit school graduate to the Soldier Academy. Wainwright could then have become the Infantry Academy to deliver all the basic infantry qualification regardless of capbadge. All ATCs could then have had establishments optimized to achieve these mandates. To minimize strains on space & the annual posting plot, it would even have been okay if this model was used exclusively for anglophone course serials with the francophone serials of both courses being conducted in Valcartier.

I hope that the new priority from the VCDS to staff trg establishments effectively will see a better quality of output.

VCDS priorities are about filling established positions. The CAF consciously under established most training establishments, so even at 100% they will still not have enough people (especially if being asked to deliver 110% throughput).

 

[Ludoc]

CFSCE did the practical thing and REOed in a small GMTI cadre of Combat Arms NCOs to teach those POs and will be getting a Combat Arms Advisor (Infantry Officer) this APS to help with course development.

Additionally, the BMQ-A/SQ model created a massive strain and bottle neck on getting folks through to OFP. If folks not doing SQ were a friction point, so was having 400 PATs hanging about waiting to get their prerequisites. And then there were the field units who threw their hands up and said they were too busy to train those skills once those folks got to them.

We don't get to bemoan SQ/BMQ-A being removed due to sustainability issues, then once a marginally decent alternative is created say "Well, not like that..."


I can agree, but to a point. Quality, Fast, Cheap. Pick 2.

I hope that the new priority from the VCDS to staff trg establishments effectively will see a better quality of output. That said, "cool army shit" costs a hell of a lot of money, and adds training days towards getting those folks to OFP and force employed in the real world.

In a world of $3 costs, we still only have $1.86 to play with. No amount of shifting the currency will get us the $3 solution with $1.86.



Agreed

I'll dump on CFSCE all day long but this is not a situation of their making. They are doing the best they can in this circumstance. But it is ridiculous they have been put in it.

How is more efficient to have "soldier skills" instructors and equipment to support that training at CFSCE, CFSAL, whatever the RCEME school is called, etc, etc, etc...than having a couple of centralized places (Centres of Excellence one might say) that take care of this training? The pers that CFSCE and, presumably, each other school has REOed should be sent to the training centres and told to run more SQs.

CFSCE (and again, the other learning institutions in the Army are probably in the same boat) is a complex beast with a lot it needs to do and not enough people to do those things. It should concentrate on technical training. That is it's remit. SQ/BMQ-A is really just BMQ mod 2 for Army pers. The Army should take care of it before pers are handed of to their respective trade schools.

We are not training pers to be soldiers anymore, they lack the fundamental skills they need act as soldiers (this has been a long time coming, I am not saying my training made me a super soldier). We are doing these pers a disservice, especially as the old global order breaks down. A fight is coming and our subordinates (both present and future) don't have the tools to protect themselves. Trying to make up that delta by giving them those tools at the trade schools is an inefficient and dumb way to fix that delta.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. We can only train pers for so long. A Pte that takes 2 years to become qualified is not useful to anyone during that time. So I get there will need to be a balance where the people the IT pushes out are "good enough". Otherwise mission creep will keep them in the training system forever. Right now, however, I don't think we have the proper balance.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll dump on CFSCE all day long but this is not a situation of their making. They are doing the best they can in this circumstance. But it is ridiculous they have been put in it.

How is more efficient to have "soldier skills" instructors and equipment to support that training at CFSCE, CFSAL, whatever the RCEME school is called, etc, etc, etc...than having a couple of centralized places (Centres of Excellence one might say) that take care of this training? The pers that CFSCE and, presumably, each other school has REOed should be sent to the training centres and told to run more SQs.

CFSCE (and again, the other learning institutions in the Army are probably in the same boat) is a complex beast with a lot it needs to do and not enough people to do those things. It should concentrate on technical training. That is it's remit. SQ/BMQ-A is really just BMQ mod 2 for Army pers. The Army should take care of it before pers are handed of to their respective trade schools.

We are not training pers to be soldiers anymore, they lack the fundamental skills they need act as soldiers (this has been a long time coming, I am not saying my training made me a super soldier). We are doing these pers a disservice, especially as the old global order breaks down. A fight is coming and our subordinates (both present and future) don't have the tools to protect themselves. Trying to make up that delta by giving them those tools at the trade schools is an inefficient and dumb way to fix that delta.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. We can only train pers for so long. A Pte that takes 2 years to become qualified is not useful to anyone during that time. So I get there will need to be a balance where the people the IT pushes out are "good enough". Otherwise mission creep will keep them in the training system forever. Right now, however, I don't think we have the proper balance.

Just an pedantic point CFLTC (CFSAL) is not an Army school and as such does not teach any sort of Land environmental training. CFLTC conducts no core environmental training, like BMQ-L or NETP ect ect.

This is up the environment the Logisticians are posted to after initial trades training.

 

[Ludoc]

Just an pedantic point CFLTC (CFSAL) is not an Army school and as such does not teach any sort of Land environmental training. CFLTC conducts no core environmental training, like BMQ-L or NETP ect ect.

This is up the environment the Logisticians are posted to after initial trades training.

That makes sense, as a collection of purple trades why waste the time of people supporting boats learning about trenches and people living in tents don't need to know about fighting fires in enclosed spaces.

However, it goes to my point above. The apparatus still needs to exist to run BMQ-A independently. So why are we saddling some schools with that responsibility?

What is the solution to environmental training where you are? Is it all centrally managed in the Navy?

 

[PrairieFella]

That makes sense, as a collection of purple trades why waste the time of people supporting boats learning about trenches and people living in tents don't need to know about fighting fires in enclosed spaces.

However, it goes to my point above. The apparatus still needs to exist to run BMQ-A independently. So why are we saddling some schools with that responsibility?

What is the solution to environmental training where you are? Is it all centrally managed in the Navy?

In conjunction with requiring bmq-l lessons to be taught, training times were cut. There isn't enough time in a day to teach the skills properly at that point.

In the grand scheme of things was a two week long machine gun and section tactics course that hard to support and that traumatic for the CSS or purple trades that it needed to be cut? Sure a Veh Tech won't be shooting a C9 that often but I know for a fact that plenty had to use an MG in Afghanistan. Why is it assumed it'll be any different in the next war where infiltration and raids of our rear area will be even more common?

 

[MilEME09]

CTC changed this in 2024. All DP1 courses are to have the POs that were in the previous SQ included in their QSTP.

Made it really fun when CFSCE started sending massive TD money towards getting folks to do ranges in Petawawa. Apparently CTC forgot that not all schools are in Gagetown, and that not every 600m range can be templated for C6/C9.

The problem is, this was originally the plan, get rid of SQ/BMQL/BMQA (what ever you wanna call it) and fold it into every trades DP1 so that the training could be tailored to the trade. However they got rid of the course before the replacement plan was in place, so we had about 7 years of troops getting nothing, and then it was unit responsibility to do it, which in the ARes world is near impossible with our time constraints.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That makes sense, as a collection of purple trades why waste the time of people supporting boats learning about trenches and people living in tents don't need to know about fighting fires in enclosed spaces.

However, it goes to my point above. The apparatus still needs to exist to run BMQ-A independently. So why are we saddling some schools with that responsibility?

What is the solution to environmental training where you are? Is it all centrally managed in the Navy?

All sea going trades will get NETP when and if posted to a Naval geo location, Halifax or Esq.

As an example if your're an S3 HRA posted to the PPCLI you wont get NETP until and unless you are posted to a coast.

So yes the RCN manages the environmental trg.

 

[MilEME09]

Ingersoll GM workers informed of plant shutdown: Sources

Multiple sources tell CTV News there will be a shutdown of the GM CAMI Assembly plant in Ingersoll, Ont.

www.ctvnews.ca

Back to defense spending, plants are starting to shut down in this trade war, i think a great course of action would be retool them and start producing military equipment like LVM etc