Logistics Officer - Sea [Merged]

[MJP]

CAP or BMOQ-L is for army Log Os only although each element has their own version.  I don't know how long it is and the national calendar doesn't like me today so I can't find any dates.  You didn't say what element you want so I will assume army for now.

Phase 3 or Logistics Officer Common Course (LOCC) is run once a year in late Spring/early Summer and is roughly 6 weeks.

Phase 4 or Logistics Officer Common Land (LOCL) is run once a year in late Summer/Fall and is approx 7-8 weeks.

Logistics Officer specialties like transport, supply, finace and human resources run either in between LOCC & LOCL or after LOCL.  These are fairly short courses except for HR but army folks typically are not crse loaded on it as the Army views HR as an imbeded function of all officers (with vary degrees of success and failure).  You will choose one of the big three to specialize in to start and may be offered another or be allowed to change if your choice isn't to your liking. 

Overall unless one falls in training issues or injuries they are qualified fairly quickly from BMOQ on. I have seen issues with DEOs as they are brough into the Forces without enough time to finish both BMOQ and BMOQ-L before the kick off of LOCC leaving them to do OJT at a unit for a year.

 

[DaveReady]

Hello,

I'm interested in joining as a Logistics Officer.  I understand that the first step in training is BMOQ in Richleau for 15 weeks, the CAP in Gagetown, and finally trade training in Borden.  I cannot, however, seem to find anything on how long the CAP and trade training takes.  If anyone knows this, I'd appreciate it.  Also, is there typically a lot of wait time between courses?  I'm just trying to get a line on how long it takes to get thru all the training in a best case scenario.

Also, I've just turned 50.  I assume that's older than the typical DEO...  Any insights anyone can offer as to obstacles/advantages that might present would be appreciated

Did you happen to get any information regarding CAP for Log o's or can anyone who knows or has recently completed this phase enlighten me as to how this differs (if at all) from CAP that combat arms trades do?  Any info would be greatly appreciated as I am 2 weeks away from completing BMOQ and can't seem to find any info regarding this course.  Thanks!

 

[MJP]

Did you happen to get any information regarding CAP for Log o's or can anyone who knows or has recently completed this phase enlighten me as to how this differs (if at all) from CAP that combat arms trades do?  Any info would be greatly appreciated as I am 2 weeks away from completing BMOQ and can't seem to find any info regarding this course.  Thanks!

The CAP or BMOQ-L is the same for all that do it. BMOQ-L courses are a mix of all trades that require the course and don't generally run with just combat arms folks. 

 

[OlivemanD]

Can anyone give me some information as to what the CAP consists of for Log O's (ARMY)? Maybe if there is someone around who has gone through this training, that would be perfect.
I need some of this information as I am preparing for my interview.
Thanks,
D

 

[mariomike]

Can anyone give me some information as to what the CAP consists of for Log O's (ARMY)?

This may help,

Common Army Phase 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/1373.0.html
7 pages.

also,

Common Army Phase 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/26521.0/nowap.html
3 pages.

Common Army Phase
If assigned to the Army, Logistics Officers go to the Infantry School at the Combat Training Centre in Gagetown, New Brunswick. You will build upon the leadership training you received in basic officer training in addition to learning the skills required of all Combat Arms Soldiers, including more advanced weapons-handling, field-craft, and section-level tactics.
http://www.forces.ca/en/job/logisticsofficer-73?pedisable=true#cap

 

[dangerboy]

Just be advised when looking for info that CAP was renamed years ago to BMOQ(Land) [Basic Military Officers Qualification Land].

 

[mariomike]

Just be advised when looking for info that CAP was renamed years ago to BMOQ(Land) [Basic Military Officers Qualification Land].

Not to disagree, but the Recruiting website has not yet renamed CAP,
http://www.forces.ca/en/job/logisticsofficer-73?pedisable=t#bmoq

 

[McG]

CAP or BMOQ-L is for army Log Os only although each element has their own version.  I don't know how long it is and the national calendar doesn't like me today so I can't find any dates.  You didn't say what element you want so I will assume army for now.

Phase 3 or Logistics Officer Common Course (LOCC) is run once a year in late Spring/early Summer and is roughly 6 weeks.

Phase 4 or Logistics Officer Common Land (LOCL) is run once a year in late Summer/Fall and is approx 7-8 weeks.

Logistics Officer specialties like transport, supply, finace and human resources run either in between LOCC & LOCL or after LOCL.  These are fairly short courses except for HR but army folks typically are not crse loaded on it as the Army views HR as an imbeded function of all officers (with vary degrees of success and failure).  You will choose one of the big three to specialize in to start and may be offered another or be allowed to change if your choice isn't to your liking. 

I understand that (with rare exception) all Army do one of supply, transport or finance; all Navy do both supply and finance; and all Air Force do any one of the four.

I am not sure the Army got things right by dismissing the HR path (it would seem a good start to develop future G1 staff), and I like the apparent added flexibility the Navy gets by starting their Log O with feet in two streams (and I understand how the requirements of a deployed ship led to this model for the Navy).

Do you think the Army has the right training model for our LogOs?

 

[ModlrMike]

I understand that (with rare exception) all Army do one of supply, transport or finance; all Navy do both supply and finance; and all Air Force do any one of the four.

I am not sure the Army got things right by dismissing the HR path (it would seem a good start to develop future G1 staff), and I like the apparent added flexibility the Navy gets by starting their Log O with feet in two streams (and I understand how the requirements of a deployed ship led to this model for the Navy).

Do you think the Army has the right training model for our LogOs?

In my admittedly biased Naval opinion, I think the Navy has it right. HR, Fin, and Supply are the backbone of the Log world regardless of environment. I'm presuming that the Army Log doesn't do HR because Army units use Adjts (who are not Log by trade).

 

[BinRat55]

I am out of my lane when it comes to the "Officer" progression side of the house, so I will leave that one to the experts, however if you have any questions regarding the Sup O part (what to expect as a YO in a Supply role) I can certainly help. I was fortunate to have taught on a few Log O (Sup) courses in Borden, and even more fortunate to serve as one of my student's command team partner - not once, but twice in two different settings. Good eye-opener for me, and at the same time really great to see how far he came.

 

[MJP]

Do you think the Army has the right training model for our LogOs?

It is an interesting question.

I will hit on the HR one first.  So all Reg Force Log Os regardless of element conduct a common Phase 3 which includes the bare bones of the HR world.  Letters, memos, grievances, PDR, minute sheets etc etc, so they come to their unit with an understanding of how the nuts and bolts of administration work.  Which in many cases is a leg up on other Army trades that rightly focus on doing the combat arms stuff.

The issue is the Army as you well know has deemed HR to be a function of command and leadership.  PL/Tp Comds take care of their troops and the responsibility flows up the chain.  In general no one really knows how to deal with a HR situation unless they have dealt with it before.  Most of the problems boil down to they don't know how to define the issue, find the references, understand the references or the big one is they are just too busy doing other aspects of their job that they ignore or pay lip service to the latter three.  The HR staff in a Combat Arms unit is small and experiences may vary so the guidance isn’t always there.  That same logic has been applied to the Logistics world and it makes sense to keep it that way unless you do make your G1s and maybe Ajdts, Log Os.  That of course waters down the Adjt posn in many including my own eyes. 

The real question you asked is would the HR course help develop G1 staff?  Again I would say yes but that means more PYs shifting over to LogOs so how feasiable that is who knows.  Many units use AOs so they could develop there and matriculate into other staff/base functions much like the RCAF HR LogOs do.  But in theory it sounds ok, many issues to solve.

Do you think the Army has the right training model for our LogOs?

In my admittedly biased Naval opinion, I think the Navy has it right. HR, Fin, and Supply are the backbone of the Log world regardless of environment. I'm presuming that the Army Log doesn't do HR because Army units use Adjts (who are not Log by trade).

I think the RCN is on the right track with their training model.  It would be a good baseline for all Army Log Os with a bit of tweaking.  I would take out NPF and the in-depth financial trg they do to something more general/broad base and allow FIN to remain its own specialty.  We however need Tn qualified pers to manage our veh fleet and that should be its own qual.  The biggest challenge most Supply qualified officers say is integrating Fin and contracting into their knowledge set when they go work as QMs, G4 Sups so the Navy model has promise.

Busy so just a quick hit on the subject.  It might gain more discussion if we split this into the Logistics sub-forum.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think the RCN is on the right track with their training model.  It would be a good baseline for all Army Log Os with a bit of tweaking.  I would take out NPF and the in-depth financial trg they do to something more general/broad base and allow FIN to remain its own specialty.  We however need Tn qualified pers to manage our veh fleet and that should be its own qual.  The biggest challenge most Supply qualified officers say is integrating Fin and contracting into their knowledge set when they go work as QMs, G4 Sups so the Navy model has promise.

Busy so just a quick hit on the subject.  It might gain more discussion if we split this into the Logistics sub-forum.

I would agree with the foregoing, but to a point. The Navy needs NPF because we don't have PSP at sea to manage the exchanges. The Army certainly needs TPT qualified pers, and I'm at something of a loss to discern a specific need for the Air Force. Perhaps the model should be:

- LOCC followed by NPF for the Navy and TPT for the Army - but include Pay;
- 2-3 years in the trenches;
- then as a newly minted Lt(N)/Capt LOCS, LOCL, LOCA.

All of which might make someone LOCO, but that's another discussion.  [

 

[MJP]

The Army certainly needs TPT qualified pers, and I'm at something of a loss to discern a specific need for the Air Force.

The RCAF needs Transport Officers as well.  They don't just look after the people that drive or manage the green fleet but the blue fleet and special purpose vehicles (runway clearing, mules etc) as well.

- LOCC followed by NPF for the Navy and TPT for the Army - but include Pay;
- 2-3 years in the trenches;
- then as a newly minted Lt(N)/Capt LOCS, LOCL, LOCA.

The timeline doesn't work.  We like the other elements need our doctrinal field based Phase 4 to know our baseline job.  In our case it is the supporting a Bde from a Svc Bn from a doctrinal standpoint and without it we are pretty useless in a Bn.  Neither does the the Army need to be all Tn Qual'd, the current split with specialties is OK.  To add the full Tn crse and Supply course plus some Fin into the LOCL is a waste of resources IMHO. 

If I was designing the Army course, I would add a bit of holistic cross training in Fin (not pay based), contracting and some Supply.  Enough to allow some cross pollination when talking to fellow Log Os.  I don't include Tn because the base Tn job is managing a field Pl/GPV/SPV Pl.  Technically you do that as part of Phase 4 albeit without real trucks or troops.  IIRC correctly there is some Tn intro portion in LOCC/LOCL (same with the other specialties) so that could be expanded to make the Tn Officers feel better about their choice in life I guess  >

 

[McG]

What if the Army model was that pers took any two of the four options?  There would be some S&T officers, some supply & fin, some HR & Fin, etc.

Sort of a hybrid of current Army and Navy models.

 

[MJP]

What if the Army model was that pers took any two of the four options?  There would be some S&T officers, some supply & fin, some HR & Fin, etc.

Sort of a hybrid of current Army and Navy models.

There is always talk of doing two specialties but never the time nor the appetite.  It is doable and I know a few officers that have two, generally though the one specialty model works for the most part.  We don't need to know a whole lot but specialize in one and have a good understanding of the others.

 

[mariomike]

Saw this in Ask a CAF Recruiter today. Including it here for future reference,

Ideal Baccalaureate degree for Logistics Officers (DEO, OT & CT) are as follows:
o Accounting
o Business Admin
o Commerce
o Economics
o Finance
o Food Business Management
o Food Sciences
o Human Resources Management
o Nutrition/Dietetics
o Public Administration
o Supply Chain Management

 

[Pusser]

Saw this in Ask a CAF Recruiter today. Including it here for future reference,

Love this recent change to Branch Policy.  It's nice to think after 26 years as a LogO that if I were applying today, I would not even be considered.  I know I'm not the Branch's golden child, but I think I've made a contribution.  Not feeling the love... ???

 

[NSDreamer]

Love this recent change to Branch Policy.  It's nice to think after 26 years as a LogO that if I were applying today, I would not even be considered.  I know I'm not the Branch's golden child, but I think I've made a contribution.  Not feeling the love... ???

Agreed.

 

[George Wallace]

Love this recent change to Branch Policy.  It's nice to think after 26 years as a LogO that if I were applying today, I would not even be considered.  I know I'm not the Branch's golden child, but I think I've made a contribution.  Not feeling the love... ???

Yup!  You would have had to go Combat Arms like all the rest of us Neanderthals.    [

 

[kratz]

Love this recent change to Branch Policy.  It's nice to think after 26 years as a LogO that if I were applying today, I would not even be considered.  I know I'm not the Branch's golden child, but I think I've made a contribution.  Not feeling the love... ???

It's not the same Navy that it was when we joined.  [