Office Production Paths - CFR or Bust?

[SeaKingTacco]

Why not just bite the bullet and connect the Cadet Program directly to the supply chain for the CAF. Invest resources in increasing the skills of the Cadet program's leaders, and post more CAF (ARes or otherwise) trainers into the Cadet Corps to ensure that higher quality material is more likely to emerge.

Give Gold Star cadets an opportunity to fast track to Officer Cadet and send them off on RESO training the summer they graduate from High School. Provide a modest education subsidy/ scholarship to encourage them to go all the way through to Phase 4 while concurrently finishing their degrees.

By the time they graduate they'll be a 22 year old Lt with, including Cadet time, 8 continuous years in a military environment.

But But But…


CHILD SOLDIERS!!!

 

[daftandbarmy]

But But But…


CHILD SOLDIERS!!!

I know... the horror

We trained Junior Soldiers in the UK at my regiment's (as well as others') depot, mostly school leavers 16 years of age. Those who stuck with the year long course, when they turned 17 entered adult recruit training and passed out into a battalion, aged 17 1/2 years.

Pass rates of Junior Soldiers who entered adult recruit training was much higher than the others. Many also went on to be first class leaders, including a respectable number who went on to 22 SAS etc.

 

[FJAG]

I know... the horror

We trained Junior Soldiers in the UK at my regiment's (as well as others') depot, mostly school leavers 16 years of age. Those who stuck with the year long course, when they turned 17 entered adult recruit training and passed out into a battalion, aged 17 1/2 years.

Pass rates of Junior Soldiers who entered adult recruit training was much higher than the others. Many also went on to be first class leaders, including a respectable number who went on to 22 SAS etc.

That was equally the result of our soldier apprentice programs.

As an aside, Canada under the "Additional Protocol ... children in armed conflict" declared it will permit voluntary recruits at age 16 ( which is one year above the minimum 15 called for in the protocol). The protocol itself does not allow anyone below the age of 18 to engage in combat.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We haven't settled the toques and gloves thing yet - can't move to buttons and bows just yet!!!

I did not wear a toque nor gloves today as it was quite mild out here.

Same here. It was actually hot on the ship. But our chillers were down too, so there's that lol

That presupposes that we can punt them out quickly if they don’t work out. Like a 1-year contract.

NEP (Naval Experience Program) enters the fray. I'm a big fan of this way forward. It give each side mechanism to disconnect no questions asked.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I have served alongside some armies that only draw their non-specialist officers from the ranks. They tend (or tended) to have universal service. They also tended to have NCO corps with much less capability and responsibility than we do. Power was centralized in the officers. I don't think we want to go there. We also don't want to go the route of some other armies that I served alongside that maintain a rigid class system that goes beyond have different messes.

People like to be on-line doomers these days, but I think we actually have a pretty good thing. I am sure we can all think of someone at some rank that we did not like or who we thought should not be there, but all in all we have a strong leadership corps in all the messes that support each other in the attainment of the mission. The keen young Lt and the grizzled Sgt leading their element is a familiar and somewhat tired trope from books and movies, but it also works.

Is it good for officers to have a perspective on what its like to be a troop? Sure, but there are other ways to get a sense of that. Our DP 1 training, whether DEO or RMC/ROTP takes time and the OCdt/2Lt is getting a sense of what its like to be the one not in charge. We also have the command team concept which allows for mentoring of junior officers as well as maintaining a perspective of what decisions will translate to on the floor.

Having said that, I did appreciate my short time as a Trooper in the Reserves, and my time as an Army Cadet also gave me some perspectives as a result of exercises with the Reserves and the Regular Force (CFE). I also have to guard against being so arrogant as to think that my short time as a Trooper over thirty years ago somehow translates into a keen insight into the realities of life as a Trooper today. For that I need to try to stay in touch with the conditions of service/life of soldiers in my unit today which includes a reliance on my command team partner and other NCOs/WOs to tell me what is happening today. Those NCOs/WOs have more than a token year as an NCM. They have come up through the ranks, have prolonged and recent relevant experience in the ranks and possess the expertise of the soldiers.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have served alongside some armies that only draw their non-specialist officers from the ranks. They tend (or tended) to have universal service. They also tended to have NCO corps with much less capability and responsibility than we do. Power was centralized in the officers. I don't think we want to go there. We also don't want to go the route of some other armies that I served alongside that maintain a rigid class system that goes beyond have different messes.

People like to be on-line doomers these days, but I think we actually have a pretty good thing. I am sure we can all think of someone at some rank that we did not like or who we thought should not be there, but all in all we have a strong leadership corps in all the messes that support each other in the attainment of the mission. The keen young Lt and the grizzled Sgt leading their element is a familiar and somewhat tired trope from books and movies, but it also works.

Is it good for officers to have a perspective on what its like to be a troop? Sure, but there are other ways to get a sense of that. Our DP 1 training, whether DEO or RMC/ROTP takes time and the OCdt/2Lt is getting a sense of what its like to be the one not in charge. We also have the command team concept which allows for mentoring of junior officers as well as maintaining a perspective of what decisions will translate to on the floor.

Having said that, I did appreciate my short time as a Trooper in the Reserves, and my time as an Army Cadet also gave me some perspectives as a result of exercises with the Reserves and the Regular Force (CFE). I also have to guard against being so arrogant as to think that my short time as a Trooper over thirty years ago somehow translates into a keen insight into the realities of life as a Trooper today. For that I need to try to stay in touch with the conditions of service/life of soldiers in my unit today which includes a reliance on my command team partner and other NCOs/WOs to tell me what is happening today. Those NCOs/WOs have more than a token year as an NCM. They have come up through the ranks, have prolonged and recent relevant experience in the ranks and possess the expertise of the soldiers.

Very good post.

The highlighted and bolded portion we need to be better at as C&POs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That presupposes that we can punt them out quickly if they don’t work out. Like a 1-year contract.

We could offer someone a standard 3 year contract. If someone identifies as wanting to be an officer then after 1 year of their contract they're assessed if they're suitable. If they are then they're sent to school. If they're not suitable then they can finish their 3 year contract as a ncm and potentially release after 3 years.

It would be nice to be stricter with both officer cadets and ncms after their first 3 years but that's not possible with our levels of recruitment.

What would they be doing in that 1 year? Depending on trade, they wouldn’t even finish training. Make them a GD?

Great counter point, I don't have a confident answer for that.
Doesn't the air force have some kind of general duties trade? I'm not sure of that would be applicable to the navy and army.

If that’s the case, I can’t see too many folks who are looking to be Pilots, etc joining up. We would be actively pushing some of them away - this wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t already have a recruiting problem.

I always assumed we have to turn people away for being pilots and there's no shortage of applicants.

 

[captloadie]

I have always thought we don't do a good job of actually explaining to officer recruits what their actual job will be upon commissioning, which I think leads to some of the problem children out there.

We recruit individuals to be pilots, and they assume their job will be to fly planes for their career. And almost all the training they receive is geared towards operating an aircraft. Then after six or seven years at the tactical level, we tell them they can't fly anymore, or that in addition to flying there are all these administrative type things they also need to do.

We recruit infantry officers, and the majority of their training is teaching them to be great riflemen then tacticians. But how much training to they get on being administrators and looking after the troops and their issues? I knew one gung-ho infantry officer who topped his phase training every summer and was excited to go to his unit upon grad. I ran into him 6 months after graduation and he told me he hated the job and was thinking of getting out. He hated spending most of his time in the office dealing with his troops admin instead of being out in the field all day.

So what's my point? Our training system isn't great at teaching our officer corps on how to be good officers, and what that entails. We recruit "leaders" without telling them what that actually means in most cases. Maybe we should change the system and recruit individuals to be officers, who then specialize in an MOSID, rather than the other way around.

 

[dimsum]

Great counter point, I don't have a confident answer for that.
Doesn't the air force have some kind of general duties trade? I'm not sure of that would be applicable to the navy and army.

Not really. If you take out “purple” trades, there isn’t really an RCAF-managed trade that isn’t a specialist of some description, as most NCM trades either fly in, or fix, aircraft.

The Air Ops Support trade is like a “GD Tech” trade, but it’s specifically Reserves. That would be the closest that one can be put in. Or a trade specifically tasked for base defence - but I can’t see too many Pilots or Aerospace Controllers wanting to spend a year or two checking IDs at the gate (like what USAF Security Forces do) to get a shot at Aircrew Selection and go into those trades.

I always assumed we have to turn people away for being pilots and there's no shortage of applicants.

Yes, but how many of those applicants would still apply if the situation above happened? There would probably still be some, but not nearly as much as now.

I’m assuming this wouldn’t apply to Doctors, Lawyers, Social Workers, Nurses, etc who come through DEO though, right? Having a doctor/nurse/lawyer spend a year or two as a Pte seems a bit counterproductive.

 

[captloadie]

The Air Ops Officer trade is now a sort of jack of all trades in the RCAF. They are trained to do all the stuff the pilots don't necessarily want to deal with, and some of the stuff traditionally done by Navigators. They are also trained to be planners, Ops officers, etc.

 

[dimsum]

The Air Ops Officer trade is now a sort of jack of all trades in the RCAF. They are trained to do all the stuff the pilots don't necessarily want to deal with, and some of the stuff traditionally done by Navigators. They are also trained to be planners, Ops officers, etc.

That’s true. But if we’re going with the “all officers should serve a year or two as an NCM” then that takes AOO out of consideration.

That being said, it depends what fleet you’re talking about in terms of “stuff traditionally done by Navigators”. I don’t think AOOs would do anything that TACCOs do in the LRP or MH fleets, aside from filling Sqn/Wing Ops jobs. I’m not sure about the other fleets.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If we are talking about the development of junior officers then DP1 (Developmental Period 1) formal training is one very important aspect of that but it is not the only aspect. I expect an Army officer to arrive at their unit well-prepared to discharge their tactical duties. They should be able to join the unit in the field and perform tactical tasks.

Of course, being a Troop Leader in the field is only one thing that a junior officer does. They need to be able to run ranges, write memos, organize training, deliver briefings, perform secondary duties, etc etc. While DP1 training does cover some of that, I expect that they will be mentored on those items at the unit. They will start small and be given progressively harder tasks. I wouldn't want to change the focus of DP 1 training into all those other things, as important as they are. Keep the focus on the field aspect. Army officers at the DP 2 level do have courses, but the lion share of their development is done through experience.

Do officer applicants have an incorrect impression of the nature of their upcoming service? Perhaps? So? Some may pick an MOS that is not suited towards them. The lucky ones find that out during training and are able to shift.

There is no Sorting Hat for officers that I am aware of. Perhaps there are methods like the old Combat Arms Selection Board, but those come at a cost. There is a cost to the institution in running the board. There is a delay to getting folks started in their training. Nothing is free.

There could be some wisdom in assigning non-Specialist MOS within the Army after BMOQ Army (Phase II, CAP, whatever it is these days). I think that the US Army does something like that. You always have to be careful, though, when taking ideas from other forces since you need the full context. It would run counter, though, to some Branches that have specific degrees?

 

[dapaterson]

If we can break some of the degree related parochialism in the CAF that would b a feature, not a bug. Other than professionals (lawyers, dentists, nurses, MDs) most CAF occupations should be trained by the CAF, not by universities, in their military occupation.

The intent from 1997 was to have broad based liberal arts education to build an officer corps capable of abstract thought and of dealing in uncertainty.

 

[Furniture]

The intent from 1997 was to have broad based liberal arts education to build an officer corps capable of abstract thought and of dealing in uncertainty.

I strongly suspect that the people responsible for making that decision decided, based on their own university education, that university education was the only way to develop those traits. Which demonstrates a bit of a lack of abstract thinking...

 

[dapaterson]

I strongly suspect that the people responsible for making that decision decided, based on their own university education, that university education was the only way to develop those traits. Which demonstrates a bit of a lack of abstract thinking...

The studies (by a set of academics) were published at the time.

Most amusing was the academic who later wrote to the MND to complain that his words were being misconstrued, and that he supported programs such as OCTP.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'll coincide defeat and walk back my statements about being NCMs first - there's too many points on why it's not a good idea/supportable.

How does that properly assess "what we're buying?" Getting a horse to see how well it performs as a motorcycle is a fools errand;

That's not a good analogy though. I wasn't implying to test someone as an infantry NCM to see how they would perform as logistical officer. I was thinking of a more basic see how someone behaves in uniform for a year before a free 4 year degree and practically guaranteed $120,000+ income.
But that's not viable.

In any case, where we fail most is assessing character and potential upon entry. That's across the CAF, NCM and Officer of all ranks, trades, and elements.

Agreed, but we also need a stronger appetite to remove people from training when it's warranted.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's not a good analogy though. I wasn't implying to test someone as an infantry NCM to see how they would perform as logistical officer. I was thinking of a more basic see how someone behaves in uniform for a year before a free 4 year degree and practically guaranteed $120,000+ income.
But that's not viable.

Is this along the lines of, everyone should be combat arms first and then move on to other trades ?

I'm gonna violently disagree with that.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is this along the lines of, everyone should be combat arms first and then move on to other trades ?

Not at all.

 

[dapaterson]

Is this along the lines of, everyone should be combat arms first and then move on to other trades ?

I'm gonna violently disagree with that.

Everyone should be a supply tech first and then move on to other trades, on the other hand

 

[Halifax Tar]

Everyone should be a supply tech first and then move on to other trades, on the other hand

We're Material Management Techs now

You know me too well lol.