Ottawa seeking ‘impartial’ board members to review military colleges

[Good2Golf]

Coincidentally, Royal Roads University is a great example.

…so at least one of the MilCols successfully transitioned to a value-added model…

 

[dimsum]

Every announcement like this from Ottawa is just an way to destroy or teardown traditional Canada. It's just one more Trudeau agenda item. Grow future leaders with "correct think" or just close down or replace.

I'm not saying things at RMC can not be improved or changed. Not being close to an of the issues but I'm sure there is some> But from the current government it's all about the agenda.

I don't trust at all that their plan is "improve" military leadership in anyway helpful.

What is “traditional” Canada in your view?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

What is “traditional” Canada in your view?

The Canada that existed briefly between 1946 and 1963 I reckon....

 

[OldSolduer]

What is “traditional” Canada in your view?

There really isn't one. Canada keeps changing as all nations etc do. Institutions have to evolve as well or be destined to be swept away.

 

[Ostrozac]

Turning RMC into Sandhurst Mark 2 seems like an attractive option, as it would eliminate the most expensive bit of RMC (the 4-year degree granting side) while appearing to not actually disband the college. But do we really need to go down the RMAS route?

The British Army 44 week commissioning course appears to cover the rough equivalent of BMOQ (12 weeks) and BMOQ-A (10 weeks). I’d defer judgement on whether a RMAS graduate is actually twice as well prepared for special-to-arm training as their Canadian counterpart finishing BMOQ-A in Gagetown. (And also leaving aside how this really doesn’t work for the RCAF and RCN) Do we really need to double the length of Army Officer DP 1 training at a time when we lack training capacity? And does Kingston even have the training areas and ranges to run all these BMOQ-A courses?

Maybe all we need is to recreate CFOCS and run it out of the peninsula — just like when we had Chilliwack there would be a single schoolhouse to run BMOQ training and a common introduction to CAF culture, before everyone disperses their separate ways.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Maybe all we need is to recreate CFOCS and run it out of the peninsula — just like when we had Chilliwack there would be a single schoolhouse to run BMOQ training and a common introduction to CAF culture, before everyone disperses their separate ways.

But what about the phony upper class accents and mannerisms?

 

[OldSolduer]

But what about the phony upper class accents and mannerisms?

Oh you mean "Upper Class Twit of the Year" contests?

 

[Furniture]

Oh you mean "Upper Class Twit of the Year" contests?

 

[Ostrozac]

But what about the phony upper class accents and mannerisms?

Sure, why not. Add four weeks of extra training to BMOQ for some of that Miss Manners crap if we want to. But while the Arbour report didn’t mention that RMC produced superior table manners and a classy retro fashion sense, it did rather pointedly mention that RMC was failing at producing Anglophones who could actually function in French — supposedly one of the pillars of the institution.

Maybe what we actually need is a hybrid of CFOCS with the Foreign Legion’s robust yet effective approach to second language training.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Turning RMC into Sandhurst Mark 2 seems like an attractive option, as it would eliminate the most expensive bit of RMC (the 4-year degree granting side) while appearing to not actually disband the college. But do we really need to go down the RMAS route?

I think it's an option along with many others that are on the table. I find it poetic really, seeing as RMCC was modeled after the original RMC in the first place, but has been Frankensteined into the grotesque beast it is now...while RMAS has essentially held its own (except for the merger of RMA and RMC into RMAS in 1947) since the 18th century.

The British Army 44 week commissioning course appears to cover the rough equivalent of BMOQ (12 weeks) and BMOQ-A (10 weeks). I’d defer judgement on whether a RMAS graduate is actually twice as well prepared for special-to-arm training as their Canadian counterpart finishing BMOQ-A in Gagetown. (And also leaving aside how this really doesn’t work for the RCAF and RCN) Do we really need to double the length of Army Officer DP 1 training at a time when we lack training capacity? And does Kingston even have the training areas and ranges to run all these BMOQ-A courses?

I would say "yes" to doubling the training, as I have seen the product of BMOQ/BMOQ-A graduates coming through to DP1 without a basic understanding of Navigation, org structures, map symbology, or even a proper military bearing.

As for Kingston being a small Trg Area, yes. That said, it's a short jaunt to Pet if you need more ranges and there is Mountainview and Camden East to play around in if needed. There's always a solution if you plan for it.

as for the RCN/RCAF folk, let them decide how to best indoctrinate their members. Maybe a Great Lakes tour for those that are waterbound and a bus trip to 8bWing for those inclined to hotel living. Options right?

Maybe all we need is to recreate CFOCS and run it out of the peninsula — just like when we had Chilliwack there would be a single schoolhouse to run BMOQ training and a common introduction to CAF culture, before everyone disperses their separate ways.

It worked for how many years before it was deemed surplus?

 

[Furniture]

Sure, why not. Add four weeks of extra training to BMOQ for some of that Miss Manners crap if we want to. But while the Arbour report didn’t mention that RMC produced superior table manners and a classy retro fashion sense, it did rather pointedly mention that RMC was failing at producing Anglophones who could actually function in French — supposedly one of the pillars of the institution.

Maybe what we actually need is a hybrid of CFOCS with the Foreign Legion’s robust yet effective approach to second langauge training.

Why restrict it to officers?

Have a robust SLT program baked into all initial training. It's a requirement to advance as NCMs as well as for officers.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Why restrict it to officers?

Have a robust SLT baked into all initial training. It's a requirement to advance as NCMs as well as for officers.

Except not everyone wants to advance that high up the chain. Also, you will find a lot of folks who are coming from very much unilingual parts of Canada (both French and English) couldn't be fucked to learn another language, because they have no intention of ever using it. It may even actively discourage recruitment in some cases.

It makes sense from a quantitative mindset, but it doesn't hold enough water in my mind for the qualitative

 

[Furniture]

Except not everyone wants to advance that high up the chain. Also, you will find a lot of folks who are coming from very much unilingual parts of Canada (both French and English) couldn't be fucked to learn another language, because they have no intention of ever using it. It may even actively discourage recruitment in some cases.

It makes sense from a quantitative mindset, but it doesn't hold enough water in my mind for the qualitative

Fair point, but it needs to be an "as requested" option during people's careers. Rather than the current opaque system of granting courses to friends, or people who don't want to move, but can't stay in their current position.

 

[WLSC]

Except making "One CAF" work has been a 65 year effort of trying to ram 3 round pegs into the same square hole.

We tried the "common body of work" branch structure... it completely ignored that the work differs tremendously between the three elements.

We tried the common look and feel uniforms. It failed spectacularly and is still being corrected piece by piece because it was artificial and sterile in an organization that derives pride from unique identity.

We tried uniform command structures, that fell by the wayside too. We tried uniform procurement models, that is going swimmingly....

I think it's no longer just a matter of folks putting sticks in the spokes because reasons. There are some serious flaws that we have tried to just make work, but don't.

It's the same thing with RMC. We tried the MND10 recommendation from 1997 and now, here we are... 25 years later and our Officer Corps is about where it was leadership wise, but with a lot of time and money spent granting degrees.

The CAF never goes backward, only forward. It may be in a circle, but it only goes forward. If that means we go forward by correcting previous mistakes like Unification or the Degreed Officer Corps, so be it.

I have zero issues with the decreed Officer Corps. I like the UK army model. I just don’t like our. RMC was created because their was not enough (or none) engineer shock in Canada. I think we’re good on that now.

 

[FJAG]

I don't know exactly what the Sandhurst course entails but 44 weeks is enough to turn out an army 2nd lieutenant.

The old Officer Candidate Training Plan took in high school students with junior matriculation (essentially a completed grade 11 [or 12 in Ontario at the time]) and sent them directly to training. In my case that was just shy of 4 months BOTC at CFOCS Venture followed by roughly two months common army training (all crew served weapons, vehicles, platoon and corps tactics - yup we learned platoon tactics and how a corps operated with a light sprinkling of the bn, bde and div in between). The last 4.5 months were gunnery - from L5, C1, M109 to everything about recce and command post you could ever hope to learn. A touch of FOO thrown in for familiarization. At the end you went to a regiment as a gun position officer for two years and ran 3 guns and 30 gunners under the watchful eye of a staff sergeant (WO to you new guys)

The system worked and worked well and didn't have you sitting in a classroom for four years.

The trouble with having "experts" in "youth education" examine RMC is that they are naturally inclined towards a youth "education" system. As are RMC grads. What's needed are experts at "training" military officers who do not automatically default to a university style concept. If you save three years of a young officer's life up front then there are three one-year blocks that can be inserted in their later career to "educate" those that merit upward mobility.

 

[dimsum]

Maybe all we need is to recreate CFOCS and run it out of the peninsula — just like when we had Chilliwack there would be a single schoolhouse to run BMOQ training and a common introduction to CAF culture, before everyone disperses their separate ways.

Not sure how that's any different to BMOQ being run in Saint-Jean now.

Single schoolhouse (except Naval Reservists out of Victoria but that's been happening for a while), common intro to CAF culture...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'll add a couple of comments here:

I am a graduate of RMC and also have time as a former Directing Staff member there.

1. A common misconception is that RMC's role is only to produce Officers for the Canadian Armed Forces. That is only partially true as RMC was established well before the Canadian Armed Forces and is older than the CAF itself. Canada did not even have a Military when RMC was established.

The original purpose of RMC was to develop selected Canadians in to skilled members of the Profession of Arms and also produce leaders who were capable of going on to success in the Military and Civilian career fields.

It has produced an outsized number of leaders for Canada, especially when comparing how small the School is:

Multiple Astronauts, Titans of Industry, Skilled Military Officers, War Heroes, Rhodes Scholars, Politicians, etc.

Also, a disproportionate amount of Senior Military Leaders come from RMC (50% of General Officers are RMC Grads) a peculiar statistic given the usual lines about the product from RMC.

The School is also steeped in blood and sacrifice. Spend time at the Arch on the RMC Campus and read the names of the fallen. Many Cadets have paid the ultimate sacrifice for Canada, including some of my peers who are no longer with us.

2. RMC has been and continues to be a great equalizer in allowing young people from middle & lower income families to, through their own merit and a commitment of Military Service to Canada, enhance their social and economic standing.

I was at a Corporate Function in downtown Toronto last night. There were a number of us who were RMC Grads there. None of us came from rich families or went to Elite Boarding Schools. We came from Bathurst NB, Ste Hyacinthe QC, Weyburn SK, Airdrie AB, Steinbach MB, Salmon Arm BC, etc.

We were invited to speak to Corporate Leaders in Toronto about our Military Service and deliver a pitch on the value the experiences of Veterans could provide to the Corporate World.

We were talking about it afterward but we all agreed that this was a room that in another World, we really had no business being in. But we were here and we had earned our place here, not through our connections but through the merits of our achievements.

I didn't appreciate it at the time but I do now. Everything I have today is because of my decision to commit to enrolling at RMC. I received a paid education and developed an interest in the profession of arms, in return I served 17 1/2 years of my life in the Armed Forces. I gained vast and valuable experiences that I would never have been able to have had I not committed my time to the RMC and the program it delivers.

It would be a shame if those opportunities were closed off to kids today, who are just like I was.

 

[FJAG]

It would be a shame if those opportunities were closed off to kids today, who are just like I was.

You do not need RMC to give those opportunities.

You could still select people for an ROTP program, pay their tuition and room and board (but no salary) at a civilian university for an approved studies program and train them (with pay) in the military arts during their summer recess. Not only would it be a lot less expensive, but the students would be exposed to a wider variety of their fellow citizens. You could demand the same level of obligatory service as well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You do not need RMC to give those opportunities.

You could still select people for an ROTP program, pay their tuition and room and board (but no salary) at a civilian university for an approved studies program and train them (with pay) in the military arts during their summer recess. Not only would it be a lot less expensive, but the students would be exposed to a wider variety of their fellow citizens. You could demand the same level of obligatory service as well.

COTC enters the chat, along with a similarly distinguished list of graduates.

Canadian Officers' Training Corps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Although they seem to have left out John Fraser in the Wiki article, former speaker of the House of Commons for 10 years. I asked him about the program once and he went on for almost an hour about how fantastic it was

Profile

 

[dimsum]

We were invited to speak to Corporate Leaders in Toronto about our Military Service and deliver a pitch on the value the experiences of Veterans could provide to the Corporate World.

We were talking about it afterward but we all agreed that this was a room that in another World, we really had no business being in. But we were here and we had earned our place here, not through our connections but through the merits of our achievements.

I don't think that had anything to do with RMC though. That is because of what you accomplished in your career, RMC or not.

That was your entry path for sure, but as @FJAG said, an expanded ROTP Civ-U or COTC program would have the same effect.