Reg force equivilancy for RPC

[ward492]

Does anyone know if the Reg force gives any equivalency for people tranferring who have done RPC?  I've heard a lot of rumours of a Delta but have yet to talk to anyone who has transferred since reservists stopped going on Phase 3.  Any info would be gratly appreciated.

Cheers

 

[IPC10]

Good question

Funny timing too.  Within the last year the Comd of LFDTS directed the schools to investigate the Reg v. PRes officer trg.  The program which RPC and the other corps fell under was not cutting the mustard.  I seem to remember that two of the reasons were that the Reserve COs were unhappy with the level of trg received and second someone actually collected data that indicated that the reserves were losing a lot of potential officers from the post secondary education system who would come in looking for a full summers worth of employment and told they couldn't get it.

Its still in the infamous staff check phase but I would bet we are moving back to either militia on DP 1.1 or a fuller RPC.

That being said if a reserve officer has RPC he can certainly request some sort of equivalency through the system.  Practical experience tells me that if you want to go regs you will have to do DP 1.1 and DP 1.2.  There are just too many areas (for example withdrawals) that are not part of the RPC TP that have to be covered.  The plus is that by taking DP 1.1 you get the benefit of being familiar with the material and also the experience of interacting with potential officers from all of the reg regiments that you will remember for the rest of your career.

 

[mdh]

This is an interesting development, does anyone out there have any additional information? Having access to reg. force phase training or a beefed up RPC would be a nice boon to the infantry reserve, mdh

 

[Bartok5]

Wait for it.... RESO is coming back under another name, likely slated for summer 05.   Keep an eye out for the "Reserve Officer Training Program" (ROTP).   Why the new name when "what's old is new again"?   Well, we wouldn't want to admit an institutional mistake in having cancelled RESO Ph III in favour of the excessively dumbed down RPC, would we......?

Kind of like when the Regular Army adopted the "degreed" officer corps and eliminated the old OCTP program.   Only to immediately suffer a lack of adequate officer candidates applying for combat arms commissions.   Which in turn necessitated (after 2 years of hand-wringing and flop-cocking) the old OCTP program under a new name with the proviso that successful applicants must attain a university degree within their first 9 years of service.

What is old, is typically new again.   The old wheel just keeps spinning to the tune of "there must be a better (read cheaper) way".   The seemingly ceaseless quest for "economy of effort", "training synergy" and "fiscal efficiency" is characteristic of a resource-starved institution.   One step "forward" these days is almost inevitably followed by 2 steps back to the tried and true.   But you'd better not point this out to anyone in a position of influence, lest you be docked points on your PER for failing to "embrace change"    :

Ask any Res F NCM when the last time was that the Army ran two identical consecutive PLQ (or SQ, or BIQ) serials.   As an institution we are irrationally focused on "change" in the flawed hope that it will allow us to somehow further shave the resource and funding icecube without a loss of critical capability.   In the absence of fiscal and resource relief, change has become the "false idol" of the Army.   It is a very sad (and frustrating) situation for all who are directly involved or affected.  

Has anyone else heard the term "change fatigue" coined as a description for our #1 institutional stressor?   If not, then wait for it....   Every single change requires hours of staff-driven "options analysis" and curriculum amendment.   Receiving units are forced to cater to an every changing "training delta" within each successive crop of basic and leadership training graduates.   And people wonder why the training system is floundering.    

Just my humble observations, as a mere cog within the current training establishment.....  

 

[RCPalmer]

This is a subject in which I have a great deal of interest, being a product of this particular training system. My understanding of the new "DP" training system was that all training was to be divided into essential, supplemental and residual aspects, with reservists receiving essential aspects of training, and regular force receiving all three.  Theoretically, RPC covers the essential aspects only. If memory serves the supplemental aspects of DP1 Infantry Officer were transitional (ie withdrawls) and unique operations (airmobile, amphibious, etc).  The fact remains though, that these subjects are covered in much the same way on both RPC and Phase 3 Infantry (week of withdrawls for tranistional ops, and the odd lecture for unique operations with the possibility for one or two prospective commanders to lead an airmobile operation on the course).  Additionally, the course lengths are very similar (44 vice 50 training days). 

That being said, it is quite fair to say that the courses do have some differences that do result in a different standard of training.  I guess the moral of the story is that regular force phase training should have been left open to reservists, allowing them to move up to the regular force if they wished, while those reserve officers with civilian careers could take a MITCIP type program.  However, I thought that the point of this new training system was to impliment common training standards so that the reserves could deliver training in ways that would allow reserve officers with civilian careers to become qualified without taking months off of work (hence the modularlized courses), without creating a "two class" system of reserve infantry officers as occured with the twin RESO/MITCIP programs.  A return to something akin to the RESO/MITCIP system would be a good solution for those who have the time to take regular force training, but it basically means that those officers who take the MITCIP type courses cannot be employed operationally, and will have a more limited knowledge base than their peers.  Essentially, I think that the RPC idea was a sound one but the army needs to decide how the supplemental and residual aspects of training will be delivered, or if they can even be delivered without taking the regular force course. 

 

[RCPalmer]

Further to Ward492's question, has anyone tried a component transfer with RPC? Additionally, does anyone know if any Brigades/Areas have taken real steps to offering  any sort of supplemental training "delta" course for their reserve infantry officers?

 

[mdh]

A return to something akin to the RESO/MITCIP system would be a good solution for those who have the time to take regular force training, but it basically means that those officers who take the MITCIP type courses cannot be employed operationally, and will have a more limited knowledge base than their peers.

I'm curious as to what exactly the old MITCIP training program was? I assume it was rather similar to the modular program now in place? And what exactly was the problem with MITCIP? 

 

[McG]

Two tiered officer training was the problem.  The RESO officers got the "good training" and MITCIP officers were not employable in command positions when augmenting DCDS operations.

 

[mdh]

Thanks for the prompt reply MCG,

Again I assume that's because MITCIP-trained officers were doing their training two or three weeks blocks rather than the more arduous phase training under RESO?  A little institutional history would be much appreciated on the subject, cheers, mdh

 

[McG]

Have a look through this old thread for some history: http://army.ca/forums/threads/130.0.html

 

[RCPalmer]

Through to 2001, MITCIP was the alternative training program for those officers who could not attend regular force training through RESO.  It consisted of 4 courses.  BOT(Basic Officer Training) 1 and 2 were considered equivalent to phase one or BOTP and were together 4 weeks long.  BAOT (Basic Army Officer Training) equivalent to phase two or Common Army Phase (CAP) was two weeks long.  The phase 3 infantry or RPC equivalent was known as BCT (Basic Classification Training) and was six weeks long.  All told, this meant that a reserve infantry officer would be trained in 12 weeks, normally spread over two summers under MITCIP.  

Under the current training program instituted in 2002, known as RAOTP (Reserve Army Officer Training Plan), an officer conducts BOTP (5 weeks), CAP (5 weeks), and RPC (8 weeks or 44 training days), totalling 18 weeks of training generally split over two summers. Additionally, the MITCIP training scheme focused on the "armoury floor" aspects of being a reserve officer (Acting as an RSO, platoon adminstration, etc), while RPC focuses on the essential aspects of training identified in the DP system  (For RPC they consist of "Fire Platoon Weapons", "Command a Platoon in Offensive Ops", "Command a Platoon in Defensive Ops", and "Command a Dismounted Platoon Fighting Patrol".  Of course, those subjects were covered to some degree on BCT as well.      

So to answer your question, MITCIP and the RAOTP are similar in the sense that they are modularized training, but the material covered, the time allocated and the nature of the assessment, are all quite different.    

The purpose of the DP system was to establish common training standards between regular force and the reserve force.  By characterizing training objectives into essential, supplemental and residual, it allows for the reserve force to offer courses that cover the essential aspects only, leaving the door open to make up the training at a later date, through a "delta" course, to become qualified to the regular force standard.

As for the current training system not "cutting the mustard", it really depends on what one is comparing it to.  The current system, RAOTP offers over 30% more training time than MITCIP (18 vice 12 weeks).  Furthermore, RPC focuses only on those essential platoon commander learning objectives (I know my OC wasn't too impressed when I showed up in his company requiring additional training to become an RSO, whereas MITCIP did teach that).  Compared to regular force training however, their is a difference (9 week CAP, 50 day phase 3).  

       

 

[ward492]

Further to Ward492's question, has anyone tried a component transfer with RPC? Additionally, does anyone know if any Brigades/Areas have taken real steps to offering  any sort of supplemental training "delta" course for their reserve infantry officers?

I'm in the midst of a transfer right now, I'll post any info as soon as I get any... As for the deltas, 34 Bde ran a delta for running conventional ranges last year, it was a weekend of classroom, followed by a PO check whenever there was an opportunity to run a range, basically once you had the classroom part done the Bde standards cell would send someone to asses your range and give you the qual, most guys got it running ranges on the SQ.  Also, the PDR's given after concentration specified what Pl level ops were covered (airmobile, FIBUA etc...) the rumour was that some sort of equivalency was going be given so that RPC qualified guys could go on tour as Pl Comd's.  That was last summer and I have yet to hear any new info. 

 

[Meridian]

Im quite curious too, if only from the broader Combat Arms perspective...

 

[RCPalmer]

Out here in 41 bde, there has been no organized effort to make up the "delta" (though several of us have picked up our RSO quailification, but it was personnel internal to the unit who assessed us on a range, sufficient to become an RSO IAW training safety).  That is a good idea though to get the PDR's/PER's to reflect the types of training conducted, to prove that one has led a certain type of operation (though the UER does this in a less formal way).  Anyway, good luck on the CT Ward492, and let us know how it goes.