retire at uhhh...60?

[orange.paint]

Over the past two years I have noticed a lot of per's joining the army at later ages.Joining the CF as a career at 35 just does not make sense to me in the combat arms.What will happen to this guy come his 20 year mark? He will be 45 before his Mcpl's (on average) and on rare instances can a 50 yr old keep up and lead troops in the field.

Is this a current trend due to action in Afghanistan?
Does it say something about our economy?Lack of schooling in the 80's?

Also what bugs me is they seem to think when they show up to their regiments that they are somehow above their 26 yr old Mcpl because they have "real life experience".Bull sht.

Even now a member joining the CF at age 25 will not be able to retire until 50.I'm retiring at 37 and 50 just seems too far to go in the combat arms.So they O.T? There goes a waste a resources that was pumped into them knowing the 35 yr old trooper will be a 44 yr old cpl who cannot do the job due to "I use to be able too hardcore stuff when I worked for Ontario hydro back in 1986".

Why would you join? Is this place becoming a last ditch place for the 70's crowd with little education to crash for a while?I believe their should be an age cap.Personally I wouldn't join past 25.

Maybe look at giving combat arms guys a different pension like 15 yrs full retirement.It would help retain members in current "0" moc's and promote people joining to fight.Let's face it combat arms is demanding on the mind and body,why not reward these guys.

open the flood gates for good discussion.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Have you ever considered that just because you seem to have pre-planned your limitations, that not everbody does?

 

[orange.paint]

It isnt my limitations,I just joined at 17 due to wanting to be a soldier for all my life. I just don't understand people joining to make a career out of the combat arms at 35.Sure there are exceptions but they guys I have seen so far it appears it's a last ditch effort.They decided jean jackets with "poision" iron on's were cooler than school and got a job at the minto sawmill.Sawmill closed down and here they are.

I'm willing to say there are pleanty of cmbt arms guys here over the age of 35, who are not in a shitty position at the bottom of the barrel who would agree.Making an age limit would strenghten our forces.Or make a new retirement plan for combat trades.

50 yrs olds driving Leo's....dont think so.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What makes you think your "civi" job is going to be any easier than what you do now?

......chances are pretty good your not retiring at 37, you are just changing jobs and that guy with the "poision" decal is going to be your boss.

 

[mdh]

RCAC,

Is the age factor in the Combat Arms really an issue at all? I would imagine that the total number of recruits entering, say the infantry, at the age of 35 and above is relatively insignificant anyway.  For the handful of older ones, if they're fit, and can keep up, and are crazy enough to want to do it, then why not?

Considering that nearly 70 per cent of Combat Arms folks either release or OT after their BE I'm not sure why you're so focused on late joiners as a some sort of socio-economic "phenomenon" afflicting the CF.  Traditional notions of age are changing, and even the US military (no slouch in its desire to maintain a very young military) has increased the maximum age bracket to 40 years old for Army National Guard.

FWIW,

mdh

 

[orange.paint]

Sorry Bruce some of us arnt so stupid with money and planning at age 17, 37 I'm done and I'm working for myself after that.

14 acres oceanfront bought at 19 yrs old...
house to come in next 8 years or so.

 

[aesop081]

Considering that nearly 70 per cent of Combat Arms folks either release or OT after their BE

source ?

 

[mdh]

source ?

It came from some testimony before a parliamentary committee some time ago - sorry can't remember the exact one - but I got it off this site about two years ago - always stuck in my mind as a high number...

 

[aesop081]

It came from some testimony before a parliamentary committee some time ago - sorry can't remember the exact one - but I got it off this site about two years ago - always stuck in my mind as a high number...

I wasn't trying to be an ass with my question, just seemed a little high in my experience thats all

 

[geo]

RCAC.....
Having joined at 16, I went thru the ranks in my youth (Infantry & Engineers) both part time & full time... yup - I'm an old fart now - not quite as young & spry but - I still do my PWT, Fitness test & 13Km forced march... Age is only one issue - but it's not "the" issue..... is the person fit? - if he is - leave him be, if he isn't - the system will take care of him.

 

[Patrolman]

I agree with RC on some points here. There needs to be an age cap for sure. I believe the British have an age cap around 26. That's a little much maybe 35 should be a good cut off point. It would still allow for freedom 55. 
A couple of years back I was working on a cap course where one of the candidates was a 53 year old male. By the time he finished his phase training he would be on his way out the door. If he finished his phases at all ,which I doubt he did since he hobbled his way through CAP. In my opinion it was a huge waste of tax payers money to train this individual.
The other part about life experience I can relate to. I recently finished instructing on a CF PLQ where I had individuals with 18 -20 years in and in their forties. Having a 27 year old MCpl. as a section commander made for some awkward moments. Most of them had kids as old as me.
I once knew an individual who re-joined the reg force infantry at around age 47 or 48. He had served 12 years(6 Airborne) infantry, 8 as a clerk, retired to the reserves 3 years, then upon rejoining did another7 years as an infantry Cpl. He recently retired to the reserves again and just completed his PLQ. He is now a MCpl in an Infantry reserve unit at age 56. During his time time in the reg inf. he consistently performed well physically most often out doing people half his age.
In indivdual cases some old timers can do the job while as a whole most can't. Let us hope most people, candidates as well as recruiters have enough discernment to be aware of there abilities prior to joining and not use the CF as a way to test themselves.

 

[GO!!!]

It came from some testimony before a parliamentary committee some time ago - sorry can't remember the exact one - but I got it off this site about two years ago - always stuck in my mind as a high number...

I'd say that (70%) is pretty accurate.

 

[ProPatria05]

Gotta say first off that joined as an Inf Officer at age 30, finished Phase 4 at age 33, and kicked the PANTS off most guys 10 years younger than me when it came to PT.  >  Also, although I did have the Twisted Sister logo drawn on the back of my jeanjacket in 1985 (Gr 7), I voluntarily left a VERY high-paying job as a CA to join the Infantry. This is not my "last ditch" resting place.

So call me a little biased..... :threat:

Anyways, that aside, I do see your point. But I don't think slapping an age limit is the answer. Although 30 when I joined, I had spent my working life to date at a desk job, so my body was generally abuse-free (all vices aside  ;D), and thus I was not at all "broken" in the way a 30-year old soldier who had joined at 18 might be (in some cases). 

I think what we need to do is target individuals that are weak, broken or lazy (young or older, male or female), and ensure they don't get into the Cbt Arms streams. How do you do this?  Adding 2 additional, higher standards for fitness on enrolment, either using the current EXPRES test, or developing a more difficult test in itself, with the following 3 standards:

1) Current EXPRESS standards - permit recruit to join any trade EXCEPT Cbt Arms;
2) Level 2 standard - higher than the current minimum for MALES IN THE YOUNGEST AGE BRACKET, and applied universally regardless of age or gender, would permit entry into the Cbt Arms, but not the Infantry;
3) Level 3 standard - highest standard, applied universally, permits selection of any trade, including Infantry.

The Level 2 and 3 standards would have to be high enough to measure one's ability to cope with the physical demands of Battle School for those respective MOSIDs.

This would prevent the waste of training time and resources at Battle Schools/Officer Phase Trg by weeding out those who won't be able to cut the mustard. If they initially fail to meet those higher standards, and really want Cbt Arms, they can come back and try again when they're in better shape. If they think that their result is the best they can muster, they can choose another trade in which they would be more successful, and still make a successful contribution to the CF.

 

[Centurian1985]

Reference all this stuff...

First, you cant put an age cap on the application age because it would violate federal law on human rights.  However, you still have to pass the PT test which gets pretty hard for older guys trying to apply but not in very good shape (unless they allow them to take the step test instead if their blood pressure is too high! Yikes!).  If theyre tough enough to keep passing the minimum standard, you cant eliminate them due to age. 

Second, there seems to be a general assumption that all soldiers stay in the infantry until they are 45-50! Think not!  By the time I had hit my fourth year in the infantry, there were only 2 people left from my basic course, the rest had either quit at the 3 year mark, or retraded.  Many infantry guys retrade between the 10-15 year periods for personal reasons, easier work, different challenges, or due to injury.  The ones who stay are generally older but still in great shape (mostly), still have a lot of gung-ho drive, AND tend to have been promoted to higher rank positions where there is less daily physical work and more planning, instructing of courses, or postings as reg force advisors to reserve units.  The days of the 45 year old corporal have been and gone!

Due to several accumulated injuries, there is no way I would be able to keep up with young guys these days (my knee would go out on my after 5 klicks with full kit - yeah VA pension!) but my former MWO and Lt-Col were both over 45, and either of them could kick the butt of most younger guys in physical capability - they hit the gym and exercised EVERY day.  (In fact out of an office of 17 people only 5 of us went to the gym on a regular basis, they were 2 of them).

 

[GO!!!]

While I agree that there needs to be some sort of "line in the sand",

The "age" based line would probably be the best. Yes, we all know of a 50 year old who can out fight, drink, ruck and f*** everyone half his age, but these guys are a tiny minority, and not indicative of the larger pool of talent. The CF is looking to train a soldier, not to put the screws to someone having a mid - life crisis. Other issues, such as the speed of recovery from injuries (which are frequent in the Cbt arms), and the overall health issues associated with older troops (not too many 25 yr olds dropping dead from heart attacks) should be considered as well. No one has an inaliable "right" to get the job of their choice. Your age has alot to do with it, most of the time.

The "capabilities" based standard would be acceptable as well, but all of our entrance physical standards seem to be pushed lower and lower all the time. The best example I can think of is the one of the two recruits both trying for the 031 job. One performs 17 perfect pushups, and passes everything else. The other performs 10 perfect pushups and passes the other tests as well. The applicant with the lower number of pushups is offered a position, while the higher scoring applicant would be turned away, due to the different entrance standards that exist for applicants for the same job, depending on age and sex.

This is patently ridiculous, that right now we have combination of both systems. If all things were to be truly "equal" and "fair" we would institute a system in which you had to perform a universal, high standard for entry. You fail, try again later, age is no excuse.

 

[ProPatria05]

GO,

We're saying the same thing ref universal application of one single and HIGHER entry standard, regardless of sex or age, at least for the Cbt Arms.

I don't have so much of a problem with the age/sex differentiated standards currently in place when it comes to support trades. Yes, we are all soldiers first. But do we really need to kill recruiting by making a potential RMS clerk meet the Infantry standard before enrolling?

 

[GO!!!]

GO,

We're saying the same thing ref universal application of one single and HIGHER entry standard, regardless of sex or age, at least for the Cbt Arms.

I don't have so much of a problem with the age/sex differentiated standards currently in place when it comes to support trades. Yes, we are all soldiers first. But do we really need to kill recruiting by making a potential RMS clerk meet the Infantry standard before enrolling?

Murph,

I don't agree that there should be a difference in base physical capabilities. An RMS clerk Cpl gets the same pay, benefits, postings, and pension as I do. When deployed, they get the same danger and hazard pay, yet should be held to a lower physical standard? Why the double standard?

Much is made of the "war without rear areas" and "rifleman first" but little is done. Our leadership has coined such phrases as "universality of service", how can this be met if only 20% of the military has an enforced solider standard, and the rest are not required to meet it?

I happen to think that if the CF was to be re-masculated, and made a recruiting push which emphasized that only the best are required, and that physical fitness was a non-negotiable part of military service, that unsuitable applicants would "weed themselves out" The CF has made physical fitness an optional part of military life and recruiting, While other militaries renowned for their prowess in their areas of expertise have not.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2978

One standard for all trades, all ages, both sexes. Meet it or "beat it".

 

[mdh]

Interesting discussion.  As a late joiner myself I tend to agree with Murph about setting the bar higher to weed out any Walter Mitty's. An age restriction is something of a blunt instrument - you might after all get a superb soldier in the older age category who will last a lot longer in the MOC than an 18-year old who's watched Black Hawk Down too many times. (However, for the record I would never recommend any 40 year old -- especially with no prior military experience -- join the reg. force Combat Arts unless you're stark raving mad  ). 

On the other hand I see GO's point about the guy having a mid-life crisis realizing he's pissed away his youth away in some dreary cubicle and seeing lots of TV coverage showing guys in cool camo uniforms in Afghanistan who decides to head down to the recruiting center seeking an "adventure" instead of buying a new sports car. There's a disturbing tendency in our society to refuse to see the reality of things and biologicial destiny is one of them - getting old and infirm is one of those ineluctable realities.

But I go back to my earlier point - the number of 40 and 50 years olds wanting to sign up is so tiny they are probably statistically insignificant anyway - so why single them out.  If they can do the job, and the Charter rules out age discrimination, it's a moot point.

Still I think there is a role for older guys (and gals) - mostly in support trades - in the reserves where we can make use of their civilian expertise. In fact I would argue that there are not enough older officers in reserve units - it's a very rare day when someone over the age of 18 walks into our recruiting office and there's a distinct generation gap in our officer cadre with hardly anyone in their mid to late 30s and early 40s. 

 

[ProPatria05]

I don't agree that there should be a difference in base physical capabilities. An RMS clerk Cpl gets the same pay, benefits, postings, and pension as I do. When deployed, they get the same danger and hazard pay, yet should be held to a lower physical standard? Why the double standard?

GO,

Just to continue with the same comparison example, you and I are not held to the same administrative standard as, say, a Company clerk. You and I aren't expected to know the ins and outs of applying for an OT, how to get an early release, understanding pay scales and promotions, etc, etc. We go to them to find out this kind of information, because that is what they get paid to be good at. You and I get paid to be good at beating ourselves up and carrying ridiculous amounts of kit long distances over retarded terrain in the worst weather imaginable.

I agree 100% that physical standards currently in place are not being embraced by many individuals, and (other than Gen Hillier's recent comments) are not being enforced by leadership.  My personal view is that if you wear green and can't at least do the BFT, you have no business in the Army, and that steps should be taken to ensure that you are not.  I also agree that the EXPRES standards for enrolment are too low and set unrealistic expectations.

I guess we just disagree that everyone needs to be at an Infantry-level standard. No problem. Cheers -- arguments well-presented  .