• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Staffing PRes Summer IT (From: Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat)

I have a better idea....

warning this opinion is infantry centric and may shred a few shibboleths

Somehow, we became convinced that part-time soldiers MUST be trained to the same standard as their full-time brethren (notwithstanding that this is, of course, completely impossible for the obvious reason that a part-time soldier is....part-time).  We collectively decided that in order for 10% of the Militia to be able to deploy on operations, we need to train 100% of the people to the 100% standard.

This is where the heresy sets in....

The ONLY operational output we expect from the Militia is A) Domestic Response Companies (in a TBG structure), B) individual augmentees for Roto 1 of a LOO3 mission, and C) in F2013, a FP Coy on R1 of LOO 3.

Given the relative lead times for option A (now) and options B and C (7 months from now, and an eleventeen month road to war), how about we train 100% of the Militia to the standard required to meet op task A, and then train only those who will deploy to the standard required for B and C?

That would mean that MCpls in the Bugtussle Fusiliers would actually get a chance to do something other than run BMQ - like, say, command a section on a cool challenging exercise.  It would also mean that we do not need to stand down our 3 Reg F Bdes every summer in order to train Militia soldiers to an unjustifiably high standard that is completely divorced from any operational requirement.

As Infanteer said, the problem, as always (and it is worse on the Reg F side of the fence) is that the IT / CT balance is completely out of whack.

So, what would that look like?  Rct Snuffy makes it through the ludicrously Byzantine recruiting system (a topic for another rant) and reports at Depot Coy on 1 May (a Tuesday night) at aforementioned BT Fus.  He gets kitted up, and gets yelled at by the happy MCpl.  3-5 weeks later, he shows up at a Training Center (Area, Bde, Unit - I care not).  He spends a summer learning to be the best darn BT Fus since D Day - and finishes the summer as a bonafide Fus, capable of being a productive member of a DRC, and an apprentice infanteer learning the other stuff on exercise, as opposed to a course, led by the cheerful MCpl.  Two years later, he volunteers for R15 of OP SISYPHUS.  He receives his 18-24 month contract, gets time off of work due to a kind employer, and reports to the leading mounting area Battle School (name chosen deliberately).  He receives 2-3 months of "Delta Training", reports to the Battalion for Road to War, does 4 months of that bumf, deploys, kills MFers That Need Killing, comes back for reintegration, and rejoins his unit.

Simple? Yes.  Simplistic?  Not at all.

We need to rethink this entire construct.  We cannot continue to fuck over the summer of every single man-jack in the Army to maintain an artificially high standard that is divorced from any sort of reasonable and reasoned Force Employment concept.

Let the flames begin.  Please don't bother with the picayune details such as 2 months versus 4 of Delta Trg, or whether or not we need Job Protection Legislation, the impact that this would have on the fabled "mobilization base" etc.  I am however quite interested in feedback about the complete disconnect between training standards and FE concept.
 
Can I be RSM of the Buggtussle Fusiliers?  >:D Bugtussle is just down the road from Petticoat Junction.  ;)
 
There's a larger issue for force structure/force balance between the Reg F and Res F not addressed above.  If we accept the skill delta philosophy, it is therefore reasonable to assume that we will vest most of the high training and expensive training requirement skillsets in the Reg F.  That suggests that, in an environment constrained to 68K/27KL Reg F/Res F, we will concentrate the lower-training burden skillsets in the Res F.

So, does that in turn suggest a need to rebalance the Reg F into more support trades, with a small cadre of combat arms to provide Roto 0 in full and a rapidly diminishing cadre for Rotos 1 through whatever, while the Reg F is also force-generating the majority of certain support trades (technicians, primarily) throughout?

Or, in other words, does that proposal see us shrinking the Reg F to, say, five Bns of infantry, and re-investing the resulting PY savings into mechanics, supply techs and the like?
 
Hmm.  Clever sounding, but not all that clever. 

We need to align the Force Employment (FE) concept with the Force Generation (FG) base.  Given the 4 Army LOOs, at least on the infantry front, we have the FG base of 50 odd Militia Inf Coys right in order to meet the FE requirement. Any changes to the FG base must be related to the FE concept - kind of like demand driving supply (bad economics - even worse Force Development (FD), but I digress...).

You are right though - we have failed to FD the required sustainment forces for either FG or FE.  Not sure how to fix that one, short of either a) completely rewriting our doctrine, or b) accepting that our sustainment model is based on every soldier having high-speed internet 12 minutes after arriving in theatre on R0....

editted for finger-fuckery problem
 
He said picayune.  Milnet.ca word of the week material right there!
 
I have taken apart the rubics cube. I have taken off the individual stickers. Now I will rebuild my manning slate to run X amount of P Res courses based on NCO's that won't be able to complete IST or haven't shown up at all and drivers that are not qualified to drive.
It has been like this every summer at WATC for my entire stint here.Their has to be a better way without Recce Guy freaking out on me!

Peace sells but who's buying?
 
Infanteer said:
He said picayune.  Milnet.ca word of the week material right there!

I had to look that one up - and I'm from NDHQ!
 
The construct that PPCLI Guy is advocating will look eerily familiar to anyone who has been around the Army Reserve (Militia) more than fifteen years.

The Army/CF has to realize that:

- a Reservist is not a part-time Regular any more than an O.P.P. Auxillary member is a cop.

- Reserve training cannot/should not equal Reg F training in length and content.  There are some things a reservist does not need to learn on BMQ/BMOQ and some things that the Reservist does need but not to the same level of detail.  These skills/knowledges/tasks can be learned at the unit during continuation training.  This falls neatly under the PD pillar of "experience".

- our PLAR process has to be more flexible and responsive in recognizing civilian skills/qualificatiopns that Reservists have.

- P Res training/PD has to be packaged around the availability of the P Res solder/sailor/zoomie accounting for the unique circumstances of balancing two careers.  Job Protection Legislation is not the universal panacea for P Res availability that many in the IT&E world believe it to be.

- courses cannot be getting longer (ask a Reg F guy for his opinion and he will violently agree with this, too)

There is nothing inherently wrong with the way that we trained (Army) Reservists "back in the day".  In fact, many of them are now commanding our units and brigades and quite successfully so.

Finally there is a reason why the "Road to War/High Readiness" is as long as it is - because everyone needs it - not just the P Res augmentee.  If that were the case, it would have gotten shorter with every roto we launched as more experienced and capable Reservists (and Reg F) returned for their second and third tours.
 
During my DP1 Infantry course 5 years ago, there were a few things we didn't learn that a Reg.F DP1 course would do, such as Improvised weapons, Pugil Sticks, Carl Gustav, and absolutely 0 mounted operations. That stuff was all taught a a unit level.

I'm curious, what else should be slashed from the reserve courses?
 
Dkeh said:
During my DP1 Infantry course 5 years ago, there were a few things we didn't learn that a Reg.F DP1 course would do, such as Improvised weapons, Pugil Sticks, Carl Gustav, and absolutely 0 mounted operations. That stuff was all taught a a unit level.

I'm curious, what else should be slashed from the reserve courses?

We appreciate the question, don't get that wrong, but that will lead us too far into the weeds at this point.

We're not speaking to an individual course. We're looking at the big broad picture, that covers the entire spectrum of Reserve training. We're discussing the BIG stuff. If we can figure that out, little stuff like # of days behind the wheel doing trails and tracks will take care of itself.

IIRC, there are already threads in the Inf forum dedicated to your question.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
The ONLY operational output we expect from the Militia is A) Domestic Response Companies (in a TBG structure), B) individual augmentees for Roto 1 of a LOO3 mission, and C) in F2013, a FP Coy on R1 of LOO 3.

Given the relative lead times for option A (now) and options B and C (7 months from now, and an eleventeen month road to war), how about we train 100% of the Militia to the standard required to meet op task A, and then train only those who will deploy to the standard required for B and C?
Hopefully this type of thinking informs more & more JBS writing boards.  However, I know a lot of things are being written into military job descriptions based on a "train to excite" mentality & not military requirement.  This will keep IT time & ress requirements up.
 
PPCLI Guy:  My proposal (rough form) to reduce the number of cbt arms pers required to FG.  Units are formed, trained, deploy twice, dissolve.  Repeat as necessary.


D - 12 months:  CO, RSM, DCO, Ops O & Ops WO, OCs and CSMs report.  Initial planning, recces conducted, training plan established.

D - 6 months:  Troops arrive and begin training.

D - 1 month: Pre-deployment leave

D: Deployment, tour 1.  No HLTA.

D + 6 months: RIP.  2 months block leave.

D + 8 months: Return from leave.  Refresher training, application of lessons learned.

D + 11 months: Pre-deployment leave.

D + 12 months: Deployment, tour 2. No HLTA.

D + 18 months: RIP.  3 months block leave.

D + 21 months: All pers posted out


Thoughts?
 
dapaterson said:
PPCLI Guy:  My proposal (rough form) to reduce the number of cbt arms pers required to FG.  Units are formed, trained, deploy twice, dissolve.  Repeat as necessary.


D - 12 months:  CO, RSM, DCO, Ops O & Ops WO, OCs and CSMs report.  Initial planning, recces conducted, training plan established.

D - 6 months:  Troops arrive and begin training.

D - 1 month: Pre-deployment leave

D: Deployment, tour 1.  No HLTA.

D + 6 months: RIP.  2 months block leave.

D + 8 months: Return from leave.  Refresher training, application of lessons learned.

D + 11 months: Pre-deployment leave.

D + 12 months: Deployment, tour 2. No HLTA.

D + 18 months: RIP.  3 months block leave.

D + 21 months: All pers posted out


Thoughts?

Here's one. Can we stick to the topic of Staffing PRes Summer IT?

Start another thread if you wish, but let's not get mired in something that doesn't go here.
 
Thucydides said:
Getting down to first principles; Meaford is only set up with the physical infrastructure for @ 300 people max. Watching everyone running around with their heads cut off when TF-1-10 sent 450 people to Meaford for IBTS training (in Sept, when there were no other competing courses or drains on their resources) was very instructive.

Now wedge 600-1000 people into that space for summer RST and imagine what happens. As an exampple, getting a 1/4 defense pack for my 50 man platoon to do the defensive training exercise and you should start to understand what instructors and staff have to deal with.

Add in an obtuse CBO staff and a fully manned and equipped kitchen that can't match the performance of 6 cooks and a kitchen trailer at Aspeden after the G-8 (cooking hot, plentiful and delicious food for @ 2000 people; that's impressive) and there is no upside to doing RST in Meaford. The fact that 99% of thise issues have been identified year after year w/o resolution or change should go a long way to explain why Meaford is not the "Employer of Choice".

This would seem to be at the crux of LFCA's problems with filling Meaford taskings. Couple with the fact that the Reserve Force is now actively discouraging personnel from bringing their POMV's to tasks (as discussed in another thread) it would certainly be a good idea to ensure that the base itself has better than adequate food and recreation. I suspect that the quarters for staff are not up to Accommodation 2020 standard, either?

If you want volunteers to fill tasks at a camp, it will be difficult if the camp itself is not up to standard. Candidates will train wherever you tell them -- staff are people you have to treat like the valued professionals they are.
 
So is this thread about staffing summer IT or b**tching about Meaford?
 
I want to chime in. I was at LFCA TC Meaford 2004-2011 as permanent staff .

1. The horror stories. Enough and grow up. The worst cases are people that beast the guts out of candidates and go too far. This forces the CO to "watch" all augmentee instructors more closely (including Reg F tasked from P Res units). Also some poor leadership calls get made by AUGMENTEE OCs, 2ICS and CSMs. However sometimes, you get strong OC, 2IC and CSM (E Coy, RST 2011 was a perfect example of one th best teams ever).

2. Reg Force DP1 does not do mounted ops at all, where did that come from (I instructed as a section commander on 7 DP1 Infantry Reg Force)

3. CBO is for the most part, excellent. They will bail your *** out on numerous occassions. I was a CQMS for my last job up there and they are very reasonable. I also know plenty of augmentee staff who agree.

4. The kitchen there truly does suck bad and turns out a very poor product. What you get with a sub contracted company

5. My NCOs were begging to go to Meaford for the summer and could not BECAUSE the CFTPO positions were filled (??? and they can't get people to go?). Someone with CFTPO access may confirm.

6. There is no "inside club". Thats a load of crap.

Running solid courses takes good and proper planning from Course WO down. Sometimes due to constraints (such as brigade exercises at end of summer) courses are compressed and thus the "no/less weekends off". Beleive me, most of permamnent staff at Meaford do not agree with compressing courses to get troops on summer concentrations. keep in mind, TP requirements must be satisfied.

I have heard people from out west ***** about never going back to Shilo or Wainwright and people out east don't seem to ***** although I have heard some LFAA horror stories as well (Don't know if they were true or not).

Meaford has good points and not so good points. No matter where you teach, people will *****.
 
ArmyRick said:
2. Reg Force DP1 does not do mounted ops at all, where did that come from (I instructed as a section commander on 7 DP1 Infantry Reg Force)

Totally my mistake. I don't know what I was thinking :S
 
I've been reading this one from afar as the infantry land is not one I am totally familiar with. However I believe a nexus between a R011 and a 011 is worth a look.

Whenever a reservist armd crewman is attached to a regular force unit for pre-deployment he is sent to the unit months ahead of time to obtain a PCF (if he does not have one..usually driver of GIB) during the "regimental schooling cycle" He is then put into the sqn to learn his job. He is usually treated as a "new guy" as he hasnt been in a coyote or a reg force unit to see how it works, and how it pertains to him.

So why are we so wrapped around centralized training and matching up all PO/EO when the member is being brought to the regiment and taught a new PCF? Treated like a new guy from the res and deploy?

We have had no more problems deploying a very young cpl from the res than from the reg. The training from res to reserve is totally different in the armd trade.

My suggestion let the reserve units run their own battle school (dp1). This keeps some units from always getting dinged to do centralized training; and the reg units train them to the standard pre deployment.

If such a huge delta already exists why not refrain from worrying about "standards" and let the reserve units train their own men and women.
 
Back
Top