US Navy cutting basic to 9 weeks from 10.

[Kirkhill]

Navy to cut boot camp from 10 weeks to nine

The Navy is revamping its curriculum to “eliminate redundant training."

www.militarytimes.com

Is Army training the best standard for the modern forces? Or do the technical services, the Navy, Air Force, Space, Cyber, Log, offer a better standard?

Are we assuming that everybody needs to be Rambo-fit when the population doesn't meet that standard and most jobs don't require that standard?

...

I noticed that the USN Basic was as short as 8 weeks before being raised to 10 weeks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Navy to cut boot camp from 10 weeks to nine

The Navy is revamping its curriculum to “eliminate redundant training."

www.militarytimes.com

Is Army training the best standard for the modern forces? Or do the technical services, the Navy, Air Force, Space, Cyber, Log, offer a better standard?

Are we assuming that everybody needs to be Rambo-fit when the population doesn't meet that standard and most jobs don't require that standard?

...

I noticed that the USN Basic was as short as 8 weeks before being raised to 10 weeks.

I think our service is dominated by the Army culture and as such it has become the baseline standard.

I think a proper way of doing things would be tailoring training to what service the recruit is entering and making that training valid and useful to their future employment. This would also mean smashing the last vestiges of unification.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think our service is dominated by the Army culture and as such it has become the baseline standard.

I think a proper way of doing things would be tailoring training to what service the recruit is entering and making that training valid and useful to their future employment. This would also mean smashing the last vestiges of unification.

Alternatively we should be doing whatever is the highest standard possible (generally Army) and all meeting it. Being overtrained isn’t a issue, every branch of our military has had boots on the ground in warzones.

It also means if we were to change it that anytime someone remusters without a standard course they will have to redo the basics instead of just jumping into their trades course.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Alternatively we should be doing whatever is the highest standard possible (generally Army) and all meeting it. Being overtrained isn’t a issue, every branch of our military has had boots on the ground in warzones.

The highest standard for what ? It certainly wouldn't be for a damage control scenario or piping the side.

To your point about boots on the ground, thats not the norm; and that's why we have extended work up training. Like the years I spent holding down wooden tables before heading off to Afg.

It also means if we were to change it that anytime someone remusters without a standard course they will have to redo the basics instead of just jumping into their trades course.

Yes, if you remuster to a new occupation you have to start at the bottom and work your way up again. And yes, if a Soldier comes over to the Navy we expect them to do basic seamanship training, i.e. NETP. And the reverse should be the same, like the SQ. This already happens.

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Navy to cut boot camp from 10 weeks to nine

The Navy is revamping its curriculum to “eliminate redundant training."

www.militarytimes.com

Is Army training the best standard for the modern forces? Or do the technical services, the Navy, Air Force, Space, Cyber, Log, offer a better standard?

Are we assuming that everybody needs to be Rambo-fit when the population doesn't meet that standard and most jobs don't require that standard?

...

I noticed that the USN Basic was as short as 8 weeks before being raised to 10 weeks.

If I am reading the article correctly, the USN added a Warrior Toughness Program to their basic training in 2022, which added two weeks bringing the length to ten. They have now streamlined that a bit to bring it to nine weeks. This is fairly normal when training is modified. You get feedback from the training institutions and the end-users and make adjustments.

I am not sure that your questions follow from the article? Who has said that Army training is the best standard for modern forces? Which modern forces? What does that even mean anyway? Who is assuming that everybody needs to be "Rambo-fit?"

 

[Remius]

I think our service is dominated by the Army culture and as such it has become the baseline standard.

I think a proper way of doing things would be tailoring training to what service the recruit is entering and making that training valid and useful to their future employment. This would also mean smashing the last vestiges of unification.

I’m all for that. Pull all army back to army and let the airforce and navy teach their own basic.

 

[PuckChaser]

I’m all for that. Pull all army back to army and let the airforce and navy teach their own basic.

Best of luck with that absolute inefficient use of resources. If RCN, RCAF or CA want more tailored training, that's why BMQ-A and it's environmental equivalents exist.

 

[quadrapiper]

Best of luck with that absolute inefficient use of resources. If RCN, RCAF or CA want more tailored training, that's why BMQ-A and it's environmental equivalents exist.

Might be able to find time savings by delivering an RCN Basic built as a zero-to-NETP course.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Best of luck with that absolute inefficient use of resources. If RCN, RCAF or CA want more tailored training, that's why BMQ-A and it's environmental equivalents exist.

I guess it depends on what metric you would use to call something inefficient. If it put sailors into the fleet faster, then I would call that efficient.

An RCN basic could consist of 1 month of GMT and , and 1 month of NETP would almost certainly put sailors in the fleet faster than they are now. Especially if we fully embrace the, so far successful, NEP model.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I guess it depends on what metric you would use to call something inefficient. If it put sailors into the fleet faster, then I would call that efficient.

An RCN basic could consist of 1 month of GMT and , and 1 month of NETP would almost certainly put sailors in the fleet faster than they are now. Especially if we fully embrace the, so far successful, NEP model.

Alternatively the whole CAF could just do the Army Reserve BMQ and save the 2 months and still get a equivalent result as many Army Reservists have transferred into the regs in all elements without issue.

Still common training, still saving substantially on how long we need to train.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Alternatively the whole CAF could just do the Army Reserve BMQ and save the 2 months and still get a equivalent result as many Army Reservists have transferred into the regs in all elements without issue.

Still common training, still saving substantially on how long we need to train.

The only way into the CAF is through the ARes ?

Look, I'm a fan of ARes but believe it or not some people don't want to be Army; they actually want to be Navy and Airforce.

 

[PuckChaser]

Might be able to find time savings by delivering an RCN Basic built as a zero-to-NETP course.

Not PY or cost savings, the tri-service overhead that makes a BMQ run is worth it's weight in gold. You'd need 66% (or more if an element is over supporting thier 33%) increase in PYs, new barracks, supply sections, kitchens, etc. As well, you'd probably need to make everyone VOTing to a new element redo BMQ.

Unless there is hoardes of RCN pers awaiting BMQ, this is a solution looking for a problem and I'm no fan of how CFLRS runs BMQ. Any delay getting to the fleet or Army or flightline is almost certainly at the environmental trade schools.

 

[Remius]

The only way into the CAF is through the ARes ?

Look, I'm a fan of ARes but believe it or not some people don't want to be Army; they actually want to be Navy and Airforce.

Pretty sure that isn’t what he was proposing.

But it is a shortened bmq that likely achieves the same aim. Which was his point. need to add a few things but otherwise…

Your 1 month gmt is basically the same thing.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Pretty sure that isn’t what he was proposing.

But it is a shortened bmq that likely achieves the same aim. Which was his point. need to add a few things but otherwise…

Your 1 month gmt is basically the same thing.

Right now if I am correct (I could easily be wrong) the Army Reserves BMQ is 5 weeks. Potentially a huge amount of time/cost savings there if it was adopted as the main standard.

I went Regs with only the 4 week older standard Army Reserves BMQ into the Navy. Never noticed a difference in capability between myself and my St. Jean trained counterparts. This tells me there is a lot that could be cut there.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Pretty sure that isn’t what he was proposing.

But it is a shortened bmq that likely achieves the same aim. Which was his point. need to add a few things but otherwise…

Your 1 month gmt is basically the same thing.

Right now if I am correct (I could easily be wrong) the Army Reserves BMQ is 5 weeks. Potentially a huge amount of time/cost savings there if it was adopted as the main standard.

I went Regs with only the 4 week older standard Army Reserves BMQ into the Navy. Never noticed a difference in capability between myself and my St. Jean trained counterparts. This tells me there is a lot that could be cut there.

Which was followed by the 1 month NETP. Believe it or not, completing basic is only 1/3 of the way to producing a functioning sea going sailor.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Whoa you can't compare the US Navy basic training to ours lol

 

[Eaglelord17]

Which was followed by the 1 month NETP. Believe it or not, completing basic is only 1/3 of the way to producing a functioning sea going sailor.

I am aware, I did the training. Even doing NETP course isn’t the end as you still have the OJT package.

My point is what are you proposing, trying to get rid of BMQ and create some sort of BMQ/NETP hybrid?

I don’t see much benefit to creating a separate Navy/Army/Airforce BMQ. I do agree it could be cut down a lot but the commonality of it really isn’t a bad thing.

 

[GR66]

Not PY or cost savings, the tri-service overhead that makes a BMQ run is worth it's weight in gold. You'd need 66% (or more if an element is over supporting thier 33%) increase in PYs, new barracks, supply sections, kitchens, etc. As well, you'd probably need to make everyone VOTing to a new element redo BMQ.

Unless there is hoardes of RCN pers awaiting BMQ, this is a solution looking for a problem and I'm no fan of how CFLRS runs BMQ. Any delay getting to the fleet or Army or flightline is almost certainly at the environmental trade schools.

Why would it be necessary to completely discard BMQ and replace it with separate service Basic Training with duplicated staff, facilities, etc.

You could still run it through the existing infrastructure. If the number of trainees isn't changing then the total number of instructors wouldn't likely have to change significantly. Run the elemental serials through common courses where the same basics need to be taught but have separate, service specific classes as well. No different than high school. Everyone in a grade takes certain common courses but their "electives" (Service specific) courses would be different. They all use the same facility.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I am aware, I did the training. Even doing NETP course isn’t the end as you still have the OJT package.

My point is what are you proposing, trying to get rid of BMQ and create some sort of BMQ/NETP hybrid?

I don’t see much benefit to creating a separate Navy/Army/Airforce BMQ. I do agree it could be cut down a lot but the commonality of it really isn’t a bad thing.

My goal is to immerse the recruit into their service right from basic on. And reshape coursing so that it is relevant to their service going forward. Remember in my original post I said we would need to get rid of the last vestiges of unification.

I would envision an RCN basis being 1 month of GMT, 1 of NETP and then onto the members 3s course.

 

[dimsum]

When I’m working with allied militaries and I have to explain how we work, I bring up the common training as a positive point.

Some have highlighted the “redoing from scratch” part, and the triplication of efforts having 3 schools teach the same thing.

Practically, how different is a Navy BMQ and an Army BMQ? Will recruits have to make their beds a different way? How much of those first X number of weeks will really carry forward past the second phase of their training?

I personally think that starting everyone off in the tri-service BMQ / BMOQ is a good thing, for the opposite effect that @Halifax Tar is suggesting. I’ve worked with the US military to realize that for a service the size of the CAF, we need to smash cultural stovepipes if they don’t make sense, and if you inculcate recruits into a specific service without showing them the broader picture (as in there are three inter-related services for most of the trades) then they get blindered going forward.

Frankly, my Army-like Basic training (as a Navy person back then) didn’t carry over once we swapped combats to NCDs for MARS II. What I would suggest is that the actual basics of BMQ get condensed into however many weeks, taught together, then the services all get an NETP-like “service-specific culture course”. Practically speaking, the Army already does this with Common Army Phase (if that’s still a thing) and I’m not totally sure the RCAF really needs it.

My 2c.