- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Old EO Tech said:Yes and meanwhile we are blindly just cutting CWO's again, without any particular analysis about what they do for the CA and CAF....
Jon
Blindly ... no.
Analysis ... oh yes.
Old EO Tech said:Yes and meanwhile we are blindly just cutting CWO's again, without any particular analysis about what they do for the CA and CAF....
Jon
Old EO Tech said:Yes and meanwhile we are blindly just cutting CWO's again, without any particular analysis about what they do for the CA and CAF....
Haggis said:The CAF and the CA (notably the ARes) have more CWOs than positions. At any given time there are a number of CWOs filling vacant Capt positions either for lack of Capts or while awaiting the process of their CFR or SRCP process. Where the problem arisies is when you have a surplus (i.e. not ATL, BTL or part of the succession plan) CWO filling a Capt/Maj position who has no desire to CFR/SRCP when offered and wants the Capts job while retaining the CWOs prestige. If you want to do the officer's job, become an officer. CWOs/CPO1's have a shelf life and if your not part of the CAF succession plan, you're either invited up to the Officer's Mess or out.
Haggis said:The CAF and the CA (notably the ARes) have more CWOs than positions. At any given time there are a number of CWOs filling vacant Capt positions either for lack of Capts or while awaiting the process of their CFR or SRCP process. Where the problem arisies is when you have a surplus (i.e. not ATL, BTL or part of the succession plan) CWO filling a Capt/Maj position who has no desire to CFR/SRCP when offered and wants the Capts job while retaining the CWOs prestige. If you want to do the officer's job, become an officer. CWOs/CPO1's have a shelf life and if your not part of the CAF succession plan, you're either invited up to the Officer's Mess or out.
PuckChaser said:That makes a lot more sense. Our career progression system is stuck in the 1970s, there's a lot more folks getting in at 18 and staying until 60. If that individual makes CWO/CPO1 in 25 years, they're still only 43 with lots of time left to contribute. If we insist on our CWOs and successsion planned Tier 1/2 CWO/CPO1s be younger than 55, we need to provide a proper outlet into the officer corps.
Old EO Tech said:... As this is the CA's attitude right now. ...
Haggis said:Back around 5 years ago there was a CWO/CPO1 Senior Appointment Employment Construct/Concept document published which outlined potential career "off-ramps" for CWO/CPO1 who were not, at a point in time, succession planned. This closely followed the CANFORGEN announcing the 35/55 exit ramp ArmyVern mentioned in a previous post. Some of those "off-ramps" were, for example, lateral postings at Tier 4 (RSM to RSM), back-to-back KP postings, SA to KP to SA postings, ATL postings and, of course, SRCP and CFR. I CFR'd in late 2014 after almost eight years as a Tier 4 and KP CWO so I didn't follow where this eventually went.
Haggis said:Back around 5 years ago there was a CWO/CPO1 Senior Appointment Employment Construct/Concept document published which outlined potential career "off-ramps" for CWO/CPO1 who were not, at a point in time, succession planned. This closely followed the CANFORGEN announcing the 35/55 exit ramp ArmyVern mentioned in a previous post. Some of those "off-ramps" were, for example, lateral postings at Tier 4 (RSM to RSM), back-to-back KP postings, SA to KP to SA postings, ATL postings and, of course, SRCP and CFR. I CFR'd in late 2014 after almost eight years as a Tier 4 and KP CWO so I didn't follow where this eventually went.
Spectrum said:I'm no CWO but I think it's Key Position/Senior Appointment?
...
PuckChaser said:Some good info here, thanks. I'm keenly interested in how this all develops, as I'll end up one of those young MWO/CWO with lots of time left to serve should I make it that high up.
I'm not up high enough in the food chain to have all the succession planning acronyms down, what's KP and SA? I've got the tiering down but haven't seen them before.
ArmyVern said:I'll link to the following, but even it has been worked on heavily as part of the SEM project. I have more recent project docs at my desk, but suffice it to say it's a dynamic project at this point in time. "Off-ramps" options have changed somewhat etc and the SAs & KPs now well-defined as to requirements, expectations and TORs etc ...
You are probably very familiar with the below already I suspect:
http://www.davidmlast.org/POE456-NEPDP/POE456-NEPDP_files/10%20NCM%20DP%205%20Report%2016%20June.pdf
ArmyVern said:Not from my experience; where are you getting this from?
Old EO Tech said:Its actually in a SEM ppt Vern, I'll dig it up and send it to you at work. The CA doesn't consider CWO valid if they are not in a Command Team with a CO/Commander.
Haggis said:The CA have a number of CWO KP as well.
Old EO Tech said:Its actually in a SEM ppt Vern, I'll dig it up and send it to you at work. The CA doesn't consider CWO valid if they are not in a Command Team with a CO/Commander.
Jon
ArmyVern said:Not quite right. RSM is just the initial entry level appointment to the tiers of SP (Tactical Level Command Team). Most CWOs are expected to do some TIR as a CWO (Snr Tech etc) prior to being appointed as RSM/Cox'n/UCWO is all. Some CWOs will then move up a tier from those initial entry posns into the higher tiers, KP (operational lvl) through SA (strategic lvl).
I'm pretty sure that I also have the powerpoints with the project docs already.