Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?

[McG]

(1)  Move to PLQ(L) as the CF standard, and have all trades and environments mixed on the course.  Institutional leaders need exposure to the rest of the institution; even when looking at Cpls we need to give them a better understanding of the big, multi-coloured machine so as they progress they have better knowledge and understandingof their peers.

I don't disagree in principle with a "single source" PLQ, however I think that it should be a CFPLQ. Having everyone do the PLQ(L) does little to level the playing field, and only serves to give members an understanding of the big, green machine. There is little long term value in teaching sailors and air personnel infantry battle procedure they'll discard almost immediately after they graduate.

I disagree on both.  There should be three standards that should exist at the recruit and PLQ levels:

• hard sea occupations standard
• hard air crew occupations standard
• Army standard

Why are the standards based on jobs and not colours of uniforms?  Well, the Air Force has several occupations that work exlusively or primarily on the ground - if these pers ever find themselves in a fight it will be on the ground (attached to the Army or in a BDF role).  Purple occupations will be in the same position (a fight will be on the ground) if they find themselves in either the Army or Air Force.

 

[ModlrMike]

I disagree on both.  There should be three standards that should exist at the recruit and PLQ levels:

• hard sea occupations standard
• hard air crew occupations standard
• Army standard

Why are the standards based on jobs and not colours of uniforms?  Well, the Air Force has several occupations that work exlusively or primarily on the ground - if these pers ever find themselves in a fight it will be on the ground (attached to the Army or in a BDF role).  Purple occupations will be in the same position (a fight will be on the ground) if they find themselves in either the Army or Air Force.

Where does that leave the purple trades?

 

[aesop081]

Where does that leave the purple trades?

Last sentence in the post you quoted....

Purple occupations will be in the same position (a fight will be on the ground) if they find themselves in either the Army or Air Force.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Ah yes, the old days - should we throw the computers out as well?

Sure.  Mailing in paperwork might cut down on micromanagement.  It might mean the cheque is always late.

Whose idea was it that leaders of men should be sitting at a desk with paperwork up the yang instead of leading men?

 

[aesop081]

Whose idea was it that leaders of men should be sitting at a desk with paperwork up the yang instead of leading men?

The paperwork was always there for the most part. If i didnt have a computer, i would still have PERs to write, training statistics to keep and training reports to write. i would still have to take care of administrative measures such as IC/RW/C&P.....

 

[McG]

Where does that leave the purple trades?

Same place as Air Force ground crew occupations -> the Army Standard

 

[Snakedoc]

I personally like the idea of having one CF standard for basic in all three elements.  However, I think that unlike how Basic is currently conducted (being completely army-centric), this should be a truly tri-service course that provides military indoctrination, trains, and introduces the member to all three elements as it is not uncommon for members to have to work with or in elements outside of their own in an integrated CF.  The same basic skillset that BMQ and BMOQ strive to develop can be developed while also developing a familiarity in all three elements (by perhaps having scenario's conducted involving the various elements etc).  The advantage of a standard basic as we've already seen is inter-operability and also a common standard when switching between elements (not having to redo courses etc.).

Further indoctrination into a specific element can then be done by the current elemental courses (ie CAP/SQ, NETP/NETP-O, and not sure what the Air Force equivalent is).

Hopefully this isn't considered 'looking backward' but its my  :2c:

 

[aesop081]

and not sure what the Air Force equivalent is).

BAEQ - Basic Air Environment Qualification

 

[SeaKingTacco]

(1)  Move to PLQ(L) as the CF standard, and have all trades and environments mixed on the course.  Institutional leaders need exposure to the rest of the institution; even when looking at Cpls we need to give them a better understanding of the big, multi-coloured machine so as they progress they have better knowledge and understandingof their peers.

I don't think this will work.  The Navy and Air Force candidates would not have the cultural background nor physical fitness requirements (no matter how much you wish it) to satisfy the Combat Arms.  The result: since both the Air Force and Navy require qualified junior leaders, the tactical standard would have to be watered down below what would satisfy the Army.  Also, the bill for instructional staff would fall largely on Army.  Are you telling me that the Army wants the role of being the leadership academy for the whole CF?  I would much rather see a Navy PLQ where the candidates spend long hours doing force protection exercises (in a shipboard context), small boat handling or at damage control school leading damage control parties- these are difficult things to do well.  Similarly, let the Air Force run a PLQ that focuses on force protection type activities in an airfield environment.

I would cut aviation back to the Army and Navy- they would each be responsible for their own tac aviation needs, including paying for it.  There should be a joint helo school, centrally located.  Probably also a joint UAV school.  Airworthiness for the CF would be managed by an office in NDHQ staffed by all three services. Same with the Flight Safety Office.  The Air Force would focus fighters, transport, long range patrol (both manned and unmanned).

Cut headquarters brutally.  Reverse the explosion in rank inflation.  I'm not sure why a Bde HQ needs more than 2 Majs and about 12 Captains.  Where did all of these LCols come from?

 

[Infanteer]

I don't think this will work.  The Navy and Air Force candidates would not have the cultural background nor physical fitness requirements (no matter how much you wish it) to satisfy the Combat Arms.  The result: since both the Air Force and Navy require qualified junior leaders, the tactical standard would have to be watered down below what would satisfy the Army.  Also, the bill for instructional staff would fall largely on Army.  Are you telling me that the Army wants the role of being the leadership academy for the whole CF?  I would much rather see a Navy PLQ where the candidates spend long hours doing force protection exercises (in a shipboard context), small boat handling or at damage control school leading damage control parties- these are difficult things to do well.  Similarly, let the Air Force run a PLQ that focuses on force protection type activities in an airfield environment.

I would cut aviation back to the Army and Navy- they would each be responsible for their own tac aviation needs, including paying for it.  There should be a joint helo school, centrally located.  Probably also a joint UAV school.  Airworthiness for the CF would be managed by an office in NDHQ staffed by all three services. Same with the Flight Safety Office.  The Air Force would focus fighters, transport, long range patrol (both manned and unmanned).

Cut headquarters brutally.  Reverse the explosion in rank inflation.  I'm not sure why a Bde HQ needs more than 2 Majs and about 12 Captains.  Where did all of these LCols come from?

I like you and all you say.

 

[Loachman]

So do I.

 

[Nuggs]

I don't think this will work.  The Navy and Air Force candidates would not have the cultural background nor physical fitness requirements (no matter how much you wish it) to satisfy the Combat Arms.  The result: since both the Air Force and Navy require qualified junior leaders, the tactical standard would have to be watered down below what would satisfy the Army.  Also, the bill for instructional staff would fall largely on Army.  Are you telling me that the Army wants the role of being the leadership academy for the whole CF?  I would much rather see a Navy PLQ where the candidates spend long hours doing force protection exercises (in a shipboard context), small boat handling or at damage control school leading damage control parties- these are difficult things to do well.  Similarly, let the Air Force run a PLQ that focuses on force protection type activities in an airfield environment.

I would cut aviation back to the Army and Navy- they would each be responsible for their own tac aviation needs, including paying for it.  There should be a joint helo school, centrally located.  Probably also a joint UAV school.  Airworthiness for the CF would be managed by an office in NDHQ staffed by all three services. Same with the Flight Safety Office.  The Air Force would focus fighters, transport, long range patrol (both manned and unmanned).

Cut headquarters brutally.  Reverse the explosion in rank inflation.  I'm not sure why a Bde HQ needs more than 2 Majs and about 12 Captains.  Where did all of these LCols come from?

Great post

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Cut headquarters brutally.  Reverse the explosion in rank inflation.  I'm not sure why a Bde HQ needs more than 2 Majs and about 12 Captains.  Where did all of these LCols come from?

I think, and I could be wrong, that much of the rank inflation and buildings full of colonels passing memos back and forth with each other is the extension of a military career into a lifetime career.  There's not enough use of the 20 year handshake.  I think a simple test would be to count how many soldiers are under your command and if it's over say 500 you're a LCol..  Then double it for staff and administration positions and live with it.  Another point is that it doesn't take a captain to command a platoon.  The equivalent commonwealth rank of wing commander commands a squadron in Canada.  There is a helicopter company in my community that operates about 60 helicopters that I suspect average more airtime than the Canadian forces ones so they operate the equivalent of 5 squadrons of aircraft including maintenance and outside sales with "200 friendly employees"  I can't say it's a model for the military but it is food for thought.
http://www.airbornesolutions.com/Careers/tabid/58/Default.aspx

 

[aesop081]

The equivalent commonwealth rank of wing commander commands a squadron in Canada. 

Sqn COs that i have met from the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF were Wing Commanders. The rank of "Wing Commander" is equivalent to our LCol rank. Canadian Sqns are commanded by LCols.

Whats your point ?

 

[McG]

I don't think this will work.  The Navy and Air Force candidates would not have the cultural background nor physical fitness requirements (no matter how much you wish it) to satisfy the Combat Arms. 

The same could be said of candidates from many Army occupations.  I agree with separate standards for hard sea and aircrew occupations, but that is about where it stops.  Everyone else should be trained to the Army (not Combat Arms) standard because "on the ground" is likely where they will find themselves should they ever be in a fight.

That being said, I think the Navy has a particularly strong case that its purple trades need to know what to do in a fight at sea.  Here, there may be a strong case to establish sub-occupations for support occupations that serve on ships (from cooks & clerks to the maritime aviation groundcrews shipcrews).  For these sub-occupations, members would to the Army standard BMQ/BMOQ, their MOS basic, and a NETP/NETP-O.  At that point, the member would be considered a hard sea occupation and would therefore do the PLQ - Navy.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Sqn COs that i have met from the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF were Wing Commanders. The rank of "Wing Commander" is equivalent to our LCol rank. Canadian Sqns are commanded by LCols.

Whats your point ?

You're right, they are now.  My point is that more rank provides no better leadership.  If so the Congo had the best army in the world in 1960 when all the privates were promoted to sergeant.

 

[Infanteer]

A Squadron is a unit.  A battalion is a unit.  They are both commanded by LCols.

What's your point?

 

[aesop081]

You're right, they are now.  My point is that more rank provides no better leadership.

Further to my last, US Navy sqns are commanded by individuals holding the rank of "Commander" and that is equivalent to our LCols. So we are in keeping with what is done by all our major allies.

If so the Congo had the best army in the world in 1960 when all the privates were promoted to sergeant.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[GAP]

I don't know how relevant this would be now, but in my day the Corps put everybody through basic....16 weeks at that time....the physical standards were met, everyone had weapons training, military ethos stuff, etc. . During the period everybody was assessed and asked what they preferred. NO ONE had a guarantee, only that their wish would be granted if the assessment agreed.

I, obviously full of piss and vinegar, wanted to be a grunt, in the worst way. After all the tests, they assigned me to be a ground radio technician. I requested mast all the way up to General Hockmouth (?), the then CO of MCRD San Diego. All he would promise me is that upon completion of my electronics training I would be guaranteed orders to FMF PAC ( Viet Nam), as a ground radio technician.

I later found out ways to be the grunt I always aspired to, but that came with experience of the system.

What I am pointing out is that everybody was assigned "to the benefit of the Corps", not somebody's vision of being John Wayne II...

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

A Squadron is a unit.  A battalion is a unit.  They are both commanded by LCols.

What's your point?

Just an example of rank inflation.  If the Airforce determines that it takes a major to command 3 other pilots in battle, fine by me.