US Navy cutting basic to 9 weeks from 10.

[daftandbarmy]

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.

One of these days, maybe even Canada can train all of its Officers in the same place

 

[Halifax Tar]

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.

I find it hard to believe you and I would be at the opposite ends of an subject. Color me shocked.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I find it hard to believe you and I would be at the opposite ends of an subject. Color me shocked.

Ok, let’s do this another way, HT.

Is your unit fully staffed?

Whether it is or not, you are now going to cough up a couple of MS, a P2 and maybe and Lt(N) to Fleet School to run Navy BMQ.

Still sound like a good idea?

 

[quadrapiper]

Ok, let’s do this another way, HT.

Is your unit fully staffed?

Whether it is or not, you are now going to cough up a couple of MS, a P2 and maybe and Lt(N) to Fleet School to run Navy BMQ.

Still sound like a good idea?

Assuming Navy BMQ is run on the coast(s), isn't that one less move for the MS-PO2 who'd otherwise be on their way to St Jean to deliver the current version?

Also, if the services were given charge of recruits from Day 1, shouldn't there be efficiencies found by combining BMQ and environmental training? Can't see it making sense to run "BMQ" and "NETP," instead of bundling the two together, with material from each delivered where it actually makes sense for training progression, rather than first Basic, then environmental.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Assuming Navy BMQ is run on the coast(s), isn't that one less move for the MS-PO2 who'd otherwise be on their way to St Jean to deliver the current version?

Also, if the services were given charge of recruits from Day 1, shouldn't there be efficiencies found by combining BMQ and environmental training? Can't see it making sense to run "BMQ" and "NETP," instead of bundling the two together, with material from each delivered where it actually makes sense for training progression, rather than first Basic, then environmental.

No.

You are forgetting all of the overhead of running a school- that would then be duplicated 3 times (or more), if each service ran their own BMQ.

 

[brihard]

No.

You are forgetting all of the overhead of running a school- that would then be duplicated 3 times (or more), if each service ran their own BMQ.

Would there be efficiency to be found if BMQs were loaded a bit more strategically, potentially sometimes cohorted so as to more cleanly feed immediate subsequent courses, whether NETP, or other predictable and forecastable course streams where a significant enough group embark on some common training following BMQ? Not saying every or even most BMQs need be that way, but if the RCN wants to send every sailor on NETP and they can load a full BMQ platoon, that lets them potentially more efficiently schedule courses?

Is this out to lunch, or are there enough NCM DP1 level course streams that this could work?

 

[Furniture]

Ok, let’s do this another way, HT.

Is your unit fully staffed?

Whether it is or not, you are now going to cough up a couple of MS, a P2 and maybe and Lt(N) to Fleet School to run Navy BMQ.

Still sound like a good idea?

The navy already sends instructors to CFLRS, so those pers could be re-rolled into an RCN specific school. By moving the school to the coasts you also remove cost moves, and the potential of losing members due to a cost move to an expensive province in a Jarmy environment...

I don't see the benefit in teaching S3 how to make a shelter with ground sheets, or learn land nav when they are far more likely to have to fight a fire at sea, or drag a wounded shipmate up a ladder out of an engine space.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ok, let’s do this another way, HT.

Is your unit fully staffed?

Whether it is or not, you are now going to cough up a couple of MS, a P2 and maybe and Lt(N) to Fleet School to run Navy BMQ.

Still sound like a good idea?

My unit is a bad example, we are 5 days from home after being deployed for 6 months. We have done 3 FG chalks changing out a sizeable amount of the crew each time, and always bunks are full with usually some also on cots. So yes, fully crewed.

I think your answer has been given already by others though.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Ok, let’s do this another way, HT.

Is your unit fully staffed?

Whether it is or not, you are now going to cough up a couple of MS, a P2 and maybe and Lt(N) to Fleet School to run Navy BMQ.

Still sound like a good idea?

The question I would ask is how many in the "Navy" (i.e., those wearing a Navy uniform) are 'not' hard sea trades; in other words purple suiters. Yes, the response will invariably be the spit and sputter of unification bad and eliminate all vestiges of that policy, but the reality is that's not going to happen. If the Navy was to accept responsibility (and the cost) of all initial training for Navy personnel, will they trim down to only the manpower necessary to staff Navy units or will they also train their share of purple suiters to a standard suitable that they slide fully trained into tri-service organizations, or, as may be more likely, into Army and Air Force units.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The question I would ask is how many in the "Navy" (i.e., those wearing a Navy uniform) are 'not' hard sea trades; in other words purple suiters. Yes, the response will invariably be the spit and sputter of unification bad and eliminate all vestiges of that policy, but the reality is that's not going to happen. If the Navy was to accept responsibility (and the cost) of all initial training for Navy personnel, will they trim down to only the manpower necessary to staff Navy units or will they also train their share of purple suiters to a standard suitable that they slide fully trained into tri-service organizations, or, as may be more likely, into Army and Air Force units.

Getting rid of purple is they key to our future success pers management, IMHO. And I'm not spitting or sputtering, I'm being clear and direct.

You're more than free to disagree with me, but do please try to keep from being a dick.

 

[brihard]

My unit is a bad example, we are 5 days from home after being deployed for 6 months. We have done 3 FG chalks changing out a sizeable amount of the crew each time, and always bunks are full with usually some also on cots. So yes, fully crewed.

I think your answer has been given already by others though.

I’m jumping the gun a couple days, but welcome home. I remember the anticipation of flying back from theatre; it’s gotta be something else when you’re ‘making your own way’, and it’s measured in days and weeks. I can’t imagine the isolation of being out there.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m jumping the gun a couple days, but welcome home. I remember the anticipation of flying back from theatre; it’s gotta be something else when you’re ‘making your own way’, and it’s measured in days and weeks. I can’t imagine the isolation of being out there.

Its not bad. I have 220(ish) people to chill with. Thanks! It will be nice to home for a stretch.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The navy already sends instructors to CFLRS, so those pers could be re-rolled into an RCN specific school. By moving the school to the coasts you also remove cost moves, and the potential of losing members due to a cost move to an expensive province in a Jarmy environment...

I don't see the benefit in teaching S3 how to make a shelter with ground sheets, or learn land nav when they are far more likely to have to fight a fire at sea, or drag a wounded shipmate up a ladder out of an engine space.

Ironically, Outward Bound was created for the Navy in the UK... by a German

WW2 torpedo survival camp going strong 80 years on​

"In the ‘40s it soon became apparent that there was a disproportionate number of young sailors being lost to torpedo attacks," said Mr Crisp.

He said this was in stark comparison to their older colleagues, who would much more frequently survive the attacks.

"They’d simply been recruited too quickly to learn the survival skills it would normally take years to acquire."

Mr Crisp said the camp was conceived by Kurt Hahn, a German man who had been forced to flee Hitler's Germany.

"He was backed with funds from Liverpool businessman Lawrence Holt, along with the Blue Funnel Line shipping company," said Mr Crisp.

He said that, while some of Mr Hahn’s founding principles remain, today Outward Bound has diversified a great deal.

"Even during the War the courses were broader than just survival - the aim was to improve their life skills all-round.

"Whilst there’s no longer a military ethos, we hold true to the values of individual development, and pushing yourself and your friends."

Outward Bound: WW2 torpedo survival camp going strong 80 years on

Thousands of children learn survival skills at more than 35 sites located around the world.

www.bbc.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ironically, Outward Bound was created for the Navy in the UK... by a German

WW2 torpedo survival camp going strong 80 years on​

"In the ‘40s it soon became apparent that there was a disproportionate number of young sailors being lost to torpedo attacks," said Mr Crisp.

He said this was in stark comparison to their older colleagues, who would much more frequently survive the attacks.

"They’d simply been recruited too quickly to learn the survival skills it would normally take years to acquire."

Mr Crisp said the camp was conceived by Kurt Hahn, a German man who had been forced to flee Hitler's Germany.

"He was backed with funds from Liverpool businessman Lawrence Holt, along with the Blue Funnel Line shipping company," said Mr Crisp.

He said that, while some of Mr Hahn’s founding principles remain, today Outward Bound has diversified a great deal.

"Even during the War the courses were broader than just survival - the aim was to improve their life skills all-round.

"Whilst there’s no longer a military ethos, we hold true to the values of individual development, and pushing yourself and your friends."

Outward Bound: WW2 torpedo survival camp going strong 80 years on

Thousands of children learn survival skills at more than 35 sites located around the world.

www.bbc.com

We teach things like sea survival on NETP and we have to refresher coursing every few years.

We have to keep up on C8 and 9mm, Fire Fighting, Flood Control, First Aid, Sea Survival and CBRN. These all have to be current to deploy.

 

[brihard]

Its not bad. I have 220(ish) people to chill with. Thanks! It will be nice to home for a stretch.

What happens with the crew in a “what am I doing at work next month?” sense when the physical ship gets home? I imagine some stay with the ship, probably a lot of others disperse to fill needs elsewhere?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What happens with the crew in a “what am I doing at work next month?” sense when the physical ship gets home? I imagine some stay with the ship, probably a lot of others disperse to fill needs elsewhere?

I'm just spitballin' here

 

[Halifax Tar]

What happens with the crew in a “what am I doing at work next month?” sense when the physical ship gets home? I imagine some stay with the ship, probably a lot of others disperse to fill needs elsewhere?

We are all on leave until after the holidays, after that we are crew swapping with FRE. So FREs crew is walking across the jetty and taking over CHA and we are doing the opposite.

By next summer (APS '25) most of us will have been posted to other units.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And the above, Brihard, is why in the Navy, the bond is with the service (RCN) and not with a particular ship or unit, as we constantly move in and out of various ships and shore units and any given crew or unit is a flux rather than a set group. While all of us remember their first ship (a rite of passage of sort), we are not "that ship" forever, unlike army regiments that stamp you as PPCLI, RCR, LSHA, R22 etc. for life.

As crew are a flux, everyone's experience of what it was to be on the crew of , say MONTREAL, varies between people who served on board depending on the year they so served, and MONTREAL, or any other ship, doesn't have specific traditions that it upholds and instill in people, other than the ones common to the whole Navy.

 

[brihard]

We are all on leave until after the holidays, after that we are crew swapping with FRE. So FREs crew is walking across the jetty and taking over CHA and we are doing the opposite.

By next summer (APS '25) most of us will have been posted to other units.

Is FRE headed back out? Is this a case of qualified crew members getting yoinked ASAP to allow another ship to sail?

Sorry, I find the navy interesting and I’m also starting from almost zero knowledge. Thanks for letting me pick your brain.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is FRE headed back out? Is this a case of qualified crew members getting yoinked ASAP to allow another ship to sail?

Sorry, I find the navy interesting and I’m also starting from almost zero knowledge. Thanks for letting me pick your brain.

Sadly no FRE, is an alongside training platform at the moment. Shes in bad shape. So we will be putting NEP and QL3 sailors through their paces in what we can train while not under way.

I have an attachment to FRE. She and I have lot of time together, I'm sad to see her in this state.

All good man, pick away.