Canadian army to privatize some weapons training

[MdB]

Isn't it a good way to undermine the esprit de corps as well as professionalism in the CF?

The CF are the profressional and should be self-sufficient in the training. I understand though that the pilots can be trained on CAE and Bombardier simulator, thus needing CAE and Bombardier civvy personnel. But, let's not forget that this training is very specialized. So specialized that they train other NATO members as well. So, overall, I think this is quite different in that the weapons training for LAV or this kind of weapons systems aren't that specialized that we need a unique and dedicated civvy personnel.

That said, it's utterly unproductive, expensive and completely out of mind to release military personnel that we NEED in order to train others. It's the organization of it that's faulty here, we don't have to search very far. This view that all personnel should be deployable is looking backwards and stucking the head in the sand, but that's what bureaucrats do? They see numbers and rules, without exception. The guy is not deployable, but we don't have enough personnel, let's scrap the investment we did and recruit more.

And if the government want to save bucks, don't pay them two pensions in the first place rather than cutting in procurement programs. Furthermore, it has two effects that I can see: first, it furthers the occupational frame of mind the military personnel has grown in the last 25 years, and second, it undermines credibility and professionalism that the CF can do the training themselves. Eh, after all, what a private would think being on LAV gunnery training and taught by a civvy when the specialists are supposed to be the CF? ??? You'd answer that that's the same guy anyway with different shirt. But in my mind, a guy in uniform isn't a guy in civvy shirt. I let you continue the idea.

 

[McG]

I'm not sure I'm following here.

The government has authorised the regular force to grow by 5,000 established positions.   Some of these need to go into the training establishments.  This will reduces the stress on guys caused by tasks to the ATCs.

 

[mover1]

I knew guys who jumped ship to work as instructors for the ADATs and other sytems for the UAE and in Saudi. I also know that my brother who is on his 22nd year and teaching gunnery is hoping that this goes through because he would love to keep teaching rather than go back to "the family"

Isn't it a good way to undermine the esprit de corps as well as professionalism in the CF?

The CF are the profressional and should be self-sufficient in the training. I understand though that the pilots can be trained on CAE and Bombardier simulator, thus needing CAE and Bombardier civvy personnel. But, let's not forget that this training is very specialized. So specialized that they train other NATO members as well. So, overall, I think this is quite different in that the weapons training for LAV or this kind of weapons systems aren't that specialized that we need a unique and dedicated civvy personnel.

That said, it's utterly unproductive, expensive and completely out of mind to release military personnel that we NEED in order to train others. .

If we need them them to train others then we should let them get out and do it full time.  CAE and Bombardier are full of ex-military guys who jumped ship.(next time you are out on the ranges go and talk to the Lockheed Martin guys) So Why not Gunnery or D & M. Instead of someone who is newly posted into the job and or on a posting slump. You would have dedicated experienced people who are there on a full time baisis. The Army could benifit from these guys who might just think out of the box and come up with some new ideas on how to teach.

My biggest gripe when going through Leo Gunney was the reciting things Verbatum out of a text book. No one learns like that. I could tell you the theory of lazing ( I had to write it out 100 times for not knowing it Verbatum) but could I tell you what it meant. No.

In all I think the whole privatisation of gunnery would be good

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

MCG don't you think training this amount of people will further hurt the instructors for quite awhile before things get better.

 

[paracowboy]

The government has authorised the regular force to grow by 5,000 established positions.   Some of these need to go into the training establishments.   This will reduces the stress on guys caused by tasks to the ATCs.

yes, but those 5,000 pers are primarily going to be recruits. They aren't going to help take the strain off the NCO's, rather quite the opposite. Those 5,000 troops have to be trained up to an acceptable level then go through several years OJT before they can train others.
Or have I missed something?

 

[KevinB]

Or have I missed something?

Clones 

 

[McG]

MCG don't you think training this amount of people will further hurt the instructors for quite awhile before things get better.

I think the least painfull approach to this mass training of 5,000 would be for surge 06 to be tasked to run several BMQ/SQ serials out of Shilo.

yes, but those 5,000 pers are primarily going to be recruits. They aren't going to help take the strain off the NCO's, rather quite the opposite.

They will be able to "displace" less senior NCOs upwards.  Don't confuse the new pers with the new positions that have been authorised.  These new 5,000 pers will not take-up the strain.  However, some of the new pers will fill old position while the current occupants of those positions will be promoted into new leadership positions.

This is not an overnight fix.  It is a long term solution.

 

[Gunner]

I think the least painfull approach to this mass training of 5,000 would be for surge 06 to be tasked to run several BMQ/SQ serials out of Shilo.

I think you will find Surge 06 well engaged throughout 06 on support to SAT 3, BTE 06, summer tasks across the army and support to the SCTF that will be exercised next Fall.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

oh he's just trying to get my goat, which is on loan to 48 btw.

 

[MdB]

You would have dedicated experienced people who are there on a full time baisis. The Army could benifit from these guys who might just think out of the box and come up with some new ideas on how to teach.

Why is the Army not able to that?? Are they so stubborn or stuck in the fresh concret up to the knee not to recognize new way to do things, to learn and to teach?? Why isn't it possible inside the Army to have full-time basis training personnel? Why would be better or worse to have them out of the Army to train military personnel aside from granting them 2 pensions and bringing them a 5-star post-release job?

 

[Vigilant]

I think it is important to remember that the actual number of people retiring to come back on contract would be far less than the people we are bring out of retirement, other civvy jobs, and other countries to help train our soldiers. Don't forget the point of what they are doing!

 

[paracowboy]

I think it is important to remember that the actual number of people retiring to come back on contract would be far less than the people we are bring out of retirement, other civvy jobs, and other countries to help train our soldiers. Don't forget the point of what they are doing!

oh, to be that young again!

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Whatever works" should be presumed to be accompanied by "Whatever it costs".  The funds have to come from somewhere.

 

[mover1]

Why is the Army not able to that?? Are they so stubborn or stuck in the fresh concret up to the knee not to recognize new way to do things, to learn and to teach?? Why isn't it possible inside the Army to have full-time basis training personnel? Why would be better or worse to have them out of the Army to train military personnel aside from granting them 2 pensions and bringing them a 5-star post-release job?

I just think that people in uniform have a tendency to teach it, because "thats the way we did it before" Or some regiments my differ in procedure than others. An aquaitnace who works in the Armd School is RCR and when he got there he was trying to wrap his mind around some of the fire commands, which were throw back to the leopard   days. He teaches gunnery there and is cannot understand how anyone can learn from being a parrot and reciting verbatim..( I was taught that way and it was like reciting latin sometimes) Plus the turret commands the RCR and the Armd corps were slightly different from each other.
If you have no tribalism in the training cadre ( And lets be honest there is some, to a point.) you might get a higher standard of training.   And you might have equal standards across the board. Plus that young private who is to scared to speak up for fear of being ridiculed by the instructors. Or intimidated by rank, may just open up if he were taught by Bob or Jane. Instead of Sgt Bloggins and WO Jones.

What is your hostility in the "2 pensions ..... 5-star post-release job" is is a little jealousy that your not in the "window" to take advantage.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Fire Orders and gunnery used by the Corp are done that way cause it works. They're tried and true. We've turned out some of the best crews in the world using the techniques. Don't fool yourself, the civvie cadre will be told what to teach and how to teach it. It won't be like some tree hugging polysci proffessor putting his own spin on world affairs.

 

[Michael OLeary]

If we need them them to train others then we should let them get out and do it full time.  CAE and Bombardier are full of ex-military guys who jumped ship.(next time you are out on the ranges go and talk to the Lockheed Martin guys) So Why not Gunnery or D & M. Instead of someone who is newly posted into the job and or on a posting slump. You would have dedicated experienced people who are there on a full time baisis. The Army could benifit from these guys who might just think out of the box and come up with some new ideas on how to teach.

......

In all I think the whole privatisation of gunnery would be good

Fire Orders and gunnery used by the Corp are done that way cause it works. They're tried and true. We've turned out some of the best crews in the world using the techniques. Don't fool yourself, the civvie cadre will be told what to teach and how to teach it. It won't be like some tree hugging polysci proffessor putting his own spin on world affairs.

recceguy is right, any contracted instructors will be bound by the terms of the contract. And if those terms are simply to deliver existing packages by approved methods, then that is all we will receive. The creation of new content, or changes to instructional techniques, are separate issues and unlikely to be defined in the contracts because the required 'deliverables' are intangible.

Also, the contracts will most likely be with a corporate entity, rather than the preferred individuals, and may not allow the receiving school to identify preferred instructors or to veto hired instructors that meet the stated requirements (probably rank, trade and specific course qualifications) simply because others remember the quality of work they may have done while serving. Contracts should allow for the checks and balances of comprehensive standards assessments but those, again, must reflect what is required under the terms of the contracts.

 

[MdB]

Plus that young private who is to scared to speak up for fear of being ridiculed by the instructors. Or intimidated by rank, may just open up if he were taught by Bob or Jane. Instead of Sgt Bloggins and WO Jones.

At that point, I think it's a matter of Army culture. The concept of team include teamwork and this comes from every member of that team. The rank shouldn't be a barrier in learning. Look at junior officers learning from senior NCOs even though they are higher in rank. When a team is learning, all elements should come up with ideas. This the leader's job to make it happen.

What is your hostility in the "2 pensions ..... 5-star post-release job" is is a little jealousy that your not in the "window" to take advantage.

Eh, I'm 27 and not in yet, how could I be jealous? Seriously, this is just a rationale, I think with my pocket here. Still, deadwood should be weeded out and make their way in the private sector anytime. But good and recognized senior NCOs should be encouraged to stay in by being, well, recognized as a precious asset and by being given some autonomy to make profit from his experience and develop new learning/thinking/teaching/leading ways. Lessons learned...

recceguy is right, any contracted instructors will be bound by the terms of the contract. And if those terms are simply to deliver existing packages by approved methods, then that is all we will receive. The creation of new content, or changes to instructional techniques, are separate issues and unlikely to be defined in the contracts because the required 'deliverables' are intangible.

Also, the contracts will most likely be with a corporate entity, rather than the preferred individuals, and may not allow the receiving school to identify preferred instructors or to veto hired instructors that meet the stated requirements (probably rank, trade and specific course qualifications) simply because others remember the quality of work they may have done while serving. Contracts should allow for the checks and balances of comprehensive standards assessments but those, again, must reflect what is required under the terms of the contracts.

Then, is the private sector that flexible?

For me, business thinks business and that's making cash. The new ways they develop will be efficient in reducing costs... Anyway, is there enough companies that they will be in competition and will be obliged to develop better methods. And who's to say that one is better than the other? Think it's better it stays in the 'house'.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Then, is the private sector that flexible?

For me, business thinks business and that's making cash. The new ways they develop will be efficient in reducing costs... Anyway, is there enough companies that they will be in competition and will be obliged to develop better methods. And who's to say that one is better than the other? Think it's better it stays in the 'house'.

It's not really PRIVATE SECTOR though is it? What you have RIGHT NOW are basically temp agencies that are hiring ex military instructors that meet the desired criteria set by the CF. In uniform today and civvies tomorrow, doing exactly the same job. We've seen it before in the CF. Guys retire and come in two weeks later doing the same job in QM, graphic arts and survey. They have the expertise the CF want, but have timed out in years or medical. Hey, it's not my money (well it is kinda) but who wouldn't jump at the chance to get paid their pension AND collect a good wage for doing something they love. Besides, really, most of these guys will likely have done a fair number of tours and busted themselves up pretty good over the years for a shit pension we give. I'm willing to let them teach and tell the odd war story to the newbies. It's the least they deserve from an ungrateful government and public. Just look south. The US has used this system for years, and it works great for them. Next time you check in at Range Control at 29 Palms, the civvie calling a Sgt sir and treating him like gold is likely a retired Chief.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

From what I understand from the briefing I heard, the civilian hired to teach LAV gunnery will have to be qualified Advanced Gunnery, which almost certainly means retired Snr NCO's, WO's and Officers.  The personnel hired also must be fit enough to carry ammunition cans around, remove barrels, and set up the LAV CGT.  This will mean that those on medical pension for backs, knees, shoulders and other common ailments need not apply.  It also means that the job is basically only for retired armour and infantry types.

On the plus side, there are quite a few available personnel, with over 25 years in, fully qualified, that have been given notice of release.  Most of these guys are fit, so it looks like we may be able to take advantage of a huge amount of experience out there.

Also, the Standards cell will still be overseeing all training, so it will be done by the book.