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

[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?

[CDN Aviator]

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.

[Loachman]

A US Army Helicopter Battalion, commanded by a Lieutenant-Colonel, is the equivalent to a Canadian Tactical Helicopter Squadron.

So you've also got the US Navy and US Army with people holding the equivalent ranks commanding equivalent units.

[SupersonicMax]

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.

Actually, you could have a Capt leading a LCol, and 2 Maj in battle.

[Infanteer]

Actually, you could have a Capt leading a LCol, and 2 Maj in battle.

Could you explain how this all works for Mr Ruhl and the rest of the 17th Alberta Light Dragoons?

[SupersonicMax]

Could you explain how this all works for Mr Ruhl and the rest of the 17th Alberta Light Dragoons?

If you send, for example, a 4-ship of Hornet, there will be a Flight Lead, an Element Lead, and 2 Wingman.  You need certain quals to lead certain mission as a 4-ship and to be an Element lead.  Even more mind blowing, you could have a Capt leading the whole Air Package (unimited number of aircraft in the sky), which could include several LCols, Cols, Maj, etc.  Again, it's all dependant on Qualifications.

Unlike the Army, Maj don't necessarily lead Capts in flight.  It depends on the Quals you have. 

On the "admin" point of view (ie: on the ground) there is a Structured CoC based on rank.  In the air, it depends on who is assigned as Lead, Element Lead, Wingman, Package Commander and that will depends on what qualifications and experience you have.

[Dennis Ruhl]

Could you explain how this all works for Mr Ruhl and the rest of the 17th Alberta Light Dragoons?

That would be 19th Alberta Dragoons.  They flew horses for 4 years in France and Belgium.  I guess I was wrong and the airforce musn't suffer from inflated ranks.  Yes, even WWII aircrew had mixed ranks with a pilot likely to be a a a a sergeant?

[E.R. Campbell]

That would be 19th Alberta Dragoons.  They flew horses for 4 years in France and Belgium.  I guess I was wrong and the airforce musn't suffer from inflated ranks.  Yes, even WWII aircrew had mixed ranks with a pilot likely to be a a a a sergeant?

Yes, to your last question. Sergeant pilots, like George Frederick "Buzz" Beurling DSO, DFC, DFM & Bar, RCAF, the best of the lot, were common in the 2^nd World War.

[CDN Aviator]

That would be 19th Alberta Dragoons.  They flew horses for 4 years in France and Belgium.  I guess I was wrong and the airforce musn't suffer from inflated ranks.  Yes, even WWII aircrew had mixed ranks with a pilot likely to be a a a a sergeant?

Why dont you just admit you have little to actualy say and move along.

[CDN Aviator]

Yes, even WWII aircrew had mixed ranks

Aircrews today still consist of mixed-ranks ( by that i assume you mean both NCMs and Comissioned officers) on most of our aircraft.

The British army air corps stands as one of the very few outfits employing non-comissioned members as pilots.

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

MCG- Once again, I must ask- are you prepared for the Army to be the CF's Leadership academy?  Are you prepared to see tens, if not hundreds of Cbt Arms Sgts and WOs, teaching infantry tactics to members of the CF who are unlikely to ever use them to the extent that you seem to think they will?  This is not the USMC- no matter what people wish it to be.  If you believe every man in the CF is a rifleman first, I believe you are repeating the Unification error- we are not all basically the same.  I might add, since it is equally likely that infantry soldiers may, at some point be carried on HMC Ships, they should all go to damage control school while at Battle School.  Or take flight safety lectures, because they will fly on CF aircraft.

What a propose is that we post a few Cbt Arms Sgts and WOs to Air Force and Navy schools to act as SMEs and help improve force protection training in a manner that makes operational and logical sense to the Service of trade involved.  It would cost less, achieve more and frustrate way fewer people.

[MCG]

I might add, since it is equally likely that infantry soldiers may, at some point be carried on HMC Ships, they should all go to damage control school while at Battle School.  Or take flight safety lectures, because they will fly on CF aircraft.

Why would you come to this illogical conclusion?  I have not suggested that aircrew or sea trades train to the Army standard?  Trades that fight in thier environment (Infantry, Pilot, Boatswain, etc) would train in thier environmental stream.  I've even allowed room for sub-occupations from all the purple trades that serve on ships.

For all those Air Force occupations that serve thier careers on the ground - a fire fighter, a Construction Engineer, a cook or MSE Op in blue uniform, etc - they all need the same skills as the cooks, clerks, MSE Ops, etc that find themselve in a FOB/base/airfield under attack.  That standard should not be diluted for uniform colour - because an enemy won't care.

MCG- Once again, I must ask- are you prepared for the Army to be the CF's Leadership academy? 

Why would we need to?  The Infantry does not have to do this all for the Army.  Everyone would be trained to the standard, and (much as is already done at CFLRS) a instructor indoc can be a required training step for all pers at such a training instutute.

[CDN Aviator]

Why would you come to this illogical conclusion?  I have not suggested that aircrew or sea trades train to the Army standard?  Trades that fight in thier environment (Infantry, Pilot, Boatswain, etc) would train in thier environmental stream. 

What about hard sea/air trades , since over the last few years we have seen even those, deployed to Afghanistan ?

For example, my MOC is a hard aircrew trade, yet we send members to fill CHUD billets and others in Afghanistan.

[MCG]

What about hard sea/air trades , since over the last few years we have seen even those, deployed to Afghanistan ?

For example, my MOC is a hard aircrew trade, yet we send members to fill CHUD billets and others in Afghanistan.

The Navy is in the same position with Divers filling out EOD teams.  There will have to be environmental indoctrination courses that exist as a package and can be pulled off the shelf and run as a pre-deployment thing when those rare cases arise.

[CDN Aviator]

when those rare cases arise.

I'm sorry but those are not that rare. far from it actualy. Thus, if this can simply be adressed by pre-deployment indoc, then why have air/land attend the same PLQ ? Just seems like you are contradicting yourself.

[Loachman]

For all those Air Force occupations that serve thier careers on the ground - a fire fighter, a Construction Engineer, a cook or MSE Op in blue uniform, etc - they all need the same skills as the cooks, clerks, MSE Ops, etc that find themselve in a FOB/base/airfield under attack.  That standard should not be diluted for uniform colour - because an enemy won't care.

So why leave the aircrew out? They spend far more time on the ground than in the air, and should also be prepared to leave the air at extremely short notice to operate on the ground individually or as part of a very small group, likely with significant injuries. They also need to thoroughly understand the roles of those whom they exist to support, and understand the conditions under which they operate.

Tac Hel units, in conventional situations, live in the field with their associated formations, and are expected to be able to defend and administer themselves just the same as any ground-bound unit, except nobody is trained to do so.

I also believe that Tac Hel, for these reasons, should be moved back into the Army from whence it came, and that all of its Officers should undergo the same training that their ground brethren undergo, at least up to Phase II or whatever it's called now (CAP?).

And the US Army has far more non-commissioned pilots than the British Army.

[CDN Aviator]

And the US Army has far more non-commissioned pilots than the British Army.

US Army warrant Officers are not non-comissioned members. They are specialist comissioned officers.

From the US Army itself :

http://usawocc.army.mil/whatiswo.htm

Candidates who successfully complete Warrant Officer Candidate School are appointed in the grade of Warrant Officer One. When promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two, warrant officers are commissioned by the President and have the same legal status as their traditional commissioned officer counterparts. However, warrant officers remain single-specialty officers whose career track is oriented towards progressing within their career field rather than focusing on increased levels of command and staff duty positions.

[MCG]

... if this can simply be adressed by pre-deployment indoc, then why have air/land attend the same PLQ ?

It cannot be addressed in an indoc alone - having an indoc would be a risk mitigation thing for the few occupations not doing the Army standard at BMQ & PLQ. 

I'm sorry but those are not that rare. far from it actualy.

So why leave the aircrew out? They spend far more time on the ground than in the air, ...

Okay.  If the hard air crew occupations are more likely to operate on the ground, then we will have two standards: Army and Navy.

I still think there could be sub-occupations to recognize air & ground crews for maritime aviation. These pers would do a Navy indoc after/during basic MOS and then the PLQ - Navy.

[MCG]

US Army warrant Officers are not non-comissioned members. They are specialist comissioned officers.

Actually, they are neither NCM nor comissioned officer.  Even your quote points that out.   

[CDN Aviator]

Actually, they are neither NCM nor comissioned officer.  Even your quote points that out.

No, i am quite correct and my quote supports that. Further to that, the US Army CW2 i worked with in Ft. Leonard Wood explained it to me the same way quite clearly.

Single-speciality comissioned officer, period.

[jollyjacktar]

What about hard sea/air trades , since over the last few years we have seen even those, deployed to Afghanistan ?

For example, my MOC is a hard aircrew trade, yet we send members to fill CHUD billets and others in Afghanistan.

And for my last tour in the Sandbox I was sent with the green people to learn to do green people things with green people.  Otherwise, it is wasted on the Navy.  I am a Sailor not Soldier and do not do the same things.  The PLQ should be orientated towards your service needs.  If they want to you lean other stuff they will send you where you can do so as needed like I did.  Anything else is a waste of resources that can better be spent elsewhere.

SeaKingT,  you were bang on for my bucks, well said.

[Loachman]

No, i am quite correct and my quote supports that. Further to that, the US Army CW2 i worked with in Ft. Leonard Wood explained it to me the same way quite clearly.

Single-speciality comissioned officer, period.

It was pointed out to me by a few many years ago that they held Warrants rather than Commissions, and that although they went to the Officers' Club, they were not entitled to a salute.

Perhaps something has changed, but I am not certain.