Flexson
Active Member
As a Charge rated CPO who has had some time in civilian trade employment prior to enlistment; I can not argue with this, especially the last paragraph. And Tiff's (Artificers) are no longer the original definition of the name.
It was noted on the AWD program by our old and bold team members that you could really tell the difference in generations. It wasn't the the fault of the actual members, as you don't know what you don't know, but it was obvious when certain elements of training and certification ceased.
Logically enough it all coincides with the closure of the military trade schools where skills were taught by (in most cases) experienced civilian tradesmen.
They are doing it back to front these days. Instead of training people then sending them out to units, to consolidate their skills, they are giving them the bare minimum then sending them to units with task books to learn the job.
Instead of being taught the correct way by highly experienced, professional trainers, their education is left to 20 something year old junior NCOs who are only just competent themselves.
It's only when they start their WO and CPO courses that army and navy techos, begin to be exposed to civilian training and certification. The RAAF doesn't even have this, a techo can leave the RAAF as a FSGT or WOFF and be faced with years of study to gain civilian certification.
The argument is, "why waste money training someone if they are just going to leave, better to give the training and certification to those who stayed". Completely arse about, training young Australians is never a waste of money, even if they do leave the ADF, their increased skills and knowledge will benefit industry and hence the country.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
While I completely agree with your post, I believe a lot of this is indicative and reflective of the way the education systems as been comprised from a bureaucratic perspective.
This comes from a bit of an education background and the experience my organisation has had. We’ve gone away from Unit Standards (NZ model) as adherence to this scheme became dictatorial on the nature of what and how is taught rather than being being a framework on how to teach and deliver it. (As several instructors stated “we were teaching for the unit standard rather than teaching the skill.”)
Granted this was more for operational purposes rather than trade based training I can certainly see this having an impact on training delivery for any uniformed service and a resultant reluctance to engage with the civilian education sector (apparatus.)
OldTex
Well-Known Member
How is this any different to how civilian tradesmen are trained currently. Civilian apprentices also have to complete work books in order to gain their certificates under the NTF (National Training Framework).
That is not correct for Army (I cannot speak for Navy or Air Force). New march-ins to units from various Training establishments already have the majority of some civil accreditation's and only require workplace experience in order to qualify for some Cert IIs or Cert IIIs. From my own experience Army ECN 405s arrived at units with Cert III in Electronics, following a trade restructure the new ECN 665s had most of Cert III in Telecommunications. These qualifications were exactly the same as those gained by civilian technicians because they were issued by RTAs accredited under the NTF. Army relinquished its RTA status due to the cost of maintaining compliance with NTF in order to retain equivalency with qualifications issued by civilian RTAs. The solution was to contract the non-military training component to civilian RTAs (TAFEs etc).
Cert 3 or cert 4, speaking from my current job experience, does almost nothing to improve the performance of the worker.
What it does, is cover the employer not the employee.
If a stuff up occurs, they can then refer to the cert 4 training, and say, well person x has passed this module, why didn't they do it the way they were trained.
When the way they are trained in our cert 4 has little or no real world relevance to the actual job.
The whole cert 2,3 ,4 diploma system really sucks in my books.
It does set "a" standard that is recognised Australia wide, but dosnt make the person who achieves it any better in the job in the real world.
It stems from the new apprenticeship scheme, where the federal government subsidises some of the state or territory training fees.
A re embursment type arrangement.
In my current role, I did the promotion course prior to the cert 4 being implemented, then did the cert 4 after the goal posts were moved.
The original program was far superior.
It entailed a more detailed role of the position to be held than the cert 4 does.
What it does, is cover the employer not the employee.
If a stuff up occurs, they can then refer to the cert 4 training, and say, well person x has passed this module, why didn't they do it the way they were trained.
When the way they are trained in our cert 4 has little or no real world relevance to the actual job.
The whole cert 2,3 ,4 diploma system really sucks in my books.
It does set "a" standard that is recognised Australia wide, but dosnt make the person who achieves it any better in the job in the real world.
It stems from the new apprenticeship scheme, where the federal government subsidises some of the state or territory training fees.
A re embursment type arrangement.
In my current role, I did the promotion course prior to the cert 4 being implemented, then did the cert 4 after the goal posts were moved.
The original program was far superior.
It entailed a more detailed role of the position to be held than the cert 4 does.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
I do agree that the NTF endorsed Certs do not in any way mean a person is better qualified for any position or task. All that is set is a benchmark (and some could say that it is a very low benchmark at that). What is missing is how the person has applied the theoretical knowledge in their daily work and the experience that they have gained. In my former role as the senior technician in a unit I was more likely to seek advancement for a soldier who had done 10 different tasks 10 times rather than a soldier who had done 1 task 100 times (but perhaps I was strange as I read technical manualsin my spare time).
When I did my trade in the 90s it was Cert III 24 modules, Advanced Certificate +15 modules and Associate Diploma +15 modules with NBB, NM, EA, and EB modules. The Dip Eng was a three year engineering degree and then there was the four year BEng.
NBB were National Broad Band modules for base level cross trade/job, i.e. OH&S.
NM were core trade.
EA were advanced trade and 1st year engineering that articulated into Adv Cert, Ass Dip, and BEng.
EB were 2nd year engineering that articulated through Adv Cert, Ass Dip and BEng.
The system tightened up at the end of my first year. There had been a stack of students who had transferred from the previous system to the new one for the Adv Cert and Ass Dip who hadn't done core courses or who had done the same course content twice who simply articulated their number of courses/modules to claim awards, i.e. claimed Ass Dips without doing maths, statics, mechanics or dynamics etc. To address this they banned "double dipping" which had the immediate effect that people like me who had year twelve maths and uni maths, calculus and computing, couldn't claim credit or RPL, meaning there were courses I did in my own time during my first year, that I lost because prerequisites I had been granted credit for initially we disallowed.
The pendulum had swung too far the other way, i.e. from awarding qualifications to people who hadn't completed core courses to denying recognition to people for courses they had completed and hence not granting an award at all.
My understanding is this occured in the early 90s when they moved to the national system, initially it was too loose, then too tight. Then they switched to the new new system with all the external providers and things loosened up again.
End result there are people like me who can participate in a design review, pilot, working group etc. on equal technical standing to a professional engineer, due to what we have studied and become competent in even though we only have AQF level 5 qualification. While there are others who have level 6 who haven't completed anywhere near the range and depth of study and are totally useless in such environments.
Quite often the modern diploma is what is given to people when they complete a raft of courses because they are not qualified or experienced enough to do their job. They are then seen as better trained than the competent, experienced people who were deemed not to require the remedial training.
To progress in my job, I need a diploma.
To be honest, I don't care or want to progress any way.
But, we are now in a situation where a very inexperienced person can.
They can have very limited on the job experience, and be a manager on the ground, due to being an astute "book learner".
So now we have a situation of a Bangladeshi accountant running a sector, with almost zero on the ground experience, no communication skills, but is awesome at spread sheets.
To be honest, I don't care or want to progress any way.
But, we are now in a situation where a very inexperienced person can.
They can have very limited on the job experience, and be a manager on the ground, due to being an astute "book learner".
So now we have a situation of a Bangladeshi accountant running a sector, with almost zero on the ground experience, no communication skills, but is awesome at spread sheets.
That's the issue, if you had an old style apprenticeship with the block release modular Cert III with or without an advanced certificate you already had not only your trade covered, but OH&S, quality management, industrial relations and computing, i.e. MS Office or equivalent.
Now people do an auditing course, plus a continuous improvement course and submit a copy of an audit they did at work and they get a diploma in quality management.
Someone with a trade who has internal and external auditing tickets, has worked and is certified in ISO, QS, TS, TQM, Six Sigma, Lean etc. but can't get a diploma because their relevant qualifications are too high, and can't articulate backwards into a vocational diploma. Believe it or not, it is actually easier to pay your money and do a two or three day course than it is the get the RTA to recognise the under grad, or post grad level course and certification you completed years ago.
A quality managers job comes up, both apply and the person with the QM diploma gets it over the more experienced, more qualified person because they have a QM diploma.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Raytheon Australia has announced its contender for Land 8710 phase 1A(LCM-8 replacement), teaming up with BMT for the design, called the Australian Independent Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel(ILMV) and to be built by Austal at Henderson. Its a Twin Hull design but will not be able to entre the Well Docks of either the LHDs or LSD.
Without access to the hull design specifics my comments are simply opinions but….twin hull designs, specifically catamarans, are very average at heavy loads, I’m sure alexsa has a formula to explain it.
Very good at high speed light loads but rapidly loose both speed and buoyancy when loaded.
Depends on the design but tunnel slam and torsional issues are a problem for multihulls. This is part of the reason Austal went with a trimaran (actually a long slender monohull with outriggers aft) for the Seaframe of the LCS. Multihull vessels a very good in calm conditions but can be difficult in moderate to high seas.
Tunnel slam is when the sea is channelled between the hulls and slams into the tunnel structure. This can cause a lot of damage and the vessel must slow down to avoid it. Tunnel slam can also impact directional stability where the vessel is not headed directly into the sea. The more heavily laden the vessel is the more prone it is to tunnel slam.
Torsion is an issue as the structure between the hulls has to compensate for the different loads on each hull ... and along each hull. This will result in a twisting force (large container ships have the same issue when not correctly loaded and this has caused the loss of some vessels) which needs to be compensated for in structure. Lets be honest an LCM-8 is a bit of a barge but it may be able to work in higher seas than a multihull of the same tonnage capacity. It all comes down to design.
Interesting given that BMT's Caimen-90 and Caimen-60 are tri-bow hull designs. I would expect the ILMV contender to be some kind of derivative of an existing BMT design, not unlike how the US Vigor MSV(L) is a derived from the Caimen-90
Maneuver Support Vessel (Light)
DESIGN INNOVATION Innovative tribow monohull form maximizes seakeeping, beached stability and provides speeds in excess of 20 knots fully laden…
vigor.net
I am no expert but looking at the Caimen-90 design pics, it seems like it has a twin hull form but also a tri-bow which is intriguing.
I am sure there are others here better placed to comment, but I did find this article from BMT dating from February this year and specifically referring to the ADF; if credible some kind of Caimen derivative could be in the works.
Seize and hold ground - CAIMEN landing craft
The Australian Defence Force will benefit from more than a decade of continual development behind BMT's family of small, medium and large landing craft.
www.bmt.org
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I suspect it will be the Caiman Hull Form with a Superstructure designed around Australia's requirements, which is probably going to be, better accommodation, work areas, more storage space, Bunkerage then you would normally find on a Vessel of this size and type.Interesting given that BMT's Caimen-90 and Caimen-60 are tri-bow hull designs. I would expect the ILMV contender to be some kind of derivative of an existing BMT design, not unlike how the US Vigor MSV(L) is a derived from the Caimen-90
Maneuver Support Vessel (Light)
DESIGN INNOVATION Innovative tribow monohull form maximizes seakeeping, beached stability and provides speeds in excess of 20 knots fully laden…
I am no expert but looking at the Caimen-90 design pics, it seems like it has a twin hull form but also a tri-bow which is intriguing.
I am sure there are others here better placed to comment, but I did find this article from BMT dating from February this year and specifically referring to the ADF; if credible some kind of Caimen derivative could be in the works.
Seize and hold ground - CAIMEN landing craft
The Australian Defence Force will benefit from more than a decade of continual development behind BMT's family of small, medium and large landing craft.
Does anyone know how many Nassam units the army are getting?
Funding suggests 30-40 units, there are currently 30 RBS 70 on the books.
Funding suggests 30-40 units, there are currently 30 RBS 70 on the books.
Contract signed for LAND 19 Phase 7B SRGBAD Enhanced NASAMS | ADBR
According to this 2 Batteries ordered and 6 (total or in addition?) planned with each battery according to the article to have 3 troops per a battery. If my understanding of the termninoligy is correct that will be 3 - 4 launcher's per a troop? giving 9 - 12 launchers each battery which means we can be looking at anywhere from 54 to 96 launchers (Depending if 6 batteries of 9 launchers or 8 batteries of 12 launchers or anything in between)... Im pretty sure it is the lower number but we can dream
Not sure where the ‘6’ batteries comment came from, first I’ve heard of that, and that figure doesn’t seem to be mentioned in that article, unless my reading comprehension needs work (happy to admit it, if that is the case…)Contract signed for LAND 19 Phase 7B SRGBAD Enhanced NASAMS | ADBR
According to this 2 Batteries ordered and 6 (total or in addition?) planned with each battery according to the article to have 3 troops per a battery. If my understanding of the termninoligy is correct that will be 3 - 4 launcher's per a troop? giving 9 - 12 launchers each battery which means we can be looking at anywhere from 54 to 96 launchers (Depending if 6 batteries of 9 launchers or 8 batteries of 12 launchers or anything in between)... Im pretty sure it is the lower number but we can dream
But while there are an initial “2” NASAMS II Batteries worth of kit being acquired, both serving with 16ALR, only one of these AD Batteries is to be an operational Battery. The other is a non-operational, training battery…
Army’s currently planned air defence capability, consists entirely of one operational battery of static fired NASAMS 2 and the good old ‘all arms fire’ which is a bit of a head scratcher in terms of world events and military trends, not to mention our increasingly mobile and armoured force structure, but that is the long and short of it.
Army has never placed much priority on defence from air attack. I guess that is what the RAAF is for. Or something?