pipeline design for conventional forces

[bit]

Good morning, everyone. I'm a POG getting det's prepped for MEUs and attachment to infantry elements. I want to create a high performing element in my field (like the infantry's unit-managed scout platoon program). What courses should I require the Marines execute? (It's also partially for morale and pride.) I'm thinking requiring mobility (not necessarily insertion) in air, on land, and in water, and requiring advanced skills within their field. I'm also thinking a potentially modular design where the wickets could be done in different ways, where you only need to have done at least 1 of each category to achieve qualification.

. air: airborne/PPG (civilian)

. land: mountain warfare training center formal school (mtn leaders, mtn comm, assault climber, etc.), RSLC, Ranger, A&S, BRC

. water: MCIWS/BRC/A&S

. MOS: advanced schools based on upcoming requirements and current team skill gaps

I'd also like to implement a physical screener. Any ideas on that?

I've reached a position where I can arbitrarily implement such a program, and it's something I always wished was available to me. Initial feedback on the idea has been positive with the men.

What qualification buys you is you're automatically the next to deploy/MEU/large exercise, continuously. The only time someone would go without that is if all those that have qualified are already out/unavailable.

 

[Marauder06]

First of all, I like this idea. But, are you building supporters or operators? If it's the former, get your guys good at doing YOUR jobs, not THEIR jobs.

1) high level of physical fitness
2) extreme level of MOS proficiency

Is the MEU jumping in? If not, why are your guys going to Airborne? Same thing with Ranger, RSLC, etc.

I saw it often in 5th Group and have written about it regularly here on the site: the way you get respect as a support guy is to be physically fit, and be really, really good at your job. The ops types don't need you to be good at theirs.

 

[bit]

Part of the answer is that it would get people to volunteer.

 

[bit]

I agree that the most important thing is MOS proficiency. Luckily, I am capable of building a list of schools and OJT that would get them sharp on their MOS because I'm in the same field. What I cannot do as effectively is building a course list to make sure they're proud, fit, not quitters, and can effectively swim and ruck with whatever conventional units they attach to, so I'm looking for ideas. It also has to be attractive enough that people want to do it despite it being more work.

 

[Marauder06]

I still think you're fixating on the wrong things, but it's your program not mine.

I agree that the most important thing is MOS proficiency. Luckily, I am capable of building a list of schools and OJT that would get them sharp on their MOS because I'm in the same field. What I cannot do as effectively is building a course list to make sure they're proud, fit, not quitters, and can effectively swim and ruck with whatever conventional units they attach to, so I'm looking for ideas. It also has to be attractive enough that people want to do it despite it being more work.

Here you go.

I think the best place to start is with a couple of people you trust who are in the units you support. "Hey, if I were to set up a program for the support guys that embed with you, what would you like it to include?"

 

[Cookie_]

@bit what is your MOS/career fields?

That's important to this conversation. How are you integrated when attached?

For example, Are you commo guys going near/on target as RTOs, or are you cyber guys who will never leave an air conditioned office?

 

[bit]

I still think you're fixating on the wrong things, but it's your program not mine.


Here you go.

I think the best place to start is with a couple of people you trust who are in the units you support. "Hey, if I were to set up a program for the support guys that embed with you, what would you like it to include?"

Oh, that's great! Will do. Such feedback would also be useful for justifications to those holding the purse strings. "Hey, Sir, this is what your customer said they needed. This TAD money is how we meet and sustain that requirement."

 

[bit]

Fixating is also pretty much always the wrong answer, so I'll make sure to open my mind up.

 

[AWP]

In addition to the fantastic ideas above,

- If it is a school that results in a badge or tab, expect pushback. I would put these towards the bottom of the list.
- Put SERE at the top of your non-MOS desired schools.
- Look into something "uncool" like load planning, HAZMAT or other logistics courses or maintenance courses, especially if you're doing mobility ops.
- Be value added, not a resource drain.

ETA:
- What is the customer doing, what are its needs? MOS', skills, general manpower.
- To the above: mobility, raids, a sustained presence, forced entry...all of these look different for support guys.
- Bring value, not just in what you can do for them, but how much it will cost in training, time, funding, etc.
- Lean packages, less with more. Don't make this a vanity empire w/ bloat.

 

[bit]

I still think you're fixating on the wrong things, but it's your program not mine.


Here you go.

I think the best place to start is with a couple of people you trust who are in the units you support. "Hey, if I were to set up a program for the support guys that embed with you, what would you like it to include?"

I haven't read the EAST write-up yet, but I have read your thoughts on the combat skills course for support (I don't remember the acronym) many times, and similar posts of yours as I read the forum over the years, so I know you have a strong opinion and have put a lot of energy and experience into this. I'm excited to go through it, and thank you.

 

[bit]

AWP, I'll be back to process the input in your post as soon as I can. If you gentlemen would be so kind, I'd love to post a draft pipeline.

 

[bit]

In case anyone has the free time to take a look at it.

 

[Devildoc]

So as I understand, this is for non-combat MOS dudes being attached to infantry, but not recon/MARSOC?

I understand what the end-state qualification looks like, but what exactly is the end-state qualification? Identifiers in your record, a certain title/name, what?

I echo what my colleagues said above, but just a couple ideas. Proficiency in the MOS, to include as many military and civilian schools that support that MOS (I was a corpsman, so I went to a lot of civilian courses).

Highlight background education that is team-forward or accents multi capability. For example, if your support guy is admin but knows his way around an engine because his father was a mechanic, then have him work with mechanics so that he can do both jobs (not articulating it quite as well as @AWP ).

Regarding your infiltration courses (water, air, etc), I would add scout swimmer. All Marines (and sailors) should be proficient in the water and that is a great, value-added course for a variety of reasons. I also think Bridgeport is pretty low-hanging fruit compared to Ranger school and could be obtainable.

 

[BloodStripe]

All Marines should be require to attend MCIWS. Most would fail but there’s a lot to be learned in failing.