What are your thoughts on the new FDU for CBRN for hazard response units?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:33:58 -0500

Former maneuver support units are now Hazard Reponse units. They took away two NBCRV's and now 94 Soldiers are authorized. Also, they switched the 1LT operations officer position and made that a CW2. What are your thoughts on the whole thing? I personally think the XO should still be a 1LT.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2016 12:10 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 12:10:27 -0500

Lt. You seem to know a lot about the strategic flow of the chem corp. can you tell me what a USAR CBRNE BN looks like know the most current reg is pre90's

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 7 at 2016 1:48 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 13:48:01 -0500

FDU = Food Unit?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 5:42 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:42:58 -0500

I havent had a chance to read through the new FDU as im assisting in standing up a new hazard response company on fort carson. How I've had it briefed to me is that the cw2 will not assume XO duties, those duties will be split amongst the 3 PL's. I think having a CW2 in the company as an SME is a great move. But what do i know.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 7:25 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:25:19 -0500

I am the Ops officer in a NG CERFP decon unit. I am being phased out for a CW. All I know is that a chief is not going to want to do my job. The CO is going to hate life when he is doing both.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 7:25 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:25:21 -0500

I am the Ops officer in a NG CERFP decon unit. I am being phased out for a CW. All I know is that a chief is not going to want to do my job. The CO is going to hate life when he is doing both.

Response by SGT Thomas Heeter made Feb 10 at 2016 10:48 AM

SGT Thomas Heeter — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:48:02 -0500

When I was Active duty, the position of the 1LT was actually given to me, since I was subject matter expert at the time. I think the position should still be the XO but I also remember when I hand to reduce the man power in half at each site. Only benefit I see in increase Soldiers over NBCRV's is more manpower and of course the accessibility of personal into sites over the NBCRV. Although the RV is necessary to help transport, so not sure why they would remove the RV's.

Response by COL Robert Stein made Feb 10 at 2016 2:32 PM

COL Robert Stein — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:32:36 -0500

LT. That is a good question...the answer should be rooted in the requirements for a CBRN company. I have worked with many great Warrant Officers but they are not trained to be XOs. XO is the normal progression for a commissioned officer. Placing a Warrant Officer in a job that their career path did not prepare them for weakens the force and not allowing the officers to be XOs weakens the force. It will not be a sudden decline. Company commanders are not trained Joint Response Team members so the
HRPs will be poorly trained. Tech escort is not hard but does require expensive training to be proficient.

Response by MAJ Emma Toops made Feb 11 at 2016 11:30 AM

MAJ Emma Toops — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:30:37 -0500

I served before Chem Corps had Warrant Officers; however, I thought it was about damn time when the Corps finally got there. I had a Marine CBRN Warrant in my Captain's Course in 2001 and thought, why hasn't the Army done that? There are plenty of CHEMO's who are self-professed non-science people, so the technical aspect of the job is not all that fun for them. Warrants are SMEs who totally dig the technical stuff. I happen to be a CHEMO who digs the science stuff, but I know that my technical expertise is not what it could be because I was a Staff Officer for most of my career.

Warrant Officers are meant to be technical experts, so having the CBRN Ops Officer be a warrant makes sense. The XO is a manager and coordinator of resources. They have to be adept at human resources and multi-function coordination and collaboration. They need to know enough about the technical stuff to resource and coordinate appropriately. Not that a warrant can't be good at being an XO; however, being that they had a choice to become either a warrant or a commissioned officer, it is obvious that they prefer the technical side (not the staff side) of CBRN.

Response by SGM (R) Antonio Brown made Feb 12 at 2016 12:25 AM

SGM (R) Antonio Brown — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:25:17 -0500

The Force Design Update is a good thing. Our Warrant Officer program is young and we are placing the Warrant Officers where they will do some good. The Warrant Officer is the technical expert for the organization and should be performing duties of an "XO". The WO can cover the maintenance and be the UMO while the other duties that were once performed by the XO can be spread out among the Operations, Training, and Supply NCOs.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2017 9:27 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:27:59 -0400

I am a CBRN Plans officer and we are trying to MDMP for a warfighter and we got a Hazard Response Company in our Task ORD. Is there anyone one that I can and get actual info on a HAP because the MTOE doesn't help at all.