[Razor]

So, back to the concept plan. Level 1 training is, as I mentioned, a one work-week course (40 hours, 8 hours a day). It covers Chapter 3 in the FM, which covers mounts, guards, side control, body positioning moves and drills to reinforce these skills. No weapons integration, no armed strikes.

Level 2 teaches advanced ground fighting, and again includes no use of weapons or strikes (except for unarmed techniques). It is an 80 hour (two week) course--see likelihood that a unit will give up an NCO for a 40 hour course. I'd like to quote something from the FM in the advanced ground fighting chapter regarding ending the fight that I think is particularly pertinent--"The most effective way to incapacitate an enemy is to choke him into unconciousness". I'm of the opinion that if by incapacitation you mean ending the fight (and this guy doesn't need to be detained), the most effective way is by destroying part of his CNS as quickly as possible. A choke might do it, over time, but I wouldn't ever call that the 'most effective'.

Level 3 is 160 hours (only taught at Ft Benning), and is the first instructor-qualifying level that can be used to run a unit program. It produces a bn-level 'master trainer' that can only bring local troops to Level 2. This NCO is responsible for the training of up to 800 soldiers in Level 1 skills only, and so is usually at the E-7 level. This level is the first level to introduce use the inclusion of weapons, infantry skills and CQB skills, which I guarantee are taught only to those soldiers that have shown aptitude in Level 1 and 2 training. I'd also mention that its very rare a unit would dedicate one of its NCOs on staff solely to combatives, so this guy/gal is probably also working in at least one other staff position that has higher priority (Air NCO, Training NCO, unit readiness NCO, supply NCO, etc ad nauseum).

Level 4 is also only taught at Ft Benning and also a month-long course. It focuses on training management at the installation (entire post, i.e. Ft Drum in its entirety, and all units assigned there), and doesn't train the NCO in skill-specific training. Its primary objective is to produce an NCO that can ensure the proper, safe, well-designed training courses that bn-level master trainers are creating. This guy, while he has received the other 3 levels, is again probably not a dedicated combatives guy, and is juggling 3-4 other jobs, so you can guess how much attention he's paying to combatives training in the bns

Back to cost, the MACP course had a one-time start up cost of $125K, to include bags, mats and training gear to teach 37 soldiers in Levels 1 & 2 (let me remind you that these do not produce unit trainers), and 36 soldiers in Levels 3 & 4 (remember Level 4 NCOs aren't really focusing on training troops). A post looking to run a combatives program at home station will also require equipment to safely conduct this training. Let's be generous and assume that the post gym already has extra mats (which are often already claimed for other programs), so we can divide the $125K by, say, half. That means someone has to convince the post commander that he needs to approve spending almost $63K on a program that probably isn't a high priority to him. If you've ever worked on a division or installation staff, you know the low probability of that. Then the school mentioned a sustainment cost of $24K. Sustainment costs can probably be directly transferred to installation-level costs, but even 2/3s of it is pretty high for a low-priority skill. Sure, there are lots of other courses run by the Army at home stations that cost more, but almost all are mandated by Dept. of the Army. Currently, combatives isn't. There's an old Army saying that "what the boss checks is what get's done". If its not mandated by DA, and the post or bde commander isn't a big combatives buff, its unlikely its going to be implemented.

That, ladies and gentlemen, the the 'reality' of reality-based training in the Army. Sorry it was so long, but I felt there was a HUGE aspect not being taken into account in much of the discussion thus far. I fully agree a component of ground fighting should be taught, but IMO the BJJ-based system currently in use is far too ground fighting based, and is far too difficult to obtain proficiency for your average Joe that isn't conducting reinforcement training on a regular basis.

And there you have it, from my perspective. Like I said Yurk, please feel free to correct any of my misconceptions regarding the program POI, implementation from post to unit level, or any other facts about the program.