You are here

Technical note | LAND 121 Lightweight Vehicle Driver Conversion Course Study Using A-SMART


In this report we analyse Army's ability to conduct LAND 121 conversion training for the expected number of trainees in a timely manner. We make use of the Army Sustainability Modelling Analysis and Reporting Tool to forecast whether there is spare capacity (if any) for the required training staff to also instruct on the lightweight conversion course in addition to their other expected training responsibilities. Our modelling indicates that there is likely to be difficulty in sourcing the required Mechanic Vehicle - Corporal personnel to instruct on the conversion course; furthermore, there may be difficulty in sourcing the required Technician Electrical - Corporal instructors. It is recommended that the instructor establishment for Mechanic Vehicle - Corporal be increased by approximately two positions or for this role to be outsourced to contracted staff.


The introduction of the LAND 121 vehicle fleet requires relevant personnel to upgrade their skills on the new vehicle types by undertaking conversion training. This study investigates Army's ability to provide training to the expected number of trainees (approximately 2000 personnel) who will be required to undertake the Lightweight Vehicle Driver Conversion Course. We make use of the Army Sustainability Modelling Analysis and Reporting Tool (A-SMART) to investigate the capacity of the required instructor staff to provide the additional training on top of their usual training loads.

We have used historical recruitment and separation rates, career/training information and instructor/trainee availability limits to forecast training throughputs. The results show that of the five instructor types, Supervisor Transport CPL/SGT and Mechanic Vehicle SGT have sufficient spare instructor capacity; whereas Technician Electrical CPL has barely sufficient capacity and Mechanic Vehicle CPL has no spare capacity. Varying the historical recruitment and separation rates (± 25%) did not improve Mechanic Vehicle CPL instructor capacity. It is also noted that Mechanic Vehicle and Technician Electrical CPL are both trades that would deploy significant percentages of their unit establishments as a part of operational deployments (HQ Forces Command campaign plan) which would make it difficult to provide extra instructor staff from these trades/ranks.It is recommended that the instructor establishment would need to be increased by two positions or contracted staff sourced to provide the instructor role normally filled by Mechanic Vehicle CPL. It may also be necessary to create one extra instructor position for Technician Electrical CPL.

Key information


Matthew Richmond and Graham Schliebs

Publication number


Publication type

Technical note

Publish Date

February 2012


Unclassified - public release


Army Training; Training Needs Analysis; Army Modernisation; Ground Vehicles