Physical fitness is a cornerstone of military effectiveness. Yet, how we assess and improve it can differ significantly between armies. In the UK, the Soldier Conditioning Review (SCR) presents an alternative to the Australian Army's Basic Fitness Assessment (BFA); one which prioritises a holistic, ongoing ‘review’ of physical fitness. Could the Australian Army benefit from a similar approach?
Shortfalls of the BFA and PESA
The BFA has been a longstanding measure of baseline fitness in the Australian Army. Many have previously commented on the BFA and its changes over the years; its standards have been lowered, how infrequently it’s conducted, and that it’s no longer a barrier to completion of recruit training; ultimately questioning the BFA’s suitability as a measure of combat fitness and deployability.
Proposed in 2012, the Physical Employment Standards Assessment (PESA) was introduced to address some of these shortcomings by assessing a soldier’s ability to perform role-specific tasks, such as load carriage and fire and movement, all while wearing combat equipment. However, despite its focus on operational tasks, the PESA faces similar critiques; it’s done more infrequently than the BFA, measures a “minimum standard” and is not “directly related to mission capability”. Further, since the results of the BFA and PESA are rarely tracked and managed by commanders at the sub-unit level and below, it is not often possible for personnel to strive for higher tiers of performance or improve on their scores from the year prior.
While others have proposed alternate, more advanced PT assessment programs as one solution to these problems, could another, simpler solution, be found in the UK Army’s SCR?
A Holistic Approach
The most significant difference between the SCR and the BFA is the diversity of the exercises. The BFA’s narrow focus on sit-ups, push-ups, and running captures only part of what fitness entails on the modern battlefield.
The SCR, however, includes a broad range of exercises such as:
- Broad jump (for lower body explosive power),
- Seated medicine ball throw (for upper body strength),
- Hex bar deadlift (to assess lower body strength),
- 3 x Shuttle sprints (to measure anaerobic capacity),
- Pull-ups (for upper body strength), and
- A 2 km run (for aerobic capacity).
This broader range of exercises gives a more complete picture of a soldier’s physical capabilities, from explosive power to endurance and strength.
The SCR: A Review, Not an Assessment
The Australian Army’s BFA is typically conducted once a year, and soldiers must meet a minimum standard to remain compliant with the conditions of their service. While the standard required to pass the BFA changes based on gender and age, there’s no way of discerning the standard of fitness beyond a mere ‘pass’ or ‘fail’.
In contrast, the SCR is conducted multiple times a year and isn’t designed to be a pass or fail assessment. This difference in attitude towards fitness is even in the name; it’s a ‘review’, not an ‘assessment’. Personnel are marked 1-15 for each element of the SCR based upon their performance and receive an overall score based on a traffic light system:
- Green means excellent physical conditioning.
- Amber indicates satisfactory levels. However, some areas may require improvement.
- Red suggests that significant improvement is needed in certain areas.
Soldiers conduct the SCR multiple times a year and are encouraged to improve their scores from the last SCR, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses across several fitness components. Additionally, soldiers are given a matrix of scores (based on factors like repetitions, distances, and weights) to generate a more complete picture of fitness, rather than a simple binary outcome.
A Tool for Leaders
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the SCR is its utility beyond compliance. Conducted multiple times throughout the year, the SCR gives commanders detailed insights into the strengths and weaknesses of their teams. Compare this to the BFA; once soldiers pass, there is little follow-up until the next year’s assessment.
Instead of treating fitness assessments as an administrative burden to be ticked off annually, the SCR allows PT sessions to be tailored to address specific areas needing improvement. Over time, the same unit-level data helps track the progress of soldiers and ensures that fitness programs are yielding results.
Implementing a Similar System in the Australian Army
The Australian Army could benefit from adopting elements of the SCR, namely:
- Diversifying the assessment – expanding beyond the BFA’s limited three exercises to include a more diverse set of measures, such as those incorporating strength and agility, would give a fuller picture of soldiers’ overall fitness.
- Regular, holistic reviews – Fitness reviews could be conducted multiple times a year. This would shift the focus from an annual compliance check to an ongoing review process.
- Command-level tracking – fitness assessments could be tracked at all levels of command, especially the platoon and sub-unit levels. Doing so would empower leaders with up-to-date information about their soldiers’ physical abilities, which could then be used to tailor unit PT programs more effectively.
- Incorporating ‘levels of performance’ – rather than being a pass/fail assessment, changing the language in Australia’s BFA to capture levels of performance would provide opportunities for both soldiers and commanders to get actionable feedback on their fitness levels and provide areas for improvement.
A Cultural Shift in Fitness
What the SCR ultimately offers isn’t just a new set of exercises or another type of test – it’s a shift in how fitness is viewed and managed across the UK Army. By implementing more frequent, diverse, and holistic fitness reviews (not ‘assessments’), the Australian Army could take a step towards modernising its approach to fitness.
However, commanders can implement additional components IAW elective fitness assessments replicating the suggestive changes in this article. This is easily remedied, we just need a culture shift not an introduction to resource and administrative intensive procedures.
WRT BFAs it is a replicable standard of measure of base line which should lead towards advanced conditioning to which deployability and unit needs fitness assessments should be created.
I would argue Commanders should seek PTI SME advice on how to replicate your suggestive piece into practice with already approved policies.
Another example is BFA PILs are still live but not a commonly used practice to which commanders should further award high fitness standards in PARs and relate them back to PILs for evidence on high performance.
Good article to provoke positive discussion.
1) The PFA (2 mins of press ups, 2 mins of sit ups, 1.5 mile run) could be conducted inside an hour for a sub unit without any kit. The SCR takes almost twice as long and requires the use of a full gymnasium which often creates bottlenecks on the kit even when conducting the exercises out of sequence (which is not supposed to happen).
2) The soldiers understood the standards for the PFA 100pts for each of the exercises. We had a reward system for maxing out all 300 pts called '300 club' which usually meant a free tshirt to wear advertising the physical prowess of the wearer. In contrast the 15 levels of the SCR are more opaque. Provided they aren't on level 1-2 they don't really care.
3) The cardio standard was reduced. In the old system you had to run 2.4km in 10 mins and 30 secs. The SCR asks soldiers to run 2km in 13 mins. So that's 400m less far in 2mins and 30 seconds longer.
4) The intention of the SCR as a diagnostic system was noble but this hasn't ended up being implemented. The results disappear into a computer system that generates a colour coded result pass/fail. Instead of identifying soldiers who need to focus on a particular component of fitness the SCR has become yet another tick box. The Role Fitness Test (which is a great measure of functional fitness) is the entry standard for military courses but soldiers are still required to be 'in date' for their SCR because its a box that can be ticked, even if they had literally just passed their RFT.
So what would fix this:
1) Having a bespoke SCR fitness suite that fits a platoon of soldiers on every camp. The sole purpose of this suite is to conduct the SCR thus keeping other gym spaces free for conventional PT and maintaining standards and safety.
2) Move the SCR recording onto an app which is accessible by mobile device. The PTI can enter the results with a code to avoid self awarding of superb results. The app can track progress over time, make suggestions for bespoke workouts and show the soldier's relative fitness against their peers by gender/age group in the Army as an additional motivator (with no other persona; data being presented - just 'you are in the top 25% of your gender and age group in you trade etc'
3) Start running at least one bespoke PT session a week that actually targets soldiers that need to improve certain components of fitness. The SCR data base will provide the names of those to the Chain of Command.
There are probably loads more but that's enough to keep the conversation going. There is nothing wrong with the SCR in theory but be careful about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
An interesting article which reflects the routine conversations by a lot of members throughout the army and enterprise. Particularly recurring discussions around standards, competition and reward.
The intent of a basic fitness assessment, despite its name, is a health measure to ensure that members are adequately conditioned to undergo training. This is why one must successfully pass a BFA prior to any medical reclassification assessment (the RFE - consisting of components of the PESA)
The BFA is an (almost) resource neutral assessment that can be completed anywhere in Australia (or the world). Including those who are not currently posted to units within the combat brigades.
Also, With this in mind, a member can train for a BFA without the need for any equipment. Even the introduction of pull-ups/heaves introduces a potential barrier.
By comparison, the PESA, or what you are proposing requires a resource heavy , likely PTI-led continuum. One that requires not only equipment but structured lead-up to ensure members are appropriately trained, monitored and prepared,
There is definitely a place for these sorts of activities, and this likely warrants review.
I would suggest, however that requiring members in instructional, staff or senior leadership positions to maintain these standards and be assessed is going to more difficult than you anticipate.