# Force Symetry vs Capabiltiy concentration, from: the regiment as a regular force formation & explori



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Sep 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> I cannot speak for the Arty and the M777, but the Engrs are pushing to consolidate AEVs in 1 CER.



The Arty plan is to keep 3 Regiments with 2 Batteries of M777, 1 OP battery, and a STA Battery (with 2 coy level STA assets and 1 Div/Corps level asset) and 4 Arty Regiment, RCA as a STA/AD Regiment with SUAV, MRR, and a future AD assets of whatever sort is acquired.

M777s could be consolidated in one sport (1 or 2 Gun Regiments) with a UAV Regiment (MUAS and SUAS), TA Regiment (HALO, MRR-CB) and an air defence Regiment (MRR and future shooter) but I doubt that you would ever see such a structure devised.


----------



## GnyHwy (28 Sep 2014)

Consolidation only makes sense for garrison i.e. pooling equipment and the techs required to support them. I don't see any relevance for probable missions that we may take on. 

I see the symmetry of the Bdes solely as a sustainability (in war) solution.  We cannot have a Hvy Bde, Med Bde and Light Bde operating independently.  Who would replace them?  Themselves?  They would be incapable of sustaining themselves indefinitely.  They may be able to do a couple of rotos, but then what? 

I believe there is a misconception between actual tasks and skill sets to maintain. All the Bdes have them same task (like it or not).  It is only when you move onto skill sets to maintain (i.e. 2 Bde Light), that the solution becomes muddied.  Some of 2 Bde's persons may believe they are a Lt Bde, but they are not.

Perhaps I have drank the Kool-aid but I don't see the symmetrical structure as trying to be right, but rather, trying not to be so wrong that we cannot adapt.


----------



## Ostrozac (28 Sep 2014)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Perhaps I have drank the Kool-aid but I don't see the symmetrical structure as trying to be right, but rather, trying not to be so wrong that we cannot adapt.



We also have some recent history that once we concentrate a capability in one location, brigades will tend to exercise without it for cost reasons, and then the view becomes that since brigades don't exercise with it, it probably isn't a core capability, so come divesment time, off it goes.

This happened to our Air Defence guns, SP SAMs and MANPADs. It also happened to our TOW missiles (remember E Coy LdSH?). 1st Signals Regiment was removed from the Army, first to the DCDS, then CANOSCOM, now CJOC (who is not a force generator, except when it is).

For example if we keep all of our UAV in Gagetown, will they regularly be integrated into Brigade exercises? Or is there the risk that they will train in a silo of purely theoretical Division/Corps deep operations?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2014)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Consolidation only makes sense for garrison i.e. pooling equipment and the techs required to support them. I don't see any relevance for probable missions that we may take on.



That assumes that 6-8 year rotations of mechanized forces is the requirement for the next operation.  Also, by applying that assumption, there is a default to penny packet limited resources when penny packets may have questionable value to add to rotos.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Sep 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> We also have some recent history that once we concentrate a capability in one location, brigades will tend to exercise without it for cost reasons, and then the view becomes that since brigades don't exercise with it, it probably isn't a core capability, so come divesment time, off it goes.
> 
> This happened to our Air Defence guns, SP SAMs and MANPADs. It also happened to our TOW missiles (remember E Coy LdSH?). 1st Signals Regiment was removed from the Army, first to the DCDS, then CANOSCOM, now CJOC (who is not a force generator, except when it is).
> 
> For example if we keep all of our UAV in Gagetown, will they regularly be integrated into Brigade exercises? Or is there the risk that they will train in a silo of purely theoretical Division/Corps deep operations?



On the arty side, the entire point of maintaining a HALO and acquiring the MRR with a CB capability is to conduct deep operations. That's what they're for, so without a deep shooter (HIMARs, MLRS, etc) than they have only limited value. In fact, the emphasis on the MRR having a CB capability, as I was told by a high ranking type in DLR, was to allow Canada to gain a deep fires capability at a CORPS level that supposedly NATO requires us to have to counter ballistic missile threats (in this, the excalibur or CAS/AI would provide the depth fires at 40km). As Deep ops are a Div/Corps responsibility, it makes complete sense to not hold them in a Bde, but rather centralize them and exercise them at a DIV level during Maple Resolve. When AD comes back, if the decision is made to buy MANPADs than those could definately be a Bde asset and decentralized to the CMBGs, but if it is C-RAM/SHORAD and MRR than it should be centralized and kept at a Div level.


----------



## Monsoon (28 Sep 2014)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I see the symmetry of the Bdes solely as a sustainability (in war) solution.  We cannot have a Hvy Bde, Med Bde and Light Bde operating independently.  Who would replace them?  Themselves?  They would be incapable of sustaining themselves indefinitely.  They may be able to do a couple of rotos, but then what?


Well, doctrinally this is precisely the problem that having a reserve is intended to address.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Sep 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ....was to allow Canada to gain a deep fires capability at a CORPS level ....


Well, if nothing else there's finally some justification for CADTC (fmr-LFDTS) to be getting "Corps" badges on DEU where the rest of us are getting "Div" patches.   :


----------

