• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

KevinB said:
With equipment yes
Click to expand...
at roughly 500 per Bn those Artillery Bdes are 2000 people each. That would be an army with 30,000 in just the artillery. I’m curious to know what your plan is to man these Bdes.
 
markppcli said:
at roughly 500 per Bn those Artillery Bdes are 2000 people each. That would be an army with 30,000 in just the artillery. I’m curious to know what your plan is to man these Bdes.
Click to expand...
Sorry I goofed on Bde - I had meant Bn/Bde’s

Haven’t had coffee yet
 
KevinB said:
Sorry I goofed on Bde - I had meant Bn/Bde’s

Haven’t had coffee yet
Click to expand...
As a man who’s never once made a typo on this site I will graciously forgive you.

Ten Bns is probably doable. Well maybe. I think the whole Army Reserve is probably 10-15 Bns when you actually dig into who’s effective.
 
dapaterson said:
#Optimist
Click to expand...
Years ago 30 Fd could put an entire Bty to the field - 6 guns, FOO’s, Recce Party with alt, and Main CP with alt. Plus vehicle tech and weapons techs.

It also had the same equipment at the time as 2RCHA (for the most part) and an Op task to them. As equipment divestment occurs - less and less folks want to invest time to the Reserves as the training excitement and enjoyment isn’t there.

I suspect if the PRes had modern equipment and a real role was put forward you would see a lot more people headed to PRes recruiting.
 
Today, the three artillery units in 33 CBG combined have just over 200 personnel, all ranks, including those not yet trained.
 
KevinB said:
I’d like to see 10 Field Arty Bn’s
4 / DIV (using a 2 DIV structure) with 3 CS tube and 1 GS Rocket per DIV, and 2 ‘extra’ Rocket (HIMARS) for ‘Corps’.

As well as 5 ADA Bn’s - 1 / DIV of Medium/Short Range, plus another to support RCAF forward deployment, 1 Medium/Long and a THAAD Bn for Corps/Theatre support as well as Cdn Domestic security.

I think all the above should be doable for the CAF.
Click to expand...
That comes out to 15 total and at roughly 550 per battalion plus let's say 3 additional Bde Support Bns that seriously exceeds the current ARE for ARes gunners (and logistics pers)

While I tend to think in terms of two divisions, I only consider one of those as a potential for expeditionary operations in an extreme situation. The second division I see as more a force generation organization for the deployed division and to conduct BG and at most bde tasks in Canada or elsewhere. I do not see it as a deployable force employer itself. Again, all of this is based on existing CA size and without any increase in size.

That leaves me with one arty bde that should be deployable as an arty bde with its organic Bde Sp Bn. I had some question as to whether to even have a second arty bde in the second division since I never planned on it deploying but eventually decided it was necessary for organizational purposes but because it wasn't expected to deploy, I left it without a Bde Sp Bn.

Just as a reminder, here's a depiction of that. Ignore the RegF to ResF ratios as I was playing with a reduced RegF PY structure - with the full, current number of PYs, 2 CMBG and 5 CMBG have a total of three 100% bns plus some additional groups. Note this uses my 8 bn (6 tube, 1 LRPF, and 1 AD model.)

00 CA 5.0.png
markppcli said:
Ten Bns is probably doable. Well maybe. I think the whole Army Reserve is probably 10-15 Bns when you actually dig into who’s effective.
Click to expand...

Based on the current RegF PYs (4 Regts) and ResF ARE (roughly 17 Regts) there are enough positions allocated to form 4 x RegF and 6 x ResF bns (or 10 x hybrid bns) at roughly 550 each. So yeah. 10 bns is feasible. But that would need the entire arty ARE to be put on paid status and fully recruited.

As @dapaterson points out, the numbers are dismal and far below paid strength. He mentions 33 Bde (30 Fd, 42 Fd and 49 Fd - total ARE the last time I looked at 447 but slightly over 200) is still better than 38 Bde's arty - which is ARE'd at 426 and actually stand at 118 including almost 25% still in DP1 training.

I keep saying, the entire PRes needs a massive overhaul in order to become effective. It's not that hard, but first there needs to be a will.

🍻
 
The PRes does need a massive overhaul, but then so does the RegF to get rid of the farce that is Symmetrical Brigades.

I like the 2 Division concept, but I think they should be 2 deployable Divisions, mainly as I don’t think they should be symmetrical. Even if the second one requires time to deploy.

Like @FJAG I like the 30/70 concept, for a lot of the force, and can flip to 70/30 for higher readiness requirements.

All requires equipment, as no one wants to join an entity that doesn’t have a real mission, and you cannot realistically assign a mission without equipment and training.
 
KevinB said:
The PRes does need a massive overhaul, but then so does the RegF to get rid of the farce that is Symmetrical Brigades.

I like the 2 Division concept, but I think they should be 2 deployable Divisions, mainly as I don’t think they should be symmetrical. Even if the second one requires time to deploy.

Like @FJAG I like the 30/70 concept, for a lot of the force, and can flip to 70/30 for higher readiness requirements.

All requires equipment, as no one wants to join an entity that doesn’t have a real mission, and you cannot realistically assign a mission without equipment and training.
Click to expand...
Real mission and real equipment
 
If only we could have some government officials draft a paper, perhaps white in colour detailing how the military should be structured and what needs to be bought and then carrying out those reforms. Best we can do is 100 aspirational points in an Amazon wishlist of a defence policy update.
 
KevinB said:
The PRes does need a massive overhaul, but then so does the RegF to get rid of the farce that is Symmetrical Brigades.

I like the 2 Division concept, but I think they should be 2 deployable Divisions, mainly as I don’t think they should be symmetrical. Even if the second one requires time to deploy.

Like @FJAG I like the 30/70 concept, for a lot of the force, and can flip to 70/30 for higher readiness requirements.

All requires equipment, as no one wants to join an entity that doesn’t have a real mission, and you cannot realistically assign a mission without equipment and training.
Click to expand...
When you look at my 1 Div structure its designed around 1 CMBG being broken up into 3 brigades (each with one tank and 2 mech infantry bns - 3 PPCLI moves to Petawawa as an airborne bn) in such a way that every unit in the division has one full RegF coy, 1/3 of a RegF CS company and better than 50% of a RegF HQ. The ResF forms either 2 or 3 rifle coys and 2/3 of the CS coy while a Bde Svc Bn (Bde Support Bn) holds the CSS companies for everyone at a 30/70 basis.

The three bdes provide whatever rotations are needed for Latvia and in a pinch, can be collectively aggregated into a complete 100% RegF brigade (in essence a war-time Roto 0) The primary intent however is that within each battalion there are enough equipped RegF pers to develop their own career specialties and also mentor and train the ResF companies and draw on them for peace-time roto augmentation.

2 Div has more varied peacetime roles but is capable of raising 3 x 100% RegF light inf bns (2 of which are airborne), 2 x 100% RegF mech inf bns, 1 x 100% RegF Recce bns and 1 x 100% RegF artillery bn. The aim, however is to do the smaller BG level operations needed during peacetime through the generation of RegF Bn HQs, and subordinate coys/sqns/bties that are augmented by ResF personnel. Again there is enough of a RegF pers and eqpt presence in each bn to train both RegF and ResF.

The long term intent is that with a structure in place, over time, equipment can be acquired to arm the whole force. For example, if an IFV is acquired for the 1 Div units then the equivalent of 4 bns worth of LAVs can be transferred to 2 Div to flesh out their ResF companies. Similalry for artillery, if SPs are purchased for 1 Div then a dozen or so M777s can be transferred to 2 Div.

🍻
 
KevinB said:
Years ago 30 Fd could put an entire Bty to the field - 6 guns, FOO’s, Recce Party with alt, and Main CP with alt. Plus vehicle tech and weapons techs.

It also had the same equipment at the time as 2RCHA (for the most part) and an Op task to them. As equipment divestment occurs - less and less folks want to invest time to the Reserves as the training excitement and enjoyment isn’t there.

I suspect if the PRes had modern equipment and a real role was put forward you would see a lot more people headed to PRes recruiting.
Click to expand...
Same with 15th Fd Regt. We regularly fielded a 6 gun battery as a OP Tasked unit and were airlifted twice to Shilo with all our guns and trucks.

I don't see the M119 as just a training gun, I see it as a gun we know the Reserves can easily use and will not strain the support ecosystem. It may not be the most viable system, but it's not just a training gun. The number I mentioned was to give us some form of war stock, because it's clear a war like Ukraine will burn through all the guns we have in short order. You need the guns you want and the ones I want to have any depth and war stocks.
As far as personal goes, it's a wonder anybody bothers to show up at all. The government and the senior leaders have made it clear there is no one is giving a shit about the Reserve artillery. So people read the tea leaves and walk. With the looming cuts that are coming, I have absolute faith that any plan to bolster Reserve artillery is going into the bin as it is not sexy/important enough. In fact the only hope I can see is if SK offers to provide us with some refurbished M101's to sweeten a KS-III sub buy.
I am jaded, I don't have any faith whatsoever. I dearly hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
The government and the senior leaders have made it clear there is no one is giving a shit about the Reserve artillery.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly accurate and I'll send you a link to a document which is open source but I don't want to put onto this forum so that you can see the issues.

I have some optimism but its not on the scale that I would like.

🍻
 
FJAG said:
That's not exactly accurate and I'll send you a link to a document which is open source but I don't want to put onto this forum so that you can see the issues.

I have some optimism but its not on the scale that I would like.

🍻
Click to expand...
If it's open source why not post it. Teasing us haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top