Army Reserve Restructuring

[GR66]

I tend to think a Nation with many islands, and interests in islands further south, should be able to put people ashore with minimal infrastructure.

I think it goes back to as @dataperson said - opportunity cost. What has to be given up in order to be able to have a Mistral-type ship in the fleet vs the utility it provides. Absolutely it provides utility. No argument there.

It takes a lot in terms of capital, personnel and maintenance to have this type of asset and it can only be in one place at a time. We have many places both in our territory and around the world where we may need to move assets and getting this ship there in a timely manner might not be easy. Since I'm fairly confident that Canada is not looking at using such a ship for a forceable entry type situation then how many likely missions that it might be used for could not also be done with existing air assets?

Yes there will be some situations where air delivery is not possible or sub-optimal, but is the likelihood/frequency of those scenarios worth the cost? Everything we want is a trade-off for some other capability. I love the idea but not convinced it would be worth the cost.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Took along "Stumbling Colossus" for something to read while not actively engaged in festivities over Christmas.

Effective mobilization can be difficult if the assumed/required infrastructure isn't a fact before the party kicks off. Command and mission churn is bad. Capabilities are easier to ramp up than to build from zero.

 

[MilEME09]

I think it goes back to as @dataperson said - opportunity cost. What has to be given up in order to be able to have a Mistral-type ship in the fleet vs the utility it provides. Absolutely it provides utility. No argument there.

It takes a lot in terms of capital, personnel and maintenance to have this type of asset and it can only be in one place at a time. We have many places both in our territory and around the world where we may need to move assets and getting this ship there in a timely manner might not be easy. Since I'm fairly confident that Canada is not looking at using such a ship for a forceable entry type situation then how many likely missions that it might be used for could not also be done with existing air assets?

Yes there will be some situations where air delivery is not possible or sub-optimal, but is the likelihood/frequency of those scenarios worth the cost? Everything we want is a trade-off for some other capability. I love the idea but not convinced it would be worth the cost.

look at it this way, if things kicked off in Latvia right now, or anywhere for that matter. How is the Canadian Army getting from point A to point B? we have no RoRo's, and not enough airlift to get a battlegroup of kit to the fight quickly, assuming there is even an airport open close enough for us to land our troops in. Small nations like Latvia, I do not think we would have the luxury of flying a battlegroup into Riga to reinforce, they would likely get shot down by long range AD. A mistral for example can carry 450 troops, and 70 vehicles, including MBT's, plus helicopters, and landing craft. It would likely be key to getting reinforcements across the pond in enough mass to make a difference.

Each ship also has a role 3 medical facility which would likely be the initial casualty collection and treatment point until a role 2 field hospital could be set up.

 

[KevinB]

I think it goes back to as @dataperson said - opportunity cost. What has to be given up in order to be able to have a Mistral-type ship in the fleet vs the utility it provides.

I’d suggest that back when it was suggested it was already clear that some of the Halifax frigates where in rough shape - moth balling two or three of those, then, and adding the Mistral would have made some cost savings and the PY requirement would not have been problematic.

Absolutely it provides utility. No argument there.

It takes a lot in terms of capital, personnel and maintenance to have this type of asset and it can only be in one place at a time. We have many places both in our territory and around the world where we may need to move assets and getting this ship there in a timely manner might not be easy.

I’d argue that the RCN probably should have 3 of these things, ideally 5, but I also accept realities of $ and personnel.

Since I'm fairly confident that Canada is not looking at using such a ship for a forceable entry type situation then how many likely missions that it might be used for could not also be done with existing air assets?

Air is $ and to be frank the RCAF doesn’t have a lot of transportation capacity, even with the recent addition of the MRTT fleet.

Yes there will be some situations where air delivery is not possible or sub-optimal, but is the likelihood/frequency of those scenarios worth the cost? Everything we want is a trade-off for some other capability. I love the idea but not convinced it would be worth the cost.

To me it’s simply another excuse for the GoC to use to not acting.

 

[MilEME09]

if you go back according to french media, originally we were seeking 2 new builds with the option of a third, then the russian ones came on the market and we looked at those. Hypothetically if we got 2, thats 900 troops, 140 vehicles, and two air dets we could move on our own.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I’d suggest that back when it was suggested it was already clear that some of the Halifax frigates where in rough shape - moth balling two or three of those, then, and adding the Mistral would have made some cost savings and the PY requirement would not have been problematic.



I’d argue that the RCN probably should have 3 of these things, ideally 5, but I also accept realities of $ and personnel.


Air is $ and to be frank the RCAF doesn’t have a lot of transportation capacity, even with the recent addition of the MRTT fleet.


To me it’s simply another excuse for the GoC to use to not acting.

Bingo!
And it's not actually the politicians in this case.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I’d suggest that back when it was suggested it was already clear that some of the Halifax frigates where in rough shape - moth balling two or three of those, then, and adding the Mistral would have made some cost savings and the PY requirement would not have been problematic.



I’d argue that the RCN probably should have 3 of these things, ideally 5, but I also accept realities of $ and personnel.


Air is $ and to be frank the RCAF doesn’t have a lot of transportation capacity, even with the recent addition of the MRTT fleet.


To me it’s simply another excuse for the GoC to use to not acting.

We weren’t in great shape then (Frigates were just coming out of refit and the 280s and steamers were just about done). That being said we were in much better shape than the current Navy. Something like the mistrals could have potentially reduced the bleed and we might be in better shape now.

 

[GR66]

look at it this way, if things kicked off in Latvia right now, or anywhere for that matter. How is the Canadian Army getting from point A to point B? we have no RoRo's, and not enough airlift to get a battlegroup of kit to the fight quickly, assuming there is even an airport open close enough for us to land our troops in. Small nations like Latvia, I do not think we would have the luxury of flying a battlegroup into Riga to reinforce, they would likely get shot down by long range AD. A mistral for example can carry 450 troops, and 70 vehicles, including MBT's, plus helicopters, and landing craft. It would likely be key to getting reinforcements across the pond in enough mass to make a difference.

Each ship also has a role 3 medical facility which would likely be the initial casualty collection and treatment point until a role 2 field hospital could be set up.

If things were to kick off in Latvia we'd need to contract commercial shipping to transport our heavy equipment...just like we would have had to do throughout the entire Cold War. Even if we had a Mistral or two I seriously doubt that we'd risk sending them into the Baltic in the middle of a shooting war, so just like commercial ships they would be unloading in a safe port to the West of the war zone and moving by land to Latvia. Also I'd hardly consider 70 vehicles (including up to 13 MBTs) and 450 troops as "enough mass to make a difference" in a full scale war between Russia and NATO.

Again, I'm not saying that this type of vessel isn't useful or doesn't provide unique capabilities that could definitely come in handy but given the current state of the RCN I think you'd end up having to give up too much in other core areas in order to add them to the fleet. Some are suggesting that IF we had purchased them back when the Russian hulls were originally offered that maybe the retention issues wouldn't be as bad as they are now but that's really just speculation and "what ifs" don't really have any bearing on the reality of today.

Hell, I'd love to have a fleet of 15 x CSC's, a dozen or so Corvettes, River II-class patrol ships to replace the Kingston's, 6 x AOPS, 3 x JSS (plus Asterix and Obelix), a dozen SSNs, plus 3 x Mistrals with a Marine Regiment to embark on them...I also wish I had Elon Musk's money, George Clooney's looks and Shania Twain on my arm but neither of these scenarios are going to happen as much as I wish them to.

 

[daftandbarmy]

But CT is impossible so...

 

[FJAG]

You've revived my favourite thread.

I still maintain that if we had two RegF classes of service, both of which are liable for operational deployments but one which has unrestricted terms of service which allow involuntary postings and a second one which provided that the individual could not be posted involuntarily in exchange for limits to promotions and perhaps certain allowance adjustments then you would probably get several thousand Class B's transferring immediately and an increased uptick in recruiting in major urban areas where individuals already have an established presence.

It would facilitate and require the ability to move certain RegF units to urban centres.

 

[MilEME09]

That would require buying land, building new infrastructure, training areas etc. Or maybe be smarter with what we have, Since the British left, Suffield has been grossly under used and wouldn't require to much to get a unit or two there.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You've revived my favourite thread.



It would facilitate and require the ability to move certain RegF units back to urban centres.

FIFY

 

[daftandbarmy]

That would require buying land, building new infrastructure, training areas etc. Or maybe be smarter with what we have, Since the British left, Suffield has been grossly under used and wouldn't require to much to get a unit or two there.

Because we still must embrace a policy of condemning our Regular land forces to perpetual internal exile, to places like Suffield, because there's no way we would want to have to travel to a live firing field training area, right?

 

[OldSolduer]

Because we still must embrace a policy of condemning our Regular land forces to perpetual internal exile, to places like Suffield, because there's no way we would want to have to travel to a live firing field training area, right?

The thing about that is instead of just packing up and deploying to the trg area you have to go through a shit ton of staff work to deploy from a city to Wainwright or Suffield. THAT in itself gets the staff thinking and the troops on rail parties, road parties etc. ALL stuff you need in a real Army.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The thing about that is instead of just packing up and deploying to the trg area you have to go through a shit ton of staff work to deploy from a city to Wainwright or Suffield. THAT in itself gets the staff thinking and the troops on rail parties, road parties etc. ALL stuff you need in a real Army.

 

[MilEME09]

The thing about that is instead of just packing up and deploying to the trg area you have to go through a shit ton of staff work to deploy from a city to Wainwright or Suffield. THAT in itself gets the staff thinking and the troops on rail parties, road parties etc. ALL stuff you need in a real Army.

Almost as if maybe we shouldn't have ripped up the rail head decades ago that went to CFB edmonton?

 

[OldSolduer]

Almost as if maybe we shouldn't have ripped up the rail head decades ago that went to CFB edmonton?

And the runway??

 

[Kirkhill]

The thing about that is instead of just packing up and deploying to the trg area you have to go through a shit ton of staff work to deploy from a city to Wainwright or Suffield. THAT in itself gets the staff thinking and the troops on rail parties, road parties etc. ALL stuff you need in a real Army.

BATUS

1972 to 2021

250 MUKP per year.
5 to 10,000 troops per year.
Units staged through on 4 week courses between May and September.

....ish

 

[markppcli]

And the runway??

Runway is still there. No idea if it’s flyable but it’s not ripped up.

 

[dapaterson]

Runway is still there. No idea if it’s flyable but it’s not ripped up.

The buildings at the end of the runway have rendered it unusable.