Army Reserve Restructuring

[Brad Sallows]

The Regs I think would be happy to give the TAPV’s to the Reserves. Which I think speaks volumes.

A couple of years from now...

"See, we gave you guys armoured vehicles and you couldn't maintain them. QED."

 

[daftandbarmy]

A couple of years from now...

"See, we gave you guys armoured vehicles and you couldn't maintain them. QED."

AVGP/ Grizzly enters the chat...

AVGP â ARMOUR FOR THE RESERVES

A blog about contemporary defence issues from a Canadian perspective.

jgmjgm516.blogspot.com

 

[RedFive]

A couple of years from now...

"See, we gave you guys armoured vehicles and you couldn't maintain them. QED."

Anybody remember my arguments? No? Cool...

 

[KevinB]

Anybody remember my arguments? No? Cool...

I rejected them FWIW. I think your enamored with the idea, as opposed to viewing the viability.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Right now there is zero sense in buying significant equipment for the PRes.

Are we talking about buying significant equipment for the PRes, or significant equipment to enable a proper Total Force concept, as part of transformational change?

Edmonton would capture most of 41 CBG, Shilo - 38 CBG, Petawawa - 33 CBG, Valcartier - 35 CBG and Gagetown - some of 37 CBG and possibly some of 36 CBG.

The CBG's that are not geographically located near the Reg Force Army Bases just happen to be located around our major population centres where we can draw the most recruits from. Ideal for 30/70 or 10/90 units.

As GR lays out
PRes (and the supporting population pools) can be dispassionately broken into 3 pools
A- collocated (or close enough) to where we already have bases with Lav Bn's plus (at minimum) other elements
B- major population centres representing severely underutilized reservist mass AND an underrecruited population
C- pareto inefficient orphans

A- Calgary/Edmonton, Winnipeg/Brandon, NCR, Quebec City Region, New Brunswick Nova Scotia
B- Lower Mainland/Interior of BC, Southern Ontario, Montreal Region*
C- Regina/Saskatoon, Northern Ontario, Newfoundland

So the questions are, how can we use make best use of available infrastructure and RegF PY's to make better use of those respective pools?
A is easy the local CBG's come under their RegF unit(s) to round out (near term) expand to 120-140% strength (long term).
B- The "straightforward" approach would be to use the LIB's+ as the bones to build 3x 30/70 Light (motorized) Bde's
C- 10/90 Arctic Response Unit? Specific war-time enablers/ Bde/Div assets for the mech force?

 

[FJAG]

Are we talking about buying significant equipment for the PRes, or significant equipment to enable a proper Total Force concept, as part of transformational change?

We might be here but no one in Ottawa is.

As GR lays out
PRes (and the supporting population pools) can be dispassionately broken into 3 pools
A- collocated (or close enough) to where we already have bases with Lav Bn's plus (at minimum) other elements
B- major population centres representing severely underutilized reservist mass AND an underrecruited population

C- pareto inefficient orphans

Not sure what you meant here - I presume small isolated units. Note that the ARNG and USAR have pretty decent success in locating small utilitarian armouries in small towns for company strength logistics and support units. They even have company level combat arms unit generally tied to battalions tying together several small communities.

A- Calgary/Edmonton, Winnipeg/Brandon, NCR, Quebec City Region, New Brunswick Nova Scotia
B- Lower Mainland/Interior of BC, Southern Ontario, Montreal Region*
C- Regina/Saskatoon, Northern Ontario, Newfoundland

So the questions are, how can we use make best use of available infrastructure and RegF PY's to make better use of those respective pools?

A is easy the local CBG's come under their RegF unit(s) to round out (near term) expand to 120-140% strength (long term).

B- The "straightforward" approach would be to use the LIB's+ as the bones to build 3x 30/70 Light (motorized) Bde's

That's the least cost approach but misses the fact that Canada's current major commitment is to the Baltics. That requires forces structured towards the heavy. That requires a more extensive and complex program. Notwithstanding the difficulties, a proper capabilities requirement analysis would steer you away from the reserves as light forces and more to heavy and logistics.

C- 10/90 Arctic Response Unit? Specific war-time enablers/ Bde/Div assets for the mech force?

IMHO ARes based Arctic response units are a bone thrown at the reserves as a pretend mission that the RegF doesn't want.

Don't get me wrong. I think that we need Arctic and coastal response units ut the first wave needs to be highly trained and well equipped and supported RegF quick reaction forces. They could be supported by follow up elements from the ARes who are also well equipped and supported. By that I mean more than issuing them a 10 man tent and toboggan. I mean good comms gear, vehicles that operate in Arctic terrain in all seasons, air support, logistic caches - the list goes on and on.

Re the "war time enablers" - I agree that the enablers are a large role they can fill. IMHO they should also form much of the strength of the manoeuvre forces as well.

 

[markppcli]

Are we talking about buying significant equipment for the PRes, or significant equipment to enable a proper Total Force concept, as part of transformational change?

As GR lays out
PRes (and the supporting population pools) can be dispassionately broken into 3 pools
A- collocated (or close enough) to where we already have bases with Lav Bn's plus (at minimum) other elements
B- major population centres representing severely underutilized reservist mass AND an underrecruited population
C- pareto inefficient orphans

A- Calgary/Edmonton, Winnipeg/Brandon, NCR, Quebec City Region, New Brunswick Nova Scotia
B- Lower Mainland/Interior of BC, Southern Ontario, Montreal Region*
C- Regina/Saskatoon, Northern Ontario, Newfoundland

This is a good way to look at it, but I’d put Nova Scotia / the Maritimes as a whole in category B - as regions that could, based on current numbers, support a Bn sized organization.

So the questions are, how can we use make best use of available infrastructure and RegF PY's to make better use of those respective pools?
A is easy the local CBG's come under their RegF unit(s) to round out (near term) expand to 120-140% strength (long term).
B- The "straightforward" approach would be to use the LIB's+ as the bones to build 3x 30/70 Light (motorized) Bde's
C- 10/90 Arctic Response Unit? Specific war-time enablers/ Bde/Div assets for the mech force?

C is tough, a lot of them should be supporteting the “B” scale areas ( Regina Saskatoon are probably a company is together, another company out of Manitoba).

This all works well with maneuver elements, I think for combat support and CSS probably individual capabilities is the right way to go. Things like HIMARs, ect can probably be manned through the reserves fairly well through dispersed sub units and sub sub units.

I think there’s a problem inherent with our reserve structure where you location determines the possible jobs you can do. How that could be solved I don’t know.

 

[Remius]

One issue is the availability and over use of Class B in certain areas. The NCR, St Jean, Gagetown, Kingston all take advantage of the easy button. Further depleting units of pers. Or having them on strength but they never show up.

A big part of that is changing the TOS for the CAF. I’m a proponent of full time/part time TOS. Class B should only be in direct support of PRES elements and units.

 

[dapaterson]

I think there’s a problem inherent with our reserve structure where you location determines the possible jobs you can do. How that could be solved I don’t know.

That's not insurmountable, but it's also not necessarily a problem. Life is suffering. Maybe the reality is that someone living in Carboneer can't be a Reserve crewman. Cry for a few hours, then go on with life.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think there’s a problem inherent with our reserve structure where you location determines the possible jobs you can do. How that could be solved I don’t know.

The biggest problem, of course, is low quality higher level leadership. The ARes are not alone in this regard, of course.

Where (many, but not all) of your most senior leaders are the members who:

• are the least qualified to do the jobs they have, and
• are both 'leadership and management skills' challenged, with little to no mentoring/training support available, and
• are the least accountable for their actions/ inaction because: their bosses are absent/unskilled/inexperienced senior leaders themselves

... you're always going to be in the hurt locker as a big organization, IMHO.

 

[markppcli]

That's not insurmountable, but it's also not necessarily a problem. Life is suffering. Maybe the reality is that someone living in Carboneer can't be a Reserve crewman. Cry for a few hours, then go on with life.

Right but in an organization plagued by man power issues, how many do we lose in say, Red Deer where they’d rather not do artillery? Or Kelowna where the only option is to be a crewman?

 

[MilEME09]

Right but in an organization plagued by man power issues, how many do we lose in say, Red Deer where they’d rather not do artillery? Or Kelowna where the only option is to be a crewman?

we also can't have remote platoons and sections everywhere like we did in the 50s, logistically its a nightmare. Let me flip that around though, how many do we lose in Calgary, a major metropolitan center, because arty is the only ARes trade not available?

 

[CountDC]

One issue is the availability and over use of Class B in certain areas. The NCR, St Jean, Gagetown, Kingston all take advantage of the easy button. Further depleting units of pers. Or having them on strength but they never show up.

A big part of that is changing the TOS for the CAF. I’m a proponent of full time/part time TOS. Class B should only be in direct support of PRES elements and units.

I have been preaching for about 30 years to do away with the Class B/C and use the Reg F fixed period TOS instead to cover positions if you need someone full time. Need someone for 2 years, fixed period TOS of 2 years. Types of Service - full time Reg F utilizing different TOS as needed and Cl A PRes at the units with short term temp Cl B for courses or taskings of 89 days maximum with no back to back tasking allowed. If you can justify a back to back tasking then you need to staff a fixed period TOS and stop screwing your members.

 

[markppcli]

we also can't have remote platoons and sections everywhere like we did in the 50s, logistically its a nightmare. Let me flip that around though, how many do we lose in Calgary, a major metropolitan center, because arty is the only ARes trade not available?

Probably a minimal amount. Having 4 options is probably more appealing than only one. I know what you mean about dispersed sections and platoons; however if we adopted a view that the armouries is just a training depot then various organizations can use it, and they can mass for training as needed. A two day training weekend, twice a month, is superior for that and frankly is more cost effective.

 

[MilEME09]

Probably a minimal amount. Having 4 options is probably more appealing than only one. I know what you mean about dispersed sections and platoons; however if we adopted a view that the armouries is just a training depot then various organizations can use it, and they can mass for training as needed. A two day training weekend, twice a month, is superior for that and frankly is more cost effective.

weekends will always be more cost effective because a weeknight you lose to much time to admin, oh you want weapons? minus 30 min on the front and back end to do weapons draw/return. Talking to my wifes grandfather, when he was in back in 58, it was two weekends a month, but also two night a week, Tuesday and thursdays back then. They got a lot more done in a training year.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Not sure what you meant here - I presume small isolated units. Note that the ARNG and USAR have pretty decent success in locating small utilitarian armouries in small towns for company strength logistics and support units. They even have company level combat arms unit generally tied to battalions tying together several small communities.

You presume correctly. The ARNG might be able to, maybe we should be able to, but is the juice worth the squeeze? Per dollar/PY spent there's way bigger opportunities and higher priorities than finding homes for/ treating everyone the same.

That's the least cost approach but misses the fact that Canada's current major commitment is to the Baltics. That requires forces structured towards the heavy. That requires a more extensive and complex program. Notwithstanding the difficulties, a proper capabilities requirement analysis would steer you away from the reserves as light forces and more to heavy and logistics.

I knew you would raise this point, but I counter with the end state of that program (if resourced properly) leaving us with 6x (Edm, Shilo, Pet, Val x2, Gagetown) Reinforced mechanized BG's to force generate for Europe. The reserves wouldn't be expanding the force in terms of unit count, but would in terms of overall depth and capabilty. if they provide an extra line coy, a mortar platoon, a AT platoon, 2nd Armoured and Engineering Squadron, 2nd gun bty, per BG, that's a significant heavy oriented reserve contribution, already requiring massive investment to equip.

 

[MilEME09]

You presume correctly. The ARNG might be able to, maybe we should be able to, but is the juice worth the squeeze? Per dollar/PY spent there's way bigger opportunities and higher priorities than finding homes for/ treating everyone the same.

I knew you would raise this point, but I counter with the end state of that program (if resourced properly) leaving us with 6x (Edm, Shilo, Pet, Val x2, Gagetown) Reinforced mechanized BG's to force generate for Europe. The reserves wouldn't be expanding the force in terms of unit count, but would in terms of overall depth and capabilty. if they provide an extra line coy, a mortar platoon, a AT platoon, 2nd Armoured and Engineering Squadron, 2nd gun bty, per BG, that's a significant heavy oriented reserve contribution, already requiring massive investment to equip.

Which when the Cal highs and LER sent a mortar platoon over, the CAF realized just how lacking equipment we are, especially when I heard stories that they forgot to ship the specialty tools and gauges to the weapons techs in Latvia for several months so they had to waiver the tubes because pre fire checks couldn't be completed.

 

[daftandbarmy]

weekends will always be more cost effective because a weeknight you lose to much time to admin, oh you want weapons? minus 30 min on the front and back end to do weapons draw/return. Talking to my wifes grandfather, when he was in back in 58, it was two weekends a month, but also two night a week, Tuesday and thursdays back then. They got a lot more done in a training year.

This has been discussed (alot) already but, having tried a variety of different schedules over the decades, the good old 'one weekend a month' always worked better.

The main reason was that the average A Res soldier is a student and can not reasonably be expected to take two weekends away from their studies, or other employment/ life commitments.

YMMV but, especially when the weeknight training was focused on battle prep for the weekend exercises, the approach seemed to work well.

 

[KevinB]

You presume correctly. The ARNG might be able to, maybe we should be able to, but is the juice worth the squeeze? Per dollar/PY spent there's way bigger opportunities and higher priorities than finding homes for/ treating everyone the same.

I knew you would raise this point, but I counter with the end state of that program (if resourced properly) leaving us with 6x (Edm, Shilo, Pet, Val x2, Gagetown) Reinforced mechanized BG's to force generate for Europe. The reserves wouldn't be expanding the force in terms of unit count, but would in terms of overall depth and capabilty. if they provide an extra line coy, a mortar platoon, a AT platoon, 2nd Armoured and Engineering Squadron, 2nd gun bty, per BG, that's a significant heavy oriented reserve contribution, already requiring massive investment to equip.

The idea that a BG is an appropriate entity needs to die.

I've been living in the US for the last two decades, there is no reason that the PRes cannot do anything the ARNG does - except willpower within the CA (and realistically some funding issues beyond the CA).

I know several dudes who drive over 4hrs to their unit, they don't need to parade weeknights, but have weekends, and Active Duty periods.

 

[KevinB]

This has been discussed (alot) already but, having tried a variety of different schedules over the decades, the good old 'one weekend a month' always worked better.

The main reason was that the average A Res soldier is a student and can not reasonably be expected to take two weekends away from their studies, or other employment/ life commitments.

YMMV but, especially when the weeknight training was focused on battle prep for the weekend exercises, the approach seemed to work well.

Honestly you can usually get bodies for advance party on Friday to do most everything needed - and some folks on a weeknight to help, but I don't see 1 weeknight a week being very practical or productive.

I did my recruit course over 3 months every weekend, and twice a week weeknights - as a student, it wasn't impossible. But honestly would have been better to ignore the weeknights - and simply do a few more weekends.

I think 8 weekend ex's and a mandatory 3 week summer concentration should be the standard -- of course that needs Federal Labour assistance like we do down here (and a bunch of stuff to help employers as well).