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

CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
Sorry Kev, but while you are free to interpret SSE as you find appropriate our civil servants, in and out of uniform, are likewise free to interpret that remit as they see fit. That is a feature not a bug.
Someone is going to tell MND etc my interpretation (or similar to that) and hard questions will get asked...

500 people in Latvia on a sustained deployment - requirement 1a met.
Stanavforlant/Euro Air Patrols - requirement 1b met.
Task Force standing in the GIUK gap or a Hornet deployment to Iceland - requirement 2 met.
A couple of small Companies with Lts Colonel in command attached to multi-national missions - requirement 3 met.
A couple more Company sized short term attachments - requirement 4 met
A DART in being - requirement 5 met
A NEO in being - requirement 6 met

And not a Battlegroup, Brigade, Brigade Group or Division in sight.
Yes close the lid on that box please ;)
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,932
Points
1,160
There is also this bit from SSE:
The flexibility to support small missions while remaining ready to conduct large operations is made possible by the brigade group structure of the Army. It is only at this level that it is possible to execute integrated joint operations with the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces, other government departments, NATO and other allies and partner forces, and non-governmental organizations.

But I argue that our commitment to “contribution warfare” has allowed us to convince ourselves that sending something & anything is more important than being able to send and sustain particular capabilities. The purpose of the CAF has become feel-good flag waving contingents.

We also learned bad lessons in Kandahar. We we able to fill the glory seat of lead nation because the US filled the role of framework nation. Now we want to lead in Latvia (which will be far more demanding if shooting starts) while investing fewer resources than we had in Kandahar (where we actually had a formation of Canadian units)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
The numbers outlined in SSE have allowed both the Government and the CAF to say they have met the needs while ignoring reality.

What is a sustained 100-500 person deployment? What capability is that? That statement is not even aimed at one service but the CAF as a whole.
Army thinks that’s a reserve infantry Coy.
Navy thinks that’s two MCDVs. One on each coast.
Airforce thinks it a fighter 6 pack.

All the other numbers are equally vague to the benefit of both government and CAF politicians.
Vague until the Government says do this - it is in SSE...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
Someone is going to tell MND etc my interpretation (or similar to that) and hard questions will get asked...
Yes close the lid on that box please ;)

I don't doubt that Austin, Stoltenberg, Karins, Johnson and Zelenskyy are screaming at the tops of their lungs.

But judging from the smug look on Joly's face I would suggest that the Global Affairs team are comfortable with the support they are getting from Macron, Scholz, Michel and von der Leyen. And from Quebec.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
There is also this bit from SSE:


But I argue that our commitment to “contribution warfare” has allowed us to convince ourselves that sending something & anything is more important than being able to send and sustain particular capabilities. The purpose of the CAF has become feel-good flag waving contingents.

We also learned bad lessons in Kandahar. We we able to fill the glory seat of lead nation because the US filled the role of framework nation. Now we want to lead in Latvia (which will be far more demanding if shooting starts) while investing fewer resources than we had in Kandahar (where we actually had a formation of Canadian units)

The Brigade Group, as seen by Ottawa makes for a handy administrative structure. A pool of resources which can be drawn on for non-military and military functions. The prospect of deploying a Brigade Group in its entirety in a military role is well down the priority list.

Canada's Third Rail - Conscription

Thou shall not upset the electorate. Soldiering is not a Liberal Party thing.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
The Brigade Group, as seen by Ottawa makes for a handy administrative structure. A pool of resources which can be drawn on for non-military and military functions. The prospect of deploying a Brigade Group in its entirety in a military role is well down the priority list.
Until it isn't.
SSE gives a lot of rope, some folks just tie their own nooses...

Canada's Third Rail - Conscription

Thou shall not upset the electorate. Soldiering is not a Liberal Party thing.
With what the CAF gets paid, you have no issues needing conscription at this point.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,932
Points
1,160
SSE gives a lot of rope, some folks just tie their own nooses...
That rope was desirable to both military and political leadership. The vague metric made it possible to honestly declare the CAF can meet SSE commitments within existing resources or that we don’t need to spend 2% of GDP to meet SSE. The vague metrics left CAF (and more so every L1) free to pursue service/branch/regimental based wants & inerests.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
Until it isn't.
SSE gives a lot of rope, some folks just tie their own nooses...

Yup.

With what the CAF gets paid, you have no issues needing conscription at this point.

Conscription will never be a realistic requirement in Canada. But keep in mind that this is a country where parties run ads like these

 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
999
Points
1,040
From SSE
  • Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
  • Contribute to international peace and stability through:
    • − Two sustained deployments of ~500-1500 personnel, including one as a lead nation;
    • − One time-limited deployment of
      ~500-1500 personnel (6-9 months duration);
    • − Two sustained deployments of ~100-500 personnel;
    • − Two time-limited deployments (6-9 months) of ~100-500 personnel;
    • − One Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) deployment, with scaleable additional support; and
    • − One Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, with scaleable additional support.

I'd argue the CAF has been asleep at the switch if they refuse to admit that a Bde would be necessary in the top commitment - and looking at the contributions to international peace and stability has the potential to demand 7k troops plus DART and NEO.

Given the Lead Nation sustained deployment of up to 1,500 and one time limited deployment of 1,500 -- one could reasonably assume that a Bde may be surged for Peace and Stability Ops -- let alone what might be needed under Article 5.

If I was on the CCA staff that is the bare minimum that I would have planned for -- SSE gave the CAF a lot of room, but I would argue that a lot of the staff preferred to build a box, jump in and close the lid.

Sorry Kev, but while you are free to interpret SSE as you find appropriate our civil servants, in and out of uniform, are likewise free to interpret that remit as they see fit. That is a feature not a bug.

500 people in Latvia on a sustained deployment - requirement 1a met.
Stanavforlant/Euro Air Patrols - requirement 1b met.
Task Force standing in the GIUK gap or a Hornet deployment to Iceland - requirement 2 met.
A couple of small Companies with Lts Colonel in command attached to multi-national missions - requirement 3 met.
A couple more Company sized short term attachments - requirement 4 met
A DART in being - requirement 5 met
A NEO in being - requirement 6 met

And not a Battlegroup, Brigade, Brigade Group or Division in sight.
The big question to me is what does it take to "Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty"?

@KevinB has alluded to Canada having committed to supplying a Heavy Brigade to NATO. That's certainly not spelled out explicitly (and publicly) in SSE, but if this is the case and Canada has made a non-public commitment to providing a Heavy Brigade as part of our NATO commitment then I'd say that certainly the CF leadership has not met that commitment in terms of either force structure or equipment.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,682
Points
1,040
From SSE
  • Meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
  • Contribute to international peace and stability through:
    • − Two sustained deployments of ~500-1500 personnel, including one as a lead nation;
    • − One time-limited deployment of
      ~500-1500 personnel (6-9 months duration);
    • − Two sustained deployments of ~100-500 personnel;
    • − Two time-limited deployments (6-9 months) of ~100-500 personnel;
    • − One Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) deployment, with scaleable additional support; and
    • − One Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, with scaleable additional support.

I'd argue the CAF has been asleep at the switch if they refuse to admit that a Bde would be necessary in the top commitment - and looking at the contributions to international peace and stability has the potential to demand 7k troops plus DART and NEO.
The brigade issue goes back to Mike Jeffery era when we were in Bosnia and going to Apollo and later Kabul under what was still a Chretien budget. He made it abundantly clear that he could field the then existing brigade group commitment but not within the time frame required under the then current defence policy. At that time the Army convinced itself that it no longer needed to be an "army" but was fine as a failed state issue solver with a lighter force built around LAVs with few plug-and-play enablers and at the BG level. That's where the Armies mind set went and IMHO many of the middle managers (I won't deign them with the title "leaders") bought into the Hillier Kool-Aid. Circumstances made us actually stronger then we were planned to be (tanks, 155s, JTACs etc)

IMHO, there were folks along the way that, like in the 70s, pushed back against the trend. We actually kept the brigades stronger than they were meant to be. Unlike our "division HQs" which are primarily administrative leadership with no deployment capability, our brigade HQs have all the bells and whistles needed. On top of that they train regularly in bde ops including CPXs and CAXs and in the various FTX scenarios that are now the Maple Resolve series of FTXs.

Given the Lead Nation sustained deployment of up to 1,500 and one time limited deployment of 1,500 -- one could reasonably assume that a Bde may be surged for Peace and Stability Ops -- let alone what might be needed under Article 5.
I don't see how you can assume that when the specified commitment is at the BG-sized level. This is why one has defence policies - to spell out what is required. I, like you disagree with the SSE. It should spell out in unambiguous terms what is required.

If I was on the CCA staff that is the bare minimum that I would have planned for -- SSE gave the CAF a lot of room, but I would argue that a lot of the staff preferred to build a box, jump in and close the lid.
I agree that we should prepare for a minimum bde level deployment. Where we disagree is that I think that they have, in practice, met the bare minimum for brigade deployability.

🍻
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
549
Points
810
Come on, when was the last time Canada's military spent money on frivolities like rank changes for DEUs and stuff... 🤣

I did hear that the current 'Canadian average green rank slip-on with blue thread' the AF uses is changing to "Canadian average green with pearl grey [same thread as our new DEU slip-ons] for CADPAT and flight suits. Awesome! Because that was one of my FIRST concerns. 8)
A common trait of managers out of their depth is to micromanage at the level they actually understand....
 
Top