Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[ytz]

You're not wrong. But also, the CA is building the airplane while flying it. I think it's just fine to create brigades to hold these new unit and a Div focused on reserves. There's a limit what they they can build simultaneously. Trying to build a Corps while building subordinate divisions would be a lot. On top of the CA, the CAF is going through a restructure with Joint Forces Command taking over force development.

I would give it a few years. Once the new capabilities, units and divisions are up, a higher level reorg may happen.

 

[McG]

Pretty sure canning SQ was a CA internal decision not pressure from purple folks.

I heard a former CTC Comd identify the 10 CBGs and certain CTC schools as having been the driving proponents to make SQ disappear … only to become the loudest to wail when their wish was granted and training was downloaded to branch/corps schools without allowing extra DP1 course days or was downloaded onto units themselves.

The biggest problem with SQ & BMQ-L on the Reg F side was that LFC did not did not assign a single institution to deliver it for everyone and there was nobody with responsibility across CA. So an ATC would run an SQ serial at half load while soldiers on a distant BTL get told they will be waiting another 6 months for DP1 because today was the last possible day to start an SQ and meet the start of the nearest DP1.

Hopefully Army Training Centre does this smarter and tasks Meaford to run all English language CASFC, Wainwright to run all English language Infantry RQ Pte, and leaves Valcartier to do both in French. Then resource & organize those schools to do their courses.

In addition to the 3 CMBGs, the Div is getting a Light Infantry Regiment that is brigade sized, a Combat Support Brigade, a Sustainment Brigade, a fires brigad and a battalion sized Signals Regiment.

6 CCSB is not a new thing. Some of its units will be, but it is not. And, aside from being an island of misfit toys, it has no substantiating purpose or doctrine.

 

[FJAG]

Yep. Way too many are daydreaming of Corps and Divisions here. Go back to first principles. What do we need? What do our foreign and defence policies say? Division level warfighting and defence of the homeland don't commit us to hundreds of brigades. Doesn't even commit us to dozens of brigades.

Once you have an army over 10,000 people you need to think divisions. Once you have two divisions you need to think corps. Its simple organizational hierarchies and creating the staff structure to manage large forces. Canada's army has been mired in the battlegroup for three decades. It needs to grow up

That mobilization reserve will mostly be ex Reg and PRes to start

That's the role of the SuppRes. Whatever the "mobilization reserve" is envisioned as, it isn't that. At least in any serious discussion.

How often is the average reservist with 3 hrs per week training on drone warfare? The goal here should be to get them trained as a basic soldier locally so that you can take them to a regional training centre in the future where they get to learn and practice drone warfare.

Stop thinking average reservists. It begets the concept of augmentation. Sure they need basic training but they need to get beyond that step. Reserves must be capable of functioning in battalions to be useful. Their leadership may need to be RegF - and IMHO they should be. The goal is to create employable battalions when it comes to any force, regular, PRes, home guard, you name it.

I am saying let's start with making sure a recruit in Toronto doesn't need to go to Meaford every second weekend to get BMQ and CASFC done.

That I agree with 100%. When I went through the equivalent of BMQ in Toronto all the training was done locally except live FNC1 and section tactics which were done at Winona.

Frankly I’d like Canada to have 3 Maneuver Divisions, in a 30/70 sort of setup between Reg and Res.

30/70 is good. 3 divisions is too few.

What I see is Canada making a mini corps out of 1 CDN DIV. Which I beleive will end up both under resourcing the force while also making it ponderously slow should it need to deploy.
A Div is a maneuver unit, it is not supposed to be a static command.

1 Div is counterproductive. It is turning into nothing but a static force generator for a rump brigade in Latvia. I agree entirely that a div ought to be a tactical level manoeuvre unit. Unfortunately they are following the older You'all example of what a mech division should look like.

The CSB to me is getting way too much pushed into it. It seems to be a placeholder unit where needed capabilities get thrown without fully thinking as to their role, and if there is a better option for their positioning.

Again I fear this is a development coming from the US structures of four years ago and the infamous "protection" brigade.

The ADA BN/Reg’t to me should be part of the Fires Bde, as the ADAM cell needs to be involved from the ground up.

Agreed.

I’d like to see specialized Engineer Regiments (BN) at the Div that are relevant to the Division.

Agreed

As well as some that are relevant to the Corps.

And again agreed. This is where the specialized engineer resources should be parked and assigned from.

As well I have a major concern still about the Tank / Infantry integration, as I am a firm believer in Tank/IFV mutual support. Something the LAV cannot do.

With 2 Tank BN’s (it’s easier to phrase it that way for apples to apples) 1 CMBG has a 4 maneuver unit Bde.

2 and 5 have 2 LAV Bn, and 2 not tank Armoured BN’s who seem to be reimagining as Cavalry.

We agree but I think that ship has sailed here. My hope is that half of the 25mm LAV section carriers be replaced in each company with ACSVs that carry more dismounts and are equipped with more relevant anti-air and anti-armour RWS.

Then the 3 LIB LI Regiment, which whose attachment to 1 CDN DIV makes pretty much zero sense other than running of the day to day events.

If the LIBs do not get transferred to 2 Div then we are assured that there is no intent to ever use 1 div as a deployed formation.

More disappointing to me was the fact that the PRes got tossed lock stock and barrel into 2 DIV. Pretty much all PRes units are Light (if for no other reason than they do not have vehicles for their role) and the LIR would seem to be the capability that they could suppprt most easily.

I don't have a problem with 2 Div being light. I'm disappointed that there aren't 10,000 ARes assigned , equipped and trained for 1 Div (which should really be a 1 and 3 div. 2 Div needs much more RegF offr and NCO leadership reaching down to the bn and coy level.

Given the size of the CA, it’s pretty hard not to actually justify a Corps at the current numbers. Let alone any expansion.

I keep saying 4 divs for starters until equipment comes in and then 7 or 8 divs. I'm not sure if a "corps" is needed per se. I do envision small tactical division in Europe assigned to 1 GNC and while that means we don't need a "corps" headquarters, we do need a Canadian theatre level headquarters providing key enablers to the div.

Filling line infanteer positions is pretty dead nuts simple. Higher level staff positions and experience working and supporting a large formation is not.

Testify. Far too many folks think we can ad hoc grow div and above leadership out of thin air when the need finally comes. Growing a colonel who can actually command a brigade in modern combat is a ten year process at least during peace time.

Canada needs a lot of non Army and non CAF enablers as well.
Watching the goings on of both 4thID’s take on NGC2 (Anduril) as well as 25th ID’s (LocMart) the requirements of JADC2/JADC6ISR are enormous and will require investment in personnel and equipment.

Yup.

 

[FJAG]

You're not wrong. But also, the CA is building the airplane while flying it

Too true. They've had since 2014 to work out the preferred force structure. This feels slapped together and I say that knowing that there are some good folks working on it. The problem is that Advancing with Purpose was a 20 year scheme to get us to a place which was useless for the future. We blew the last decade completely. We don't have 20 years and we aren't agile. We're a 9 to 5, 5 days a week CAF for whom the words "sense of urgency" and "vision" have little meaning.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Facts, or align them the same way we align LogOs. For the RCLS world, I have never understood how the RCLS leadership can say with a straight face that a MCPL/MS or PO/SGT who matriculates in the RCN can just slide over to the other service with ease. Now they have to learn how that service works while also doing leadership things. OFC the senior leadership in the RCLS never faced that issue as they do their leadership position within their own service (or in purple jobs where service matters less). Heaven forbid they take care of their NCMs the same way they have been treated

The Log Branch exists so failed officers from other branches can continue to get a pay cheque. The NCMs are seen as an unfortunate by product by our leadership.

 

[ytz]

6 CCSB is not a new thing. Some of its units will be, but it is not. And, aside from being an island of misfit toys, it has no substantiating purpose or doctrine.

With the caveat that I'm a blue suiter, I agree that it seems to be stuffed with a lot. But I'm sympathetic to what they are trying to do. The kind of transformation being done, with standing up new units, buying billions in new kit and creating new trades or specialties, while building new brigades and redoing the entire army structure above brigade is a lot. I can't imagine working on that and keeping my sanity. My sincere appreciation to my brothers and sisters in Green for what they are doing here.

If the LIBs do not get transferred to 2 Div then we are assured that there is no intent to ever use 1 div as a deployed formation.

There was a study on whether it should be 1 or 2 Div. Looks close run. And I don't think it's necessarily permanent. There's a lot of things here, they are doing, for the sake of getting rolling.

I don't have a problem with 2 Div being light. I'm disappointed that there aren't 10,000 ARes assigned , equipped and trained for 1 Div (which should really be a 1 and 3 div. 2 Div needs much more RegF offr and NCO leadership reaching down to the bn and coy level.

See above. They are doing a lot. I wouldn't get fixated on what is there now. It's clear to me they wanted a reserve focused Div that can work on building up the reserves. Especially when you look at all they need to build up. Like those 10 Reserve Training Centres. They are separating out domestic support into another division too. A lot of this seems to be maintain span of control while restructuring. Especially when you have staff from the current divisions getting posted all over and changing jobs. Seems to me that the current division structures are there to facilitate growth and capability development. Maybe they'll have to refocus it develop new warfighting division structures in 5-10 years.

Too true. They've had since 2014 to work out the preferred force structure. This feels slapped together and I say that knowing that there are some good folks working on it. The problem is that Advancing with Purpose was a 20 year scheme to get us to a place which was useless for the future. We blew the last decade completely. We don't have 20 years and we aren't agile. We're a 9 to 5, 5 days a week CAF for whom the words "sense of urgency" and "vision" have little meaning.

True. But honestly I don't think any of the restructuring has been earnestly worked on outside the last 3 years. And not just the CA. I think LGEN Kenney pushing the RCAF early and hard started around 2022, coming out of COVID. And he was definitely ahead of the rest of the CAF.

 

[FJAG]

There was a study on whether it should be 1 or 2 Div. Looks close run. And I don't think it's necessarily permanent. There's a lot of things here, they are doing, for the sake of getting rolling.

See above. They are doing a lot. I wouldn't get fixated on what is there now. It's clear to me they wanted a reserve focused Div that can work on building up the reserves. Especially when you look at all they need to build up. Like those 10 Reserve Training Centres. They are separating out domestic support into another division too. A lot of this seems to be maintain span of control while restructuring. Especially when you have staff from the current divisions getting posted all over and changing jobs. Seems to me that the current division structures are there to facilitate growth and capability development. Maybe they'll have to refocus it develop new warfighting division structures in 5-10 years.

I can see the churn. There's no question in my mind either that things are moving and that they aren't necessarily fixed in stone. That's mostly why I'm unhappy about it. To me a vision for reform needs an end goal, a clear road to it and a communication program to get everyone on board and focussed on getting there.

Here's the funny thing. Six years ago I was an advocate of a two division army that looked a bit like the current one based on a US active army / ARNG concept. But the ARNG portion was designed to reinforce the active army in Europe. There was no real homeland role. I've come to accept that homeland is essential and much more complex than simply a bunch of light, underequipped brigades scattered around the country. Complex requires a deep integration between RegF (the leaders and full-time doers) and ARes (the part-time doers) and specialized equipment. It also has a much greater need to be joint at the Canadian/tactical level (Europe's jointness is more strategic and multinational).

Above all, there are a number of fundamental reforms needed to bring the PRes and SuppRes to the point where it becomes a stronger more capable force. Some of those are terms of service, some are structural, most are an adjustment of attitude and very few of them require legislative changes (like employer/employee legislation). They are mostly within DND's regulatory powers already. In short, I see nothing other than superficial fine tuning of a broken system. Admittedly I'm sitting on the outside now and not part of the inner circle. But it is those on the outside, the Canadian public at large which should be looked to to build consensus for change.

True. But honestly I don't think any of the restructuring has been earnestly worked on outside the last 3 years. And not just the CA. I think LGEN Kenney pushing the RCAF early and hard started around 2022, coming out of COVID. And he was definitely ahead of the rest of the CAF.

I actually think that the air force and navy are ahead of the army by a lot. They both have a vision for where they want to be which they have been working diligently toward for the last decade. I won't comment about their internal manning issues because I simply don't know what those are beyond the comments on this forum. I don't think that their relationship with their reserve components is well developed, but it isn't as necessary as for the army because they are much more limited to simply manning their equipment so augmentation rather than formed units is a more realistic reserve task for them. They need to up their force/infrastructure security game - a lot - as part of a much more complex defence of Canada challenge.

The problem for developing a proper vision for defence of Canada is that the security threat feels somewhat unreal and distant and something one doesn't want to put too many resources into. That's why it gets off-loaded on the ARes. And this isn't new - it's been done over and over again and then petered out as it wasn't properly resourced (except in the decade post WW2 when it was). I cynically call it the CAF's "squirrel moments" when the leadership's attention is pulled away for the shiny baubles that are of use for "today's day-to-day" operations. The focus completely comes off of preparing a strong capability for less obvious, but much more serious, future threats. Tomorrow's threats are an inconvenience that take resources away from today's needs. It becomes a game of balancing risks and so far the lack of putting enough resources onto future threats has been one played successfully by all of our allies (save one). Surprise, surprise, we've discovered that some powerful countries are run by erratic leadership that doesn't play the game the way we think it ought to be played and who simply do not respect those weaker than themselves when others rights conflict with their self interest. The oceans we counted on as our natural moat, aren't the barriers we once thought. The countries we counted on as our natural allies, aren't as dependable as we once thought. Our vision for a future CAF needs to be much more robust. It can't simply be a work in progress.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

300,000 new volunteers
7500 reassigned CIC PYs

40 volunteers for each leader.

Leader? From CIC?

 

[ytz]

I can see the churn. There's no question in my mind either that things are moving and that they aren't necessarily fixed in stone. That's mostly why I'm unhappy about it. To me a vision for reform needs an end goal, a clear road to it and a communication program to get everyone on board and focussed on getting there.

I have gone back through some Mod presentations. And it's more clear that what they are building isn't the end state. It's a crawl-walk-run model. The current structure is mostly about modernization and recapitalization. And in the mid-2030s and beyond, they seem to be aiming for two reg F (NATO standard) divisions and then the Res F division (also Dom Ops / Homeland defence), etc. I think there's a good chance the mid-2030s see the Corps level structure some are clamouring. But I do think it's way too difficult with everything they are already doing.

And keep in mind, it's not just the CA transforming. Every element and the whole CAF at the Strat level is going through transformation. A bunch of trades are going through reviews too. The CAF will look different in 5 years and incredibly different in 10 years. But for now it's sheer chaos and insanity at the amount of stuff going on. I love it. But I can imagine the span of control nightmare for anybody with a leaf on their shoulder.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

To me the key ask is what are the roles that are envisioned for these personnel.
Putting them under the CAF means there needs to be a baseline “soldier first” training, as well as refreshers on those at least annually.

I think the CA is entirely upside down on the Combat Arms, as I think the majority of those positions should be Reservists.
You generally do not need a majority of your Cbt Arms units every day -- you do need everything that supports them to the battlefield though.

But the biggest obstacle facing this is regardless how they are (CA, RCAF, or RCN) allocated is that equipment and infrastructure is required for them.

I'm still in the Supp Res and my file is there if they ever want to call. The UK maintains a list of "High Readiness Reservists" that can be pressed in to service in a time of mobilization to fill critical skill gaps in the Armed Forces:

Think Scientists, Logisticians, Intelligence, Cyber experts, Heads of Corporations, etc. One thing that dileneates these individuals is they automatically assume a rank that matches their skillset and training they have received in their civilian occupation field.

I don't even need a uniform, just stapling a paper name tag to a pair of coveralls will suffice

 

[FormerEnlisted]

But we have special dispensation available now. Magical Projects Office can approve anything Leader desires.

Good. Hopefully the opportunity isn't wasted.

Some secondary schools have small firing ranges in their basements. Why not refurbish them? Why not have drone obstacle courses operating on soccer fields in the evening as an approved graduation credit mechanism. Why not found new drone sports leagues and use CBC money to engage on social media?

Hopefully they are looking at all opportunities, not just mega-projects.