Canada's tanks

[Prairie canuck]

The turret is in low rate initial production, the hull is admitted a little bit behind as they had tried several prototypes before confirming the design. RM had hoped to have tanks off the line by 3rd quarter 25, but that date sailed and now they are saying mid 1st quarter of 26.
Part of the issue with the Italian tanks is the EU only recently approved the JV with Leonardo. RM is still tooling up the Ukrainian factory and quite frankly isn’t going to be exporting anything for quite some time.

Which admittedly doesn’t really affect Canada, as the only way Canada is going to get a tank these days before 2032 is either tanking older M1A2’s of the US Army (which you noted it probably politically and economically poison right now) or fast tracking a program that has domestic production as part of it, and doing turret modernization to the Leo2’s in service until Canadian hulls could be built.

Leo2A8 delivery is running at 12 years from order at this point in time (potentially longer if more units get added to existing orders. LeoA7 isn’t any different as it’s the same line building them, and I believe they are shuttering the A7 line as soon as the last one on order is built to focus on the A8.

Lima OH is in pause mode on the US Army M1A2 Abrams until the M1A3 design is finalized. So refurbished Abrams is the only option for those not in the export queue already.

South Korea could probably deliver tanks sooner, but isn’t part of REARM, so…

Thanks for the details, Much appreciated

 

[KevinB]

I'll touch on a few points. As a starter though I can say that I need really no convincing as to the practicality and utility of a properly equipped heavy force. While we're all building dream castles in the sky here, the governing factor I'm considering is cost so as to trade off mass of more, fully equipped, lighter mech divisions.

I get the cost aspect, but I am on the opinion Canada is much better served by less mass and more quality - as the GoC will never fund a 3 Corps CA outside of dire straights wartime.

"Corps" is something I do not aspire to as it requires a functioning headquarters (other than or as an offshoot of the CA headquarters itself) as well as corps enabler units. While I think there are a number of non-divisional enabler units the CA should have, these are more for a disparate number of joint roles rather than as corps enablers.

Fair, I see a CA Corps as the holding area for non Div assets, as well as a NSE/NCE Theatre support force that doesn't need to rob Peter to pay Paul for deployments.

Not to argue the point too far but I think we can count on six once the VOR issues are resolved and all the ACSVs come on line. However, I don't see a use for as many battalions if we start adding in the ABCTs that you propose.

If you are taking about strict Inf carriers, then yes, I'd agree that the CA has hulls for 6 BN of LAV, I do not see enough LAV for other arms though.

I don't like the idea of adding a LAV bde to an armd div mostly because I'd prefer to see two small divisions each with a limited task rather than one large one with multiple tasks/areas of focus.

I don't either - but it was more of an in extremis situation, to get manpower with protected mobility to support the Div.

I think we;ve got more than enough TAPVs for security roles.

The TAPV in it's current state isn't a viable off route vehicle - it's good for airfield guarding, and road convoy escorting - but it fails at doing anything beyond that - and cannot dismount troops to operate either a CAT, or a Cordon Force for the Convoy -- even the "better version" down here got a big red F for that in Iraq.

Agree with the gap. It's a different issue. Agree on current line idea as part of my don't throw away good. We have these suckers, bought and paid for.

I wouldn't be throwing away the LAV, I just would use it for different things.

I'd make that one RegF bde gp with some ARes and enablers on the proviso that no more than two battle gps deploy at any given time.

I think the Bde is the bare min of a deployment that should be looked at. Thus a Division is the appropriate backstop to stop burnout, plus it leaves flex if one is deployed and another issue pops up.

We're now up to 16 very expensive newly equipped tank and IFV battalions. (I note that the US Army is only at 17 combined arms battalions in their 7 armored divisions.)

17 ABCT's, not 17 CAB's. There are 43 CAB's by last count down here in the US Army.
Yes I agree it is expensive - 4 of those would be in Europe (Latvia currently).
4 would be pre-deployed in Europe for flyover (POMCUS type depots)
The remaining 8 would be 2 apiece in Shilo, Suffield, Gagetown and Wainwright.

The transformation plan will undoubtedly be many phased.

That's now 12 armoured battalions and 12 IFV battalions?

3.5% isn't going to spend itself.

Same here so far.

I'll accept anything as long as its built and sustained in Canada with actual factories and not merely a local office presence.

110%, as it is the only way to ensure that come wartime that the country can provide for itself.

Interestingly, I've looked at the literature and can find nothing about whether the M109-52 has an autoloader or not - frankly I'm ambivalent about it because it would use a partially-manned turret in any event. My preference with an autoloader is to have a fully automated turret. If it needs to be partially manned anyway then get rid of the autoloader for a load assist system. I also note that the L52 is not yet manufactured at Watervliet which to me is a critical issue. I think the Brits are setting up a facility but I want one on this continent if it can't be in the Canada.

I'd build one up there, and sell cannon to us down here....

Leaving aside Flin Flon. I'm thoroughly convinced that you can and should run much of this army with ARes and am still fully convinced it can't be done unless you have most as at least 30/70 hybrid units. One such a unit gives you a strong full-time headquarters and a complete sub-unit of full-timers for career development and rapid deployment as well as a strong leadership core for redistributing in case of the need to mobilize the whole unit. I'm not so sure that you can do that with say a 10/90 unit. Maybe as a phase 2 if enough stability is built after five years of 30/70ing.

Like you I am a fan of 30/70, my point was solely that with time, money and equipment towards a mission, the PRes is very viable.

I've run the numbers for three smaller mechanized divisions of 10,000 each as well as a single larger homeland defence and miscellaneous division which would need 30,000 ARes to round out some 18,000 PYs in the field force (excluding army HQ; the training establishments including ATLs and BTLs and base service support establishments). I could find useable, but not necessarily justifiable, roles for maybe another 10,000 ARes, but not another 30,000.

Better to have and not need, than need and not have.
The smaller divisions, need a lot of Corps level enablers, and frankly when the ballon does go up, the medical system will be stressed passed rupture.
The CA needs to bring back the FSH's and FDAmb's as well vastly increase it's service and support abilities.
I see a lot more tail requirements to make the CA a combat ready force in an LSCO.

Anyway, it's a nice day, the landscapers have put down the river rock on the areas that K and I slaved over for the last five days to strip of the trees and bushes there and I'm heading to the pool to continue my reread of Owen.

Hope it was enjoyable.

 

[Kirkhill]

One area where @FJAG and I differ is over the tactical and the administrative. I have no trouble with administrative battalions, brigades, divisions and corps. I have no trouble with cadres, half-pay commanders and substantive ranks.

If we will need more brigades than can be managed by one division then we are going to need multiple divisions. I we have multiple divisions then we need someone to manage them and in military terms any group of divisions is a corps led by a LTG.

That corps doesn't need to take the field but it does need to ensure its divisions are properly supplied, trained and commanded and being properly employed.

It needs to be the operational core of the Canadian Army.

It also needs to be separate from CJOC.

The Corps job should be to supply the CCA with a functional and ready force that he/she can tell the CDS and SJS is in all respects ready to meet the needs of the CJOC.

 

[FJAG]

17 ABCT's, not 17 CAB's. There are 43 CAB's by last count down here in the US Army.

Absolutely. Not sure if that was a brain fart or a finger fart but definitely a fart. It should have been 17 ABCTs.

The concept of ratio still holds though. I'm suggesting Canada could form a structure with 6 armd/mech brigades (as well as another 3 light brigade, 6 CS brigades and 4 CSS brigades.) for a country 1/10th the size of the US and with a force of under 20,000 regulars and appx

Better to have and not need, than need and not have.

What is the need though? When I said I could find uses for another 10,000 reservists, that equates to two bare-back light infantry brigades with very few full-timers and two more CSS brigades, again with few full-timers. That keeps their leadership and training support at a very low rate making them useable as home guard and augmentees but not as real deployable formations.

If I was looking for a mass of home guard then I'd probably go to using the Canadian Rangers sub-component of the ResF as the base for that where we give them a uniform, maybe a few weeks of basic training, a rifle and have them walking a beat under the leadership of a few full-time and part-time ARes - more to deter than to fight. I'm not sure that there is a big need for that because we have limited vital points that need guarding. And yes - I know that once you look at hydro transmission lines and pipelines and rail lines and highway bridge overpasses and the such that there are tens of thousands of VPs but we both know those are impossible to man even with a million men.

I'm looking at the deployable field force and my guestimate is that we won't be able to deploy and sustain more than two properly equipped armd/mech divisions because we can't afford to man, equip and train more than three deployable ones in peacetime even on a 30/70 basis.

The smaller divisions, need a lot of Corps level enablers,

I see that in the need for the next layers of the AD shield and sustainment and really long range strike capabilities in the way of heavy UAVs. I think politically we need to leave it to the Europeans to provide the corps enablers.

and frankly when the ballon does go up, the medical system will be stressed passed rupture. The CA needs to bring back the FSH's and FDAmb's as well vastly increase it's service and support abilities.

No doubt. We do have a field hospital and a number of field ambulances to build on. From the little that I know of our medical system (as it was two decades ago), it has enough folks and equipment to probably provide the unit medical personnel and a divisional field ambulance for 1, maybe two divisions and part of a surgical hospital - but only if it strips its national system to the bone. So, yeah. That needs work.

I see a lot more tail requirements to make the CA a combat ready force in an LSCO.

Absolutely. It barely has enough to keep the system perking along in peacetime. And again, most of the needs are fixable by a properly organized, equipped and led ARes. Incidentally, just as the sigs reserves became part of the ARes, I think the same is necessary for the health services and MPs. I know they don't want to be - and even worse - the army doesn't want the responsibility and costs of having them either, but it needs to happen.

Gotta go - need to take a lot of cut down bushes to the dump.