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.

 

[KevinB]

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

6 ABCT's is basically 18 CAB's
I was only looking at 16, and only manning 12

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 have zero interest in Light Infantry non specialized formations. It's just place holding units on the cheap. Want to expand the Rangers, yes totally for it - but I'd want an Arctic Bde with BvS10's and a Mountain force as well (partially Light and partially motorized with light vehicles).

8 of my 12 CAB's would be 30/70 (4 in LTPS forward deployed, and 4 90/10 forward deployed), and all of the LAV units.

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.

With a 2%+ (and definitely a 3.5%) GDP Budget, I think the CA could have 3 Heavy Div, and 1 Light Div, plus Corps 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.

I would not leave anything to the Europeans, as even the UK seems to have taken a left turn off the reality parkway.
Unless you are looking to Poland, or Ukraine, I have little faith in the rest in a MNC setting.

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.

Does it still? I understood that the unified CFHS took everything out of the Army - and pays lip service to the field aspect.

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.

I think the RCN can justify having a Naval Health Service - but the rest of the Med Services need to be owned by the Army - and setup to both support backbone structures of basic and advanced Hospital care, as has well basic and advanced field combat casualty care.

I would also create NBCW Decom units in the ARes.

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

Hope that went well.

 

[FJAG]

I have zero interest in Light Infantry non specialized formations. It's just place holding units on the cheap. Want to expand the Rangers, yes totally for it - but I'd want an Arctic Bde with BvS10's and a Mountain force as well (partially Light and partially motorized with light vehicles).

I have one brigade that is pretty much just regular force - 3 bns - two airborne in Pet and one LAV in Valcartier (for the fun of it call them PPCLI, RCR and R22eR - they don't need numbers because there is just one of each)

Their primary domestic role is Arctic with a secondary role as global rapid response

Does it still? I understood that the unified CFHS took everything out of the Army - and pays lip service to the field aspect.

Yeah. To the best of my understanding CFHS owns anything related to medical. That said, there is still a Field hospital and field ambulance structure and equipment and RegF and ResF allocated to the structures. I'm not in touch with how they've been working since I retired.

I think the RCN can justify having a Naval Health Service - but the rest of the Med Services need to be owned by the Army - and setup to both support backbone structures of basic and advanced Hospital care, as has well basic and advanced field combat casualty care.

I think it should all be owned by the army with static postings (and sea billets) to the RCAF and RCN as a posting. There were many unification/integration things I still disagree with strongly as they simply don't make sense in preparing for war. Purple agencies concern themselves more with peacetime functionality.

I would also create NBCW Decom units in the ARes.

I have both an engineer based 30/70 CBRN unit and a 10/90 military deception unit as part of the enabler organization. I'm not sure what the army does for decon these days. DAOD 8006-1 and B-GJ-005-311 left me utterly confused - that's what happens with joint manuals that throw in everything but the kitchen sink and then leave out the necessary details divided by element. If I reflect back to my 1970 NBCD Offr crse, I think it was the same engineers who brought us our water and mobile bath and laundry platoon that had the big end decon kits.

Hope that went well.

Actually yes although I found myself with a small insect bite at the base of my right thumb that had that bullseye effect to it that spells tick and Lyme. Stopped in at my local clinic and had a doctor look at it and have it tested. He was 100% convinced it wasn't a tick but a spider bite so no biggie and no month long antibiotics course. I had worn gloves all the time so no idea how it got in there. K said, "maybe its a radioactive spider and you'll turn into 'old' Spiderman." Have a colleague with Lyme - it's not a fun thing.

 

[PrairieFella]

Whatever happens on the tank front needs to happen quick if the rumours about a new armour regiment in either Wainwright or Shilo are to be believed.

 

[PrairieFella]

I've been spending some time reading and rereading Wilf Owen's "Euclid's Army." I've become about 90% convinced his concept of a "Monash Division" which is smaller and more mobile and easier for command and control than what we typically look at.

One of his concepts is that an army must be affordable to acquire and sustain or you might as well forget about it. The only thing that I'm struggling with is his concept of "cavalry." He basically makes the distinction that "infantry" fights dismounted and "cavalry" fights mounted. It's a bit about functions performed but very much about how each fights.

He divides "cavalry" into two groups: "light" and "heavy." Each has an anti-armour capability but for "light," its killing capability comes from sensors and the ability to call in "fires." That's augmented by Javelins or Spikes or such. He's vehicle agnostic but anything from a French VBL or a bit heavier will do for them.

"Heavy" is more in line with the CV90/120. He wants a lighter vehicle with good mobility and much less expensive than a full-blown MBT. As an example he indicates one won't need breaching equipment. He's stressing that it is not a tank and should not be used as a tank, but is a little thin on how it should be employed. I'm guessing for defensive work and for counter attacks within ones own defensive areas. I don't quite discern how you handle full offensive operations but as the force is for the European theatre primarily you don't need the ability for great Iraqi-like sweeping manoeuvres.

I'm much taken to the "buy the army that you can afford" concept. In my current napkin force I've created "Monashish Divisions" that are hybrid 30/70 forces of 10,000 each with two manoeuvre brigades (plus fires, sustainment and a form of protection) with a total of 2 x heavy cavalry regiments, 4 x mech infantry battalions and one light cavalry regiment. I'm of the view one can build 3 such divisions with the intent of deploying and sustaining one full one (plus some extra enablers) in Europe. That means 6 x "heavy cavalry" regiments of roughly 44 fighting vehicles - so about 300 for the army. I can't see Canada buying 300 Leo 2A8s or KF51s, but 300 CV90120 - maybe.

As anyone who's been reading my rants here knows, I hate tiny purchases of equipment. Having a field army of 20,000 RegF and maybe 20-30,000 ARes and giving them 100 MBTs for 3 or 4 brigades is just insanity. You might as well make everyone light infantry to start with because after a few days of combat, that's pretty much what they'll be anyway.

The question that I'm left with, is whether or not the CV90120 is adequate for the "heavy cavalry" role and what should be the role and employment doctrine for such a division. Owen is convinced from much wargaming that this is a viable and highly useful organization as well as affordable and sustainable.

I'm currently revising my book "Unsustainable" with the aim of such a structure and would be interested in some insight from those in the armour and infantry field.

Careful with cutting breaching. Its unsexy but vital and the chimos cant do it alone. The plough clears the lane and the rollers prove it before the aev moves up

 

[KevinB]

Whatever happens on the tank front needs to happen quick if the rumours about a new armour regiment in either Wainwright or Shilo are to be believed.

Not really. Unless you are opting for M1A1's, or can swing some newly mothballed M1A2 SepV3's, you are playing a fairly long waiting game with the K-2 Black Panther being the next available option.
Or if you act now, you could have another unit equipped with Leo2 A7 or A8, by 2037...
Frankly you could have RM build a KF-51 plant in Canada, and have those sooner.

 

[FJAG]

Careful with cutting breaching. Its unsexy but vital and the chimos cant do it alone. The plough clears the lane and the rollers prove it before the aev moves up

I aways thought that this is where NATO has a weakness in that in a multinational organization you need to have a hierarchy as to who brings what.

One has to question: what force Canada will provide, where it will slot in, and who will bring what enablers? I'm well on board that a Canadian divisional engineer regiment needs to have certain enablers which facilitate mine field breaching, bunker busting and obstacle crossing. I think our Beavers used to span around 20-22 m but they weren't replaced under the Force Mobility Enhancement project. I think we made mine plows and rollers a general use kit rather than an engineer specialty but we do have the AEVs.

What I'm saying is that Canada seems to already have given up on some vital breaching. I want to see it back and in a divisional armoured engineer regiment. The issue I'm left wondering about is who supplies the larger more esoteric gear like floating bridges and rafts? That seems to be a corps resource unless in something like the US Armored Division (Reinforced) Engineer brigade.

Does 1 CER or 4 ESR even have a decent breaching capability anymore?