CF Transformation & the Operational Commands (Merged)

[GO!!!]

I never understood why some people constantly gloat over the fact that capabilities of the air force and navy might be weakened to prop up the army....   :

Not so much gloating as revelling in the possibility that we may turn the air force into more of an Army Air Corps, and the Navy into an entity suitable for movement of troops and equipment, and not just naval supplies. In other words, if it is not supporting the Army, perhaps the item/capability needs to be re-evaluated.

 

[Bert]

I don't think its accurate to take an elemental perspective and over-simply the
distribution of resources.  From what has been seen, the CF constantly
evolves and changes.  Recently initiatives are to expand on expeditionary and rapid
reaction forces in military.  To achieve that level of quick response competence,
better interoperability, readiness standards and simplification is needed between the
elements and its been in motion for some time.  Equipment acquisition plans and t
raining provided to deployable units seem to suggest this is what we're going to get.

Perhaps members from all army, air force, or navy units see this as an elemental
centric issue.  Those that have experience in joint environments and taskings or
units that support all elements see the benefits of jointness as something
we should had for many years.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I believe the last Infantry Forum stated that the term Task Force may be on its way out and Combat Teams are coming back.   Watch and shoot.

As I said, TF is for deployed ops only.  Combat team and battle group are "official" again...

Cheers,

TR

 

[Infanteer]

Not so much gloating as revelling in the possibility that we may turn the air force into more of an Army Air Corps,

Army Air Corps do not protect Air Space or Strategically Project Airpower to well (unless they are monstrosities like the USAAC of WWII, which was so big it gained its independence) - they should be proficient at doing what they are supposed to do; CAS and general ground support.   This is why I believe that the Army should blaze its own trail with regards to CAS, bringing equipment, doctrine, and career structures into the Army fold while letting the Air Force cover the strategic projection of Airpower/Spacepower gig.

and the Navy into an entity suitable for movement of troops and equipment, and not just naval supplies. In other words, if it is not supporting the Army, perhaps the item/capability needs to be re-evaluated.

Kinda hard to move around when you have no control of the Sea Lanes and no ability to project your Naval/Maritime Power into the littoral.   The Navy is not a glorified taxi service - infact, I'd argue that Jackie Fisher's remark that the Army is something for the Royal Navy to shoot out is much more apt, especially when you consider Canada's geostrategic situation (as I said above, for all intensive purposes we are an island).

Each Service has a responsibility to Joint Force as well as its own independent functions (application of Land/Air-Space/Naval power) - I believe that these independent functions are "force multiplied" if they are blended into a Joint setting.

I jotted down a little circle diagram that kinda expressed my thoughts.   All three Services should focus on building their "colour" based upon Cohesive Joint Force Doctrine "flowing out" from the Purple Center; they use the purple center to define their unique and independent function, which then flows back into to Purple center as military force.   Each contribution is based upon unique and distinct Service culture, but a full-range of capability is required from each Service to make "purple" work.  

Dumping on the Navy or the Air Force for the sake of "Team Green" (which was the reason we had Unification in the first place) does nothing to "draw the arrow" into the central Joint Forces function.   It is just as foolish as saying "We don't need to fund a standing Army as we can build a strong Air Force/Navy to keep the hordes away from Canada."

 

[KevinB]

I think GO!'s point (not to put words in his mouth) is that we will be back to basics - in that the combat power of the Army (speciafically boots on the ground) will be the primary issue.

For Herc jumps - heck we could not get one stinking Herc for the 60th Anniversary of the Abn last year - we had to do a shit load of chalks in CH146's.  With a regional setup - the Western Region coudl simply allocate AC.

Both the Navy and the AF have their roles - however it would be nice to play together more often.  Doing Amphib assaults with the Navy - and combined Airborne/Airmobile -It might not be glorious for the Navy and AF - but it gets our boots ont he ground se we can act.  Projecting Power with the Navy and AF - and supporting/transporting the Army is not within the current budget - hopefully the intergration of commands can get us all working on the same page, and a little give in either direction. 

 

[FSTO]

Quoted from a CMS memo from last month "The CDS Vision and DPS make it clear that the pre-positioning of sea-based military capability for operations ashore will constitute a primary focus of Horizon 1 joint force development, generation and employment efforts across the CF. A uniquely Canadian light and fast amphibious capability, enabled by JSS and a new â Å“amphibious type shipâ ? is envisaged as part of the emerging SCTF construct."

Therefore the Navy has stood up a working group to get the ball rolling.
May 10 there was a brief from two Royal Marines on RN Amphib ops.

The CMS memo ended with this: "My aim is to assist us all in easing the culture shift of joint/army/air staff officers to sea billets, and to smooth the integration of combat arms and tactical helicopter/UAV elements to sea-based SCTF operations."

The entire memo can be acessed through the DIN (DND Intranet) here.

http://maritime.mil.ca/english/cmssuite/May/May2005/02-06/RDIMS%2044974.doc

The Navy is very serious here, and if the CF is smart, we'll strip mine the needed info and lessons learned from the RN, Royal Marines, USN and USMC to get ourselves into amphibious operations quickly and with the minimum amount of pain.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Its no good if we become a glorified taxi service without the ability to protect the troops as Go is advocating.

 

[ArmyRick]

Combat Teams are back in and Task Force Out? No I am fairly confident that its the other way around Gunner98. I say this because of what our OC passed along in one of his O Gp.
I know the term combat team in US Army refers to Brigade Combat Teams which is their own transformation (to produce more F echelon units).

I have looked at the PPT on the CDS web site and I beleive it uses the term Task Force alot.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I find myself in the interesting position of quoting myself...from this thread!

Actually, the waters are pretty muddy terminology-wise and this was just clarified.   We're using the term "task force" slightly incorrectly.   A TF is the deployed element - TF Kabul, etc..   It might include combat teams, battle groups (both terms now back in vogue), helicopters, ships, etc..   Thus a theoretical TF Kandahar might consist of a PRT, Bde HQ, Battle Group and other supporting units.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that the managed readiness plan has been using the term "task force" (as in TF 01-06 for what really is the 1 PPCLI Battle Group) to describe a potentially deployable entity - in other words, using overseas terminology here in Canada.  This is because (for instance) 01-06 includes more than just 1 PPCLI.  I have the e-mail sorting all this out at work and can post tomorrow.

 

[McG]

Combat Teams are back in and Task Force Out? No I am fairly confident that its the other way around.

I'm fairly confident it is neither way.  Both terms are acceptable and describe different things.  A Combat Team is a grouping of an infantry company and an armoured squadron (traditionally a tank squadron).  A Battle Group is a grouping based on a manoeuvre battalion that includes other arms.  A Task Force is any size organization that has been put together for an operation.  A BG or Cbt Tm could each be a TF, or they could be a component of a TF.  I believe that Op PEREGRINE peaked at six separate TF in various parts of BC fighting the fires (so a TF need not be deployed internationally).

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Exactly.    ;D

PEREGRINE is a bad example, though.   We misused the term "TF" for the units fighting the fires, while in Ottawa, the entire mission was TF PEREGRINE.   It caused massive confusion and was a major POR point.   How do I know?   I was G3 Operations LFWA at the time and - concurrently - G3 Ops PEREGRINE.

Edit:   Now that I'm in the office, I can post this by way of a clear explanation.   The source is unimpeachable and this reflects the official POV:

(1) What do we call combined arms units? The Army has gone back to the terms Battle Group (BG) and Combat Team (Cbt Tm), We have stopped using the terms Tactically Self Sufficient Unit (TSSU) and Combined Arms Team (CAT).

(2) What is a Task Force?

(a) Whenever the DCDS deploys CF elements abroad, they go as a Task Force (TF). TFs are named for the location in which operations are conducted (such as TF Kabul or TF Balkans). All TFs always have a "purple" NCE and a "purple" NSE. From there, the DCDS adds units (or formations) specifically tailored to the mission. As such, TFs could have a land, sea and air component in them. The Army often deploys a BG as the "land component" of a TF.

(b) The Army contributes individuals to TF NCEs and NSEs. It also contributes FSGs (under NSEs) to support land components. Similarly, if the navy and air force deployed components to a TF, they would contribute individually to its NCE and NSE, and each would contribute their own "FSG"s to support their respective components (units or formations).

(3) How does "Army Managed Readiness" fit into DCDS TFs?

(a) The Army has instituted a "managed readiness plan" in order to have forces trained and ready for potential deployment abroad as a part of DCDS led missions.

(b) The Army plans to sustain two BGs deployed abroad, each in theatres of operation. This means being prepared to generate individuals for two "purple" NCEs, individuals for two "purple" NSEs, two BGs, and two FSGs every 6 months.

(c) The Army is also planning to surge (or spike) generate a Brigade HQ and a third BG, without corresponding NCE, NSE and FSG contributions. As such, the Brigade HQ and the third (surge) BG would only be deployable to one of the two already established theatres of operation, not to a third or fourth. These surge capacities would only be deployable for one six month period each year, and would not be sustainable beyond that.

The IMPORTANT bit:

(4) High Readiness tasks do not equate to mission tasks. In the case of a CF deployment to Kandahar in Feb 2006, we expect TF 1-06 to be joined by other CF elements (purple, navy and air force) to form TF Kandahar.

(5) Lastly, many people consider TF 1-06 to be the 1 PPCLI BG. Not true. The 1 PPCLI BG is the land component of TF 1-06. If the Army commits Bde HQ 06 (HQ 1 CMBG) to Kandahar, then the land component would be the 1 PPCLI BG and HQ 1 CMBG, all under TF Kandahar. Similarly, the 3 PPCLI BG is the land component of TF Surge 05 (even though we have not generated its corresponding NCE and NSE).

I have cut out one or two sensitive parts from this e-mail, but you get the idea.   Hope this helps.

Teddy

 

[McG]

Have we dropped the process of putting the word "Joint" at the front of any TF that includes elements of more than one enviroment?  I notice your email quote uses "TF" to describe what would have been a "JTF."

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Hmmm...good point.

Doctrine would dictate that a "Joint Task Force" would require a land, sea and air component commander operating as part of a single entity.  On a very large operation involving two or more elements (each with their respective commanders) the term "joint" would come into the title.  As a good example, OP APOLLO was controlled by JTFSWA out of Tampa - it had land, air and naval component commanders.  We also used it during the G8 summit.

By definition, all TFs are supposed to be "joint" in one way or another.  For instance, TF Kabul has control over all CA air assets in theatre.  Even TF PEREGRINE was "joint" and commanded helicopters and naval fire fighting parties...all very "interesting"!  None of them, though, had separate component commanders.

 

[John Nayduk]

Canada overhauls domestic defence
Last Updated Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:36:37 EDT
CBC News
Canada's military simplified its domestic command structure on Tuesday, saying the goal was to respond more quickly to domestic disasters and terrorist threats.


INDEPTH: Canadian Military

 
Vice-Admiral Jean Forcier, Tuesday. 
The new command is to be headed by Vice-Admiral Jean Forcier, a Trois Rivières native who has been in the service more than 33 years. Forcier will oversee six new regional commanders from his position in Department of National Defence headquarters in Ottawa, officials announced Tuesday.

The aim is to cut red tape and deploy soldiers and supplies quickly across the country when they are needed.

"[It will] allow us to react more quickly and more effectively to events across Canada, including the North," federal Defence Minister Bill Graham told reporters.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said regional commanders will have the authority to deploy land, sea and air resources where they are needed, without going through what he called the current structure's "complex matrix" of commanders.

"We are going to simplify that, move very much to a command-centric structure," he said.

"Although we have always treated defence and security ... seriously, we have not done it in a manner that satisfies me, or the rest of the men and women in uniform or the civilians who support us," the general said.

Graham said the new command will also improve co-ordination between the military and Canada's security and border control agencies, while reinforcing the country's commitments under the North American Aerospace Defence Command.

He said the announcement was the first step in a larger plan to revamp Canada's military, a force that has been criticized by the U.S. and other NATO allies as underfunded.

Graham said subsequent revisions, which were not described in detail on Tuesday, would include new equipment and technologies.

"However, this transformation will not happen overnight. It's a long-term and continuous process," the minister said.

Hillier promised a "complete transformation of the Canadian Forces ... in a profound, not a cosmetic alteration."


Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

 

[Cloud Cover]

I feel safer already. :

 

[Grunt_031]

Forcier will oversee six new regional commanders from his position in Department of National Defence headquarters in Ottawa

Another layer of Command? How is this cutting red tape.

Will these "units"  report directly to him? or through the C ocf C anready in place.

If the current C of C is ineffective or cumbersome, fix it, streamline, but not add to it.

CDS-Area-Unit, what is the problem?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

At least they're trying something.

 

[McG]

Domestic ops will be run through this new chain.  Participating units/formations will be cut OPCOM to the Canada Command.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

It is NOT another layer of command. The Areas will go. This has been extensively discussed here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31276.0.html

Some background reading would be in order before rounds are fired at the concept... Personally, I think getting operations away from Disneyland on the Rideau is a great thing and that the CDS is well on the right track.

 

[pbi]

Each HQ will be like a JFHQ: there will be a designated commander (for example, probably a naval commander in Pacific Command), but the other elements will be represented by the right kind of joint staff, so that the right "colour" is giving advice to the JFC on par5ticular issues or ops. The Land Force Area HQs will be folded into these regional commands, possibly as a sort of "Land Component Command". LFWA will probably be split up between the Pacific Command and the Prairie Command. Essentially, as Teddy explained, a complete level of stand-alone Army C2 will vanish, so that the chain of command will be CDS-CanadaComd-JFHQ-formation (ie: 1 CMBG or 38 CBG)-unit. For folks down at unit level, it should be pretty transparent. It is at Bde and above where we will feel the big changes.

Cheers.