CF Transformation & the Operational Commands (Merged)

[Infanteer]

Right, LFWA would get the chop - as would MARPAC, 1 CAD, etc.   It isn't another level of command.   By my count we go from around eight HQs to six.   A Joint HQ has to have each component commander as the technical expert for force employment and to simplify the command and control.   The component commanders would each be part of the Regional HQ.   For example (from deployed ops), JTFSWA in Tampa had a BGen Comd.   Under him were a naval component commander (embarked in the Gulf), a Land Component Commander (in Afghanistan) and an air component commander (at Mirage).   All reported to the same boss - one HQ.

Ok - that makes much more sense.

The DCDS runs operations on behalf of the CDS.   It is staff authority, rather than command (not that there's much difference at that level!).

No kidding - "I'm sorry Admiral, but I'm not going to listen to you, I'm going to the General...."  

Yes, but not for operations.   ALL operations report to the DCDS shop, although the Navy and AF have slightly different ways of doing business.   The Navy runs operations centres on each coast that report to the DCDS, while the AF has CANR which does the same.   Each LFA has an operations centre that reports directly to J Staff for operations.   Note, though, that none of these entities report - on operational matters - to the Service Chiefs.   They are merely kept informed as a matter of courtesy and because the Services do all the force generation for operations.   DLFR is double-hatted as J3 Land.

Okay, I understand that - I'm talking about things regarding training and what not.   For example, will Prairie Commander be able to order his Herc fleet to train with 3 PPCLI, giving the Light Battalion all the time it needs to get the jumps it needs (just an example - as well, operational concerns will of course be paramount).

The structure should evolve over time.   The "environments" may well disappear, but I personally would prefer training and procurement to be an Army matter as opposed to "purple".

I agree here - let's not make the same mistakes that Hellyer did.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Okay, I understand that - I'm talking about things regarding training and what not.  For example, will Prairie Commander be able to order his Herc fleet to train with 3 PPCLI, giving the Light Battalion all the time it needs to get the jumps it needs (just an example - as well, operational concerns will of course be paramount).

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one.  I am under the impression that the JTF structure is for operations, but could well be wrong and would be speculating big time to pontificate much more on the non-operational side.  It could well be that these are aspects that VAdm Forcier is tasked to work out as his team stands up...

Like everyone else, I'll be waiting with baited breath to see what happens!

Cheers,

TR

 

[Gunner98]

The JTF Regional HQs will control all assets in their regions.  How they close or modify 1 CAD and the Area HQs will come out of the Transition teams' reports.

 

[Gunner]

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one.  I am under the impression that the JTF structure is for operations, but could well be wrong and would be speculating big time to pontificate much more on the non-operational side.  It could well be that these are aspects that VAdm Forcier is tasked to work out as his team stands up...

We had a pretty good brief by the former Comd LFWA on CF Transformation but besides the why this is happening and to a certain extent how it will happen, there remains alot of questions to answer.  As it stands now, the JTF will be for operations (force employment) vice training (force generation).  So, from what I have heard, the Comd JTF will not be able to direct this type of event.

Having said that, the CDS has made a clear statement that the army, navy and air force need to work together jointly (mutual support) within the operational "bubble".  Why does the army have to beg the Air Force to conduct ground attack operations during major exercises? Same goes with the Navy begging the army, etc, etc.  This shouldn't happen but it does.  By forcing a "joint" approach to dom ops, it should support some mutual cross understanding amongst army, navy and air force folks.  VAdm Forcier is an excellent choice for CANADACOM as he has had extensive experience working with the army on various dom ops (Winnipeg Floods, APEC).

The key nut to crack will be sorting out force generation....

 

[CH1]

Oh Oh, stuck foot in  my mouth.  Before Unification, there was if I remember correctly 4  (possibly 5) commands. Pacific, Prairie, Eastern, & maritime.  The structure they operated under was similar to what is now being proposed.  Also I think I mentioned Sheep head as the crest for Prairie command.  It was actually a rams head & was diplayed on everything in Prairie Com.  Even vehicles had a decal.  Can't remember the other com crests.  Those of us that pre date unification will remember some of the structure from that period.

It appears on the surface, that this is what's being proposed, with a major facelift & modernisation.  Each command could operate with some autonomy from the others, depending on tasking requirements.
This way the command could tailor trg specific to their home area.  For example veh movements in prairie forest is different from from moving veh in the mountains.  Basic operation of veh is the common  denominator.  Another example might be Coy deployment on flat land whereas mountain deployment has extra skill sets.  Sorry these may be poor examples, they are the best I can come up with at the moment.

At any rate if they approach this with caution & thought, it could turn out to be decent.  How ever they still have to deal with the manpower & equipment crunch to make it work properly.  Under the old system there was eqt & manpower distributed across the country in strategic (?) places.  This gave the military a quicker reation time as an aid to civil authority.  It could also give a quicker local response, in theory, if we were attacked on our own turf.  There was separate pools of eqt for out of country taskings.

In the end we will have to wait to see the structure & execution.  Hopefully it will alleviate some of the problems.  For the first time in a long time I have some faith in the CDS.

Cheers

 

[Edward Campbell]

...   Before Unification, there was if I remember correctly 4   (possibly 5) commands. Pacific, Prairie, Eastern, & maritime.   The structure they operated under was similar to what is now being proposed.  

...

In the end we will have to wait to see the structure & execution.   Hopefully it will alleviate some of the problems.   For the first time in a long time I have some faith in the CDS.

Cheers

In the early '60s there were four geographic Army commands:

"¢ Western - everything from the Pacific to the Arctic to the Man/Ont border;

"¢ Central - Ontario;

"¢ Eastern - Québec; and

"¢ Atlantic - everything else.

In addition there was CAE: Canadian Army Europe and AHQ controlled units and formations like the forces deployed in the Middle East and Africa.

There were two Navy fleets:

"¢ Atlantic; and

"¢ Pacific.

Each fleet included RCN fleet air arm squadrons.

The Navy also had several systems which formed the base for the Canadian Forces Communications System (later Command later whatever) and the Supplementary Radio (SIGINT) System.

There were several functional Air Force Commands, including:

"¢ Air Defence Command, which included CC NORAD;

"¢ Maritime Air Command;

"¢ Air Transport Command;

"¢ Air Materiel Command; and

"¢ Air Training Command.

This is the model we adopted for the Canadian Forces in the mid '60s.   We added a brand new Mobile Command with most of the army and some of the air force in it.   We merged all of MAC and most of the Navy into Maritime Command.   All service schools, but not RMC, CMR, RRMC and the staff colleges were melded into Training Command.   Army units like AEEE were merged into Materiel Command.

The previously autonomous Defence Research Board became, eventually a branch of Material Command as did the equally autonomous Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.   (Pre-unification DND consisted of: Dept HQ, and unofficial Chiefs of Staff Committee, the RCN, the Canadian Army, the RCAF, the DRB and Defence Construction Ltd.  The unification exercise dealt with more than just the military.)

The post unification organization may not have made much sense but it was a bit less of a bugger's muddle than the tri-service structures which preceded it.   Each worked well enough for its time and place but joint planning, training and operations required a complex superstructure and careful but always, essentially, ad hoc coordination.

There were, prior to 1965 a tiny handful of joint elements like Canadian Joint Air Training Centre at RCAF Station Rivers (near Shilo).

</history lesson>

 

[pbi]

No kidding - "I'm sorry Admiral, but I'm not going to listen to you, I'm going to the General...." 

Well: if that Admiral isn't a commander in his own right, then he can't stand in the way of a subordinate commander going around him to the next superior comd. Staff is just staff, no matter the rank.  (I know-I am one...)This principle holds pretty well at all levels of formation command-if one of our unit COs disagrees with a staff answer and wants to go to the Bde Comd, he does so. And so on, up the chain.


On the Force Generation issues, my guess (and hope) is that we will follow a US model. The US Service Chiefs are each responsible to raise, train, equip and maintain forces in being and reserve components, as well as setting single-service doctrine, pers policies, etc. They hand their troops, ships and planes over to the CINCs (Combatant Commanders) who actually employ them for ops. When I was at Quantico, for example, an apocryphal comment was that the Commandant of the Corps commanded only the training depots and the USMC Band-all the rest belonged to CINCs. As far as joint training-I hope that we will achieve that through stronge leadership from the CDS, such that when there is a need for joint trg, it happens because all the commanders involved believe in it and see the need, and those who don't get their asses kicked. This as opposed to the current "begging": situation described earlier. I hope we do  not get any more "purple" in our Force Generation below Service Chief level: we need IMHO to reverse the damage of Unification on our Force Generation system, not aggravate it. IMHO we need "rainbow" not "purple" (And that has nothing to do with a certain bill recently passed in Parliament...)

Cheers

 

[McG]

So, does the solid line connect the LF Areas to LFC and a dotted line conect them to the JTF Area, or does the solid line go to the JTF Area and the dotted line to LFC?

. . . or, to put the question another way, who would write Gen Grants PER and who will give LFWA its budget under this new system?

 

[Guardian]

We've been comparing this idea with NORTHCOM and the other US combatant commands...

One major difference I noticed (assuming I have my facts straight   :-X ) is that under the Canadian system, the combatant commanders report directly to the CDS (our equivalent of the Chairman of the JCS). Under the US System, the combatant commanders report directly to the Secretary of Defense (our Minister equivalent).

So CANADACOM's Cdr gets his marching orders from a soldier; the NORTHCOM Cdr from a civilian.

Anyone know why we went this route?

At risk of answering my own question, could it be because we're legally unified, whereas they've got five services...

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Well, there are major differences between the chains of command in the two countries.  In Canada, legally, the Commander in Chief is the Governor General.  Next in line is the CDS.  Thus, a political leader cannot be in the formal chain of command and the component commanders must report to the CDS as a result.  Of course, in practice, the CDS is appointed by the PM and gets his marching orders from Cabinet.

As an aside, here's a link from the USNORTHCOM website:

http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=s.who_team

Note the similarity in terminology and structure with the new CANADACOM... 

 

[Old Sweat]

To add to TR's latest post, the NDA also states that all orders and instructions to the Canadian Forces will be issued to the CDS from the MND. Therefore (a) the minister cannot issue orders directly to any element or component of the forces and (b) neither can any one else in Canada including the Governor General, the Prime Minister or any member of the public service or the political staffs.

 

[TCBF]

At the risk of cluttering up a perfectly educational thread, I'd like to know if anyone has considered the way we do business - our internal and imposed policies - as well as our structure.  True re-organization is not complete unless the administrative culture changes as well.

Take 'cost accounting' ;  we appear to have adopted a civilian accounting tool (bearing in mind that accounting is 50% math, and 50% witchcraft) that penalizes us for doing our jobs.  I have been saying this for a dozen years - which probably means I'm wrong - but we should not be debiting a CO's budget for rolling track.  We should debiting his unit's account for NOT rolling track and  NOT training soldiers.

Why are we rewarded for doing nothing?

Tom

 

[Guardian]

Well, there are major differences between the chains of command in the two countries.   In Canada, legally, the Commander in Chief is the Governor General.   Next in line is the CDS.   Thus, a political leader cannot be in the formal chain of command and the component commanders must report to the CDS as a result.   Of course, in practice, the CDS is appointed by the PM and gets his marching orders from Cabinet.

To add to TR's latest post, the NDA also states that all orders and instructions to the Canadian Forces will be issued to the CDS from the MND. Therefore (a) the minister cannot issue orders directly to any element or component of the forces and (b) neither can any one else in Canada including the Governor General, the Prime Minister or any member of the public service or the political staffs.

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for - makes things a lot clearer....  ;D

 

[CH1]

Mr Cambell

Thx for the correction & indepth explanation of the old Command structure.

Cheers

 

[ArmyRick]

I like the CANADACOM idea.

Does anybody know what all CF forces deployed abroad will be come under?

I heard speculation on another thread of a name like MAPLE LEAF COMMAND? Anybody able to confirm this? Or is it just speculation?

 

[Gunner]

I like the CANADACOM idea.

Does anybody know what all CF forces deployed abroad will be come under?

I heard speculation on another thread of a name like MAPLE LEAF COMMAND? Anybody able to confirm this? Or is it just speculation?

Canada Command (CANCOM) will have the domestic/North America mandate.

Canada Expeditionary Forces Command (CEFCOM) will have the international mandate.

The Team Maple Leaf you have heard about reflects a changing international policy to include diplomacy, development and defence.  This includes all federal departments (CSIS, RCMP, DFAIT, CIDA, CF, and others) all focussed on a common goal vice many different federal departments all working towards different end states.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Team Maple Leaf kinda sounds like the US Homeland Security.

 

[McG]

Military command gets biggest overhaul in decades
Army, navy, air force to fall under regional control
TERRY PEDWELL
The Canadian Press
(Printed: Edmonton Journal, 06 Jun 05)
OTTAWA

Canada's military command structure is about to be turned upside down so the Armed Forces can deal more quickly with natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.  In the biggest restructuring in four decades, Gen. Rick Hillier has ordered a transformation that will see control of domestic military assets turned over to integrated regional centres, known as Canada Command.

Canadian top brass began preliminary work on the overhaul last week.

Since the mid-1960s, the army, navy and air force have worked together to a certain extent. But each section has independent control over ground forces, ships, aircraft and other equipment.

Hillier, the chief of defence staff, wants the command structure to be more â Å“top down,â ? with regional commanders in control of all personnel and hardware. â Å“They'll now come under an integrated commander at a regional level,â ? said a spokeswoman for Hillier. 

â Å“So we don't have army only and air force only and navy only and they each have their separate stove pipes up to Ottawa,â ? said Maj. Rita Lepage.  â Å“You can see how much quicker you can respond... when you've got one person owning air and sea and land elements.â ?

The military also wants certain equipment assigned to specific units. As an example, the JTF2 â ” Canada's elite commando unit â ” might want full control over aircraft that could see the unit deploy more quickly, instead of having to wait for approvals from the air force to use a plane.

â Å“It's an evolution that's necessaryâ ? says Brig.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, named chief of staff over the Canadian Forces Trans formation Team.  â Å“The command and control structure that we have, because of its nature, might not be responsive enough if some thing happens,â ? he said in an interview. â Å“(The new structure is) consistent with the level of preparedness that we're trying to (achieve) in the post-9/11 era.

â Å“It has to do with the domestic situation from a disaster point of view. But it has to do also with potential crises related to an airliner or some other kind of (terrorist at tack) situation.â ?

Britain and Australia adopted similar changes during the last two years. The Americans are restructuring as well, although their plans have faced budget hurdles in Washington.
In the Canadian process, four teams have been given responsibility for specific areas where reforms are needed.

For example, the first will recommend how to change the military's command structure, both for domestic and inter national operations. Another is looking at how to better recruit, train and deploy people.

The Paul Martin government has said it wants to increase the size of the military by 8,000 people during the next five years. They'll be needed if the overhaul is to work.

Two other teams are reviewing what new equipment the Forces need, and how to better work with other government departments and non-governmental agencies. Their work is expected to take longer, perhaps up to five years. A main priority of the restructuring should be to streamline the military, cut the size of defence headquarters and not to simply create another chain of command, says one military analyst.

â Å“We are very top-heavy in terms of our command structure,â ? says David Rudd, director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. â Å“If they do that, the money that can be saved ... can be thrown back into the organization and hopefully pay for a lot more privates and corporals.â ?

Military gets disaster-response make over
Centralized command to take pressure off lower ranks, general says
JAMES GORDON
CanWest News Service
(Printed Edmonton Journal, 29 Jun 05)
OTTAWA

Canada's military unveiled on Tuesday a U.S.-style nerve centre aimed at helping it react to international terror attacks and natural disasters on Canadian soil. Gone will be the days of disorganized deployments and lack of direction from above, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said while introducing Canada Command.  â Å“During the ice storm, during the Red River flood in Manitoba, we learned thousands of lessons,â ? Hillier told a press conference in Ottawa. â Å“Many of those lessons had to do with the fact that what we were doing in those events was done in a very ad hoc fashion.â ?  The result, he said, was too much reliance on the â Å“creativity and imagination of the young men in uniform to pull us throughâ ? and not enough co-ordination at the top.

The launch of Canada Command is the first step toward a faster, more effective and efficient Force, he said. Defence Minister Bill Graham said Canada Command is essential to prepare for, and protect the country from, the evolving threat of international terrorism.  The minister told reporters it will improve communication with allies, including the United States.  Having an efficient military able to respond quickly to events will â Å“strengthen our hand when we go to them to renew NORAD and other institutional structures,â ? he said.

While Hillier insisted the new integrated structure is a made-in-Canada solution to operational problems, it appears similar to the U.S. Pentagon's system of integrated regional commands throughout the world. In the United States, Northcom is responsible for North American operations, while Cent-corn has conducted wars overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Canada Command is to be the central point to which six future regional commands will eventually report in a crisis on Canadian soil. The first, Joint Task Force Atlantic, will be based in Halifax. Hillier has appointed Vice-Admiral J.Y. Forcier to head the new organization, which is expected to start routine and contingency operations next spring. The rejigged format will give Forcier immediate authority to deploy integrated land, sea and air resources without having to navigate a complicated chain of command.

Conservative national defence critic Gordon O'Connor said Canada Command looks like a reasonable concept, but he's anxious to see more details. â Å“I'd like to see what the total list of headquarters looks like â ” how many people are in there, are there redundancies, how many admirals and generals are we going to have?â ? he asked. â Å“Will we end up with too many commands? I don't know.â ?

Hillier couldn't provide estimates of how much Canada Command and further transformation of the Forces would cost, but said the $12.8-billion committed to defence in February's federal bud get was enough to kick-start the changes. He added the department's overall re-organization strategy will be worked out over the next 12 months.
Graham suggested once the system is in place, it will end up costing the government less to operate the Forces.  â Å“The purpose of transformation is to make it more efficient and get a bigger bang for your buck and ... that's what we're trying to do her

 

[Infanteer]

I like how all this reorganization is being fitted around "disaster response" - what are we, the Parks Service?

 

[48Highlander]

Hillier couldn't provide estimates of how much Canada Command and further transformation of the Forces would cost, but said the $12.8-billion committed to defence in February's federal bud get was enough to kick-start the changes. He added the department's overall re-organization strategy will be worked out over the next 12 months.

Silly me, I thought that money might go into something like more soldiers, more deployments, better training, better kit...