Expeditionary Force
- Thread starter Docherty
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Details???
Heard from who?
Heard from who?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Well to be honest that's pretty vague.
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
Speaking very broadly there are two types of light expeditionary forces:
1. Air mobile (may be some form or combination of air lifted, airborne, air assault ... I am no longer sure of the correct phraseology); and
2. Amphibious.
The differences are more than just skin deep.
Air mobile forces can deploy (in relatively small numbers - say a light infantry battle group) quite quickly. An 'air bridge' can be established in a few days, and then, depending upon the distance from the local (tactical) airhead to the objective or area of operations, somewhere between 10 and 30 serviceable Hercules type aircraft can do the job, but 'sustainment' becomes a problem and, until a 'land bridge' is established, getting adequate heavy equipment is a bigger problem - even a troop of Strykers consumes lots of air lift.
Amphibious forces are slower to deploy - 20 knots, tops, I guess - but once "on station,â ? in an area they can linger and lurk until needed, often for protracted periods. This makes them especially useful when one wants to practice gunboat diplomacy which, over the centuries, has proven to be very, very effective. I suppose amphibious force can be mechanized, and the USMC have (lightly) armoured amphibious vehicles and main battle tanks, etc, but they are, I think, lighter than a conventional, general purpose mechanized battle group which the Canadian Army favoured a few years ago - although heavier, usually, than their air mobile confreres. Amphibious forces can also be deployed and then sustained for protracted periods from the landing/assault ships - over the beach, if necessary but, preferably, through a local, captured or controlled seaport which makes offloading quicker.
Having one or more of either or both types of expeditionary forces requires:
"¢ Continued transformation in the army, I think, but I will let people like pbi, PPCLI Guy, 2Bravo and others guide me on that; and
"¢ Investment - heavy investment - in the Navy and Air Force to procure and sustain strategic amphibious/assault shipping (and protection/escorts for these valuable assets) and strategic and tactical air lift.
I think some of that may be in the current, approved defence programme (factored in to previous budgets) but the 'new' $12.7 Billion can be consumed pretty quickly when buying ships and aircraft.
1. Air mobile (may be some form or combination of air lifted, airborne, air assault ... I am no longer sure of the correct phraseology); and
2. Amphibious.
The differences are more than just skin deep.
Air mobile forces can deploy (in relatively small numbers - say a light infantry battle group) quite quickly. An 'air bridge' can be established in a few days, and then, depending upon the distance from the local (tactical) airhead to the objective or area of operations, somewhere between 10 and 30 serviceable Hercules type aircraft can do the job, but 'sustainment' becomes a problem and, until a 'land bridge' is established, getting adequate heavy equipment is a bigger problem - even a troop of Strykers consumes lots of air lift.
Amphibious forces are slower to deploy - 20 knots, tops, I guess - but once "on station,â ? in an area they can linger and lurk until needed, often for protracted periods. This makes them especially useful when one wants to practice gunboat diplomacy which, over the centuries, has proven to be very, very effective. I suppose amphibious force can be mechanized, and the USMC have (lightly) armoured amphibious vehicles and main battle tanks, etc, but they are, I think, lighter than a conventional, general purpose mechanized battle group which the Canadian Army favoured a few years ago - although heavier, usually, than their air mobile confreres. Amphibious forces can also be deployed and then sustained for protracted periods from the landing/assault ships - over the beach, if necessary but, preferably, through a local, captured or controlled seaport which makes offloading quicker.
Having one or more of either or both types of expeditionary forces requires:
"¢ Continued transformation in the army, I think, but I will let people like pbi, PPCLI Guy, 2Bravo and others guide me on that; and
"¢ Investment - heavy investment - in the Navy and Air Force to procure and sustain strategic amphibious/assault shipping (and protection/escorts for these valuable assets) and strategic and tactical air lift.
I think some of that may be in the current, approved defence programme (factored in to previous budgets) but the 'new' $12.7 Billion can be consumed pretty quickly when buying ships and aircraft.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
FYI, this is explained on the army's official site in the "Army Transformation" section.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Docherty: take Pencil Neck's advice and I think that you will find that what you are talking about is the first "capability release" under the revised Army force generation plan that is replacing the old ATOF system. Commencing in 2006 our high readiness component will consist of a deployable Brigade HQ, and two Task Forces (TFs) which will be ready for deployment. Under the concept of the first capability release, these TFs will be somewhat smaller and lighter. The second capability release, a bit later on, will give us the ability to field somewhat larger and "heavier" (in a Canadian sense...) TFs.
Of course, as I'm sure you know, being "expeditionary" is not just an Army game: it requires a Navy and an Air Force that can work as part of a joint team to project, protect, sustain and recover the Army TF. As the new CDS has already indicated, this is where we are currently at our weakest, and wheer we need some long-term work to build a truly joint-capable force.
Cheers
Of course, as I'm sure you know, being "expeditionary" is not just an Army game: it requires a Navy and an Air Force that can work as part of a joint team to project, protect, sustain and recover the Army TF. As the new CDS has already indicated, this is where we are currently at our weakest, and wheer we need some long-term work to build a truly joint-capable force.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Please post the link with this. Thank youPencil Tech said:
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 430
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/5_1.aspbig bad john said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Thank you muchly
Similar threads
