• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,739
Points
1,090

So as part of F2025 the reserve force is being modernized. We are getting a defined TOS finally for the reserves, as well hints of changes to make the administrative processes easier, specifically mentioned is pay system changes to make it easier.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,151
Points
1,090
Do not announce details of transformation before they are final or before there are at least reasonable schedules for implementation.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,957
Points
1,160
But then how would leaders make promises over which they don’t have power to deliver but which may appeal to subordinates? I mean, should one really have to choose between patience vs feeling the love?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,739
Points
1,090
To add to this it looks like they have approved a COA with minor changes
I've seen part of which COA was selected, but not which COA is being picked in regards to the CDSG's. Either way we are playing a shell game that I don't know if it will effect change or just build new empires
 

WestIsle

Guest
Reaction score
26
Points
330
I've seen part of which COA was selected, but not which COA is being picked in regards to the CDSG's. Either way we are playing a shell game that I don't know if it will effect change or just build new empires
None of these deal with NDHQ or MILPERCOM being their own separate empires with people the 3 services need. As many have mentioned here before the entire process was critically lacking in imagination and doesnt address what is actually needed for defense. Hopefully the NATO remit for 1 heavy and 3 medium brigades doesnt get dropped by the alliance and this country can suffer the consequences of that as the army is force generating for these 4 brigades atm and its killing moral.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,725
Points
1,040
"It came as a bit of a surprise to us a few years ago that we actually don't have a policy that states what the minimum requirements are for being a reservist" :ROFLMAO:

🍻
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
772
Points
1,040
My favorite part of the entire podcast is when the fine general made the slip of saying platoon exercises when referring to unit reserve exercises
It was just so sweet because it's so true
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,365
Points
1,160

So as part of F2025 the reserve force is being modernized. We are getting a defined TOS finally for the reserves, as well hints of changes to make the administrative processes easier, specifically mentioned is pay system changes to make it easier.

Of course they are aware that, to the Reserves, the term 'TOS' means something different from the usual definition ...

1639704768375.png
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,725
Points
1,040
Just thought I'd put this out there - as an old Cold War guy - no particular agenda here - nope - none:

Rebirth of the Divisions​

divisions09201000




By Drew Brooks
October 23, 2020
ShareFacebookTwitterEmail
To better prepare for future fights, Army Guard leaders are reforming the force to look more like the Guard of a century ago.
Under the National Guard’s division alignment plans, the current eight division headquarters are adopting training-oversight relationships with other units to include brigade combat teams, aviation brigades, sustainment brigades and other support elements that would be part of a more traditional division structure.
The goal, officials say, is to build out enough full Guard divisions to effectively give the Army 18 true, combat-ready divisions.
Lt. Gen. Jon A. Jensen, the director of the Army Guard, says the changes are being driven by the National Defense Strategy and the need to prepare for great power competition, which could include more large-scale combat than what was seen during the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Such a shift means the Army is focusing on the division as the key combat formation, instead of the brigade combat team.
Currently, Guard divisions are divisions in name only. “Divisions, as we refer to them [now], are really division headquarters, not division formations,” Jensen says.
The units typically include about 300 soldiers. They have deployed regularly in recent years to support overseas and stability operations, to include Operation Spartan Shield, which covers all U.S. Army forces across the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.
Guard division headquarters have commanded the Spartan Shield mission since 2016. The headquarters of the 42nd Infantry Division from New York has the responsibility now. The headquarters of the 36th Infantry Division from Texas mobilized recently to take the mission next.
Jensen says reforming the Guard to more look like its active counterparts — with intact divisions of approximately 20,000 soldiers each — is important not just for future fights, but also for ongoing modernization efforts.
“We need to look and operate like the active Army,” Jensen says. “We need to make sure that as the Army moves forward, we do as well.“The Army Guard is strongest when we look like the Army,” he adds.
“The Army Guard is strongest when we are moving along with the Army as a full partner. When we get left behind — either by our own inactivity or by the Army moving forward without us, that’s when we’re at risk. We’re at risk to force structure, we’re at risk to relevancy and we’re at risk at home in our ability to conduct our domestic missions.”
The Guard’s division headquarters are in California, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas.

Divisions, as we refer to them [now], are really division headquarters, not division formations.

—Lt. Gen. Jon A. Jensen, the director of the Army National Guard

A COMPLETE GUARD DIVISION has not deployed into combat since Harry Truman was president, when California’s 40th Infantry Division and Oklahoma’s 45th Infantry Division were sent to fight in Korea.
But Guard divisions have a distinguished combat history.
The Army created 18 Guard divisions from state regiments in 1917 as it prepared to enter World War I. All of them deployed to Europe; three were among the first five U.S. Army divisions to reach the front lines. And many won the respect of their enemy. Six of the eight U.S. divisions rated “superior” or “excellent” by the German General Staff were Guard divisions.
During World War II, 19 Guard divisions saw action, including the first five full divisions to enter the fight. They distinguished themselves with storied fighting across Pacific jungle islands, onto the beaches of Normandy and amid the push to Germany to end the war.
Guard divisions also likely would have been critical to turning back a Soviet invasion of Western Europe had the Cold War turned hot.
Guard leaders, including the chief of the National Guard Bureau, Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, often reference the accomplishments of past Guard units when discussing the ongoing transformation of the force.
“Like those who have served before us, we must be prepared to fight and win our nation’s wars,” Hokanson said during NGAUS virtual conference late last month. Hokanson announced the division alignment while serving as the director of the Army Guard last year.
Reconstituting the Guard divisions will better prepare the force for potential large-scale operations like those in World War I, World War II and Korea, he said. It also provides an opportunity to improve readiness and talent management across the entire Guard, not just in states that house one of the eight current Guard divisions.
“Through coordination between adjutants general and division commanders, our soldiers will have opportunities for key leader development positions previously hampered by geography,” Hokanson said.
The opportunities will work both ways. Soldiers previously limited by opportunities in their own state will be available to serve at the division level. And divisions will welcome a larger pool of candidates for their top positions.
Jensen says the alignment provides the opportunity to develop a more diverse cast of Guard leaders and provide young leaders more opportunities to build careers that could eventually lead to senior positions at the top of the Guard.
“The opportunity to serve at a division level, I think it can change your career,” says Jensen, who had four assignments in the 34th Infantry Division, culminating as the division commander.
Such assignments can increase a soldier’s understand of the Army and complex battlespace, he says. “It’s an opportunity for the 54 to come together and really contribute to each other’s success.”

Like those who have served before us, we must be prepared to fight and win our nation's wars.

—Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, the chief of the National Guard Bureau

SOME GUARD DIVISIONS already have formed the ties that will be the basis of the ongoing alignment.
The Virginia-based 29th Infantry Division has training and readiness oversight with the 53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team from Florida and Alabama, the 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team from North Carolina and West Virginia, the 29th Combat Aviation Brigade from Maryland and Virginia, the 226th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade from Alabama, the 113th Sustainment Brigade from North Carolina and the 142nd Fires Brigade from Arkansas.
The units greatly expand the footprint of a division that has historically been comprised largely of units from Maryland and Virginia, but they are in keeping with the plan to align brigades with divisions in their general regions of the country.
Jensen issued instructions for the alignment as one of his first actions as Army Guard director. He said building training relationships and developing the necessary relationships between leaders in all states were necessary first steps before the Army Guard can field a fully deployable, combat-ready division force.
He said aligning for training was the first step in a process that would likely see the first combat-ready Guard division formations in decades be fully operational in 2024.
Alignment will only be a success if the concept is embraced by senior leaders — including both adjutants general and division commanders, Jensen says.
But the new alignment will not change the roles of either group, Jensen stresses.
“The adjutant general is responsible for manning, equipping and training for all forces in their state,” he says. “This doesn’t take away any authority or responsibility of the TAG.”
The division commanders will be working to support the adjutants general of all 54 states, territories and the District of Columbia, Jensen says. “They’re working to support the TAG, not the other way around.”
A former adjutant general of Minnesota and former commander of the 34th Infantry Division, Jensen says fully developed divisions will make the Guard a better com-bat reserve.“
We need to look and operate like the Army,” he says. Doing so ensures that the Guard is not only an interchangeable combat reserve, but also a part of modernization efforts and is included in new doctrine, like multidomain operations.
Multidomain operations against China and Russia are the focus of Army leaders and a driving force behind the push for combat-ready Guard divisions.
Unlike the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in much brigade combat teams were the primary fighting force, multidomain operations require a higher level of complexity and command that positions the division as the key element.
It involves navigating several combat domains simultaneously, including land, air, sea, cyber and space. And requires more specialized skillsets and units than those typically found at the brigade level.
The focus on a higher echelon is prompting a return, of sorts, for the Army Guard, Jensen says.
“Prior to 9/11 we were a division-centric Army. We had division formations, we had brigades assigned to divisions. We were a division-centric organization, just like the larger Army,” he says. “But we became a much more focused, brigade-centric organization.”
Organizing the force more like the active component will allow Army officials to use Guard and active divisions interchangeably, Jensen says. Ultimately, Guard divisions could be deployed with active brigades assigned to them, or vice versa.
“After nearly two decades of counter-insurgency operations, the division has been reborn as the decisive echelon,” Maj. Gen. John M. Epperly said on Oct. 3, as he left command of Virginia’s 29th Infantry Division.
“Reforming the division by realigning the brigades was no easy task, but today it impacts everything from how we select our leaders to how we train, equip and fight,” he said. “By creating a full division of cohesive brigades, we have created a far more lethal and survivable unit for the modern battlefield.”


And then there's us - sigh.

🍻
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,739
Points
1,090

Here's a thought for cheap collective defense, why not contribute our tiny armoured forces to the NATO VJTF? stage them in Europe permanently and rotate crews in.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,019
Points
1,040
If we were to preposition our tank regiment in Eastern Europe then the Polish 1st Warsaw Armoured Brigade might be a good host nation unit to co-locate with.

It looks like the original planned structure for the Brigade was 2 x Leopard Battalions and a Mechanized Infantry Battalion, but all the info I'm seeing on the web now looks like it's changed to a single Leopard Battalion and 2 x Mechanized Infantry Battalions. Our fly-over Regiment could be the 2nd Tank Battalion for the Brigade.

The location of the unit is potentially good as well...in the Wesola district of Warsaw. This places the unit within 200km of the point where the Polish, Ukrainian and Belarusian borders meet. However, Russia might be loath to attack the capital of a NATO nation if they are looking to make a limited offensive and trying to minimize any potential NATO response, so they'd be close enough to have a deterrent effect, but somewhat safe from attack at the outset of hostilities. Being located in Poland's capital region would also give them good visibility which would enhance the political impact of the deployment.
 

ueo

Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
58
Points
430
If we were to preposition our tank regiment in Eastern Europe then the Polish 1st Warsaw Armoured Brigade might be a good host nation unit to co-locate with.

It looks like the original planned structure for the Brigade was 2 x Leopard Battalions and a Mechanized Infantry Battalion, but all the info I'm seeing on the web now looks like it's changed to a single Leopard Battalion and 2 x Mechanized Infantry Battalions. Our fly-over Regiment could be the 2nd Tank Battalion for the Brigade.

The location of the unit is potentially good as well...in the Wesola district of Warsaw. This places the unit within 200km of the point where the Polish, Ukrainian and Belarusian borders meet. However, Russia might be loath to attack the capital of a NATO nation if they are looking to make a limited offensive and trying to minimize any potential NATO response, so they'd be close enough to have a deterrent effect, but somewhat safe from attack at the outset of hostilities. Being located in Poland's capital region would also give them good visibility which would enhance the political impact of the deployment.
Smacks of 4 Bde 60's and 70's. Either we go big or stay at home and IMHO we ain't coming big!
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,019
Points
1,040
Smacks of 4 Bde 60's and 70's. Either we go big or stay at home and IMHO we ain't coming big!
As I mentioned up thread....IF we were to determine that deploying tanks to Europe were the best course of action for deterrence then this would be a possible option to explore.

I don't think that any Canadian government of any political party will approve of deploying a full Brigade Group to Europe unless the situation there drastically changes. I just don't see it being politically or economically viable.

I personally feel that there are other things within our current budget constraints which could have a greater potential military and political impact than pre-positioning a tank regiment, however I think that this option does check a number of political boxes...in particular a firm commitment of militarily useful ground forces to the defence of our Eastern European allies.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,528
Points
1,060
NATO asked Canada for a Heavy Bde - and Canada said yes.
Therefore it is the Canadian Government's responsibility to provide it.

Canada committed a Heavy Bde to NATO.
Denmark has committed a Medium Bde to NATO

One of the two is striving to meet their obligations.

Canada comes up short even at the Medium Bde level.

  • anti-armour weapon systems for the combat battalions
  • equipment for electronic warfare
  • new sensors
  • a UAS capability and logistics
  • command support engineering equipment
  • a GBAD (or SHORAD) system




For more than 15 years, the Danish Armed Forces have lacked a Short-Range Air Defence System (SHORAD) despite NATO prescribing these as a significant part of the required medium infantry brigade. However, Denmark will deploy these weapon systems with the newly-formed 2nd Battalion of the Artillery Regiment. According to experts, the mobility of such Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems will be a particular focus in the future.

In the phase between the Second World War and the end of the Cold War, GBAD systems played a central role in defence strategies. Currently, experts are observing a change in the military strategic situation and thus a renewed high interest of armed forces in equipping themselves with mobile GBAD systems. Over the past 30 years, Western nations have relied on air superiority and assumed that all air threats could be countered by air power.

Adversaries nowadays employ tactics that reduce an air force’s ability to suppress enemy actions such as Anti-Access / Area Denial (A2AD). This comes alongside new threats such as Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and the increasing use of loitering and guided munitions. GBAD systems need to be updated because they are either close to end of life or require enhanced capabilities.

The Baltic area is the focus for NATO assurance and deterrence measures. As this area is in Denmark´s backyard, military contribution to the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) is a natural and high priority task for the Danish Army. Therefore, the service is striving to establish a medium brigade for NATO operations, says the Danish defence expert Hans Peter Michaelsen, who has many years of experience in the Royal Danish Air Force in air surveillance, air defence, acquisition and academic research. This requires the acquisition of several weapon systems that were not in Denmark´s inventory for years, including:

  • anti-armour weapon systems for the combat battalions
  • equipment for electronic warfare
  • new sensors
  • a UAS capability and logistics
  • command support engineering equipment
  • a GBAD (or SHORAD) system
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,528
Points
1,060
Canada committed a Heavy Bde to NATO.
Denmark has committed a Medium Bde to NATO

One of the two is striving to meet their obligations.

Canada comes up short even at the Medium Bde level.

  • anti-armour weapon systems for the combat battalions
  • equipment for electronic warfare
  • new sensors
  • a UAS capability and logistics
  • command support engineering equipment
  • a GBAD (or SHORAD) system




Re Force 2025 and Force 2030

Stumbled across this from Nov 30 2021

ABES.PROD.PW$$BW.B005.E28363.ATTA001.PDF

Interesting bit is about the LVM (Hvy) requirement.

It calls for

22x 72T transporters
48x 45T transporters
73x Bridging Pallet (BAP) transporters

22x Leo2?
48x Puma Level C or CV90 Mk IV?

Does that suggest the ability to move a Heavy Armoured Battle Group by road?
22x? Does that suggest a Leo Sqn + ARV +AEVs?

And if the intention is to have the ability to move 1/3 to 1/4 of the MBT fleet might that suggest a purchase of 3-4x 48 = 144-192 Pumas or CV90s? Or would the Heavies be simply for a single battalion for field deployment?

Either way is seems like some elements of the Heavy Brigade are finding their way into the planning.


December 9, 2021
The Government of Canada issued the Request for Proposal to qualified suppliers.

November 29, 2021
The Government of Canada hosted an Industry Day event which was open to all interested companies.

  • Project approval: 2022/23
  • Contract award: 2022/23
  • First delivery: As early as 2025/26
  • Initial operational capability: As early as 2026/27
  • Full operational capability: As early as 2029/30
 

Fabius

Member
Reaction score
129
Points
580
The 22 72T transporters could be enough to lift a Squadron plus ARVs and AEVs in about 1.5 lifts if we grouped them together in a Tank Tn Coy. Doubtful we have that in mind though, although maybe with the coming centralization of the tanks.
Such a Coy would be a perfect reserve Svc Bn task in my mind.

I suspect that the 48T will be parcelled out across the CA for moving primary our construction equipment, dozers, excavators etc. as well as LAVs for routine administrative equipment exchanges.
 
Top