Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)

[Matt_Fisher]

"There are certainly comparisons you could draw, but I don't think what we're talking about is exactly the same," he said. "The parachuting would be limited in scope, parachuting into a permissive environment. So it's parachute operations as opposed to airborne operations."    ???

If you can't do jumping in the 'full operational spectrum' why bother?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I think that this is simply a part of the move from having three mechanized battalions on a light scale of equipment to a true Light Force with supporting doctrine, organization and equipment.  There has been a fair amount of work done in this area and having been exposed to some of it I think that good things will come of it.  Based on managed readiness I'm fairly sure that it will be based on the three existing "light battalions."  The Group HQ could be interesting.  Would the three units have to be in the same location?  If the current units stay in their locations would they still fall under the CMBGs or under this Special Operations Group HQ?

As for planes and helicopters, I think that we should focus on getting CH47s or their equivalents.  Airmobility should be the focus, even it it means we have to borrow airlift to get to the theatre.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

The points raised about transport are extremely valid.  Air Command needs to get a program in place and extremely fast to obtain tactical airlift (ie. C-130J) and medium/heavy helicopters (CH-47) to ensure that a light formation can be employed to its maximum effectiveness.

What would be gained and what would be lost by grouping the 3 light infantry battalions together?

Pros:  
-Easier access to parachute training center and aircraft
-light infantry oriented training area
-access to supporting arms in the light force (arty, engineers, CSS)

Cons:
-access to specific local training areas (ie. 3 PPCLI being 3 hours drive to Rocky Mountains for mountain warfare training).
-understrength MBGs due to loss of 3rd infantry battalion.

There are many more out there, but it's Monday morning and I really should be working rather than playing on the board, so please feel free to contribute and carry on.

 

[a_majoor]

To properly do this, we need to "grow" the army by a minimum of five companies: 3 to replace the jump companies in the LIBs, as well as the CS and CSS companies the "Light Force" will need.

After that, some sort of air transportation/mobility is needed. If I was to have a say, I would place this new "Light Force" in Winnipeg, so it is centrally located both in terms of deployment and in terms of training (fly out to Wainwright if they are preparing to operate in open terrain, fly to Pet to train in more forested terrain etc.), as well as to marry up with whatever "follow on" force that will be sent to the mission.

 

[TCBF]

"existing formation structure, or is just a tasking?"

If they have any brains at all, it is just a tasking.

Our current tank weighs 2/3 of a modern one, and our APCs weigh 1/3 to 1/2 of modern ones, so we are already a medium force.  When you take into account the phasing out of the ADATS, GDF-005s, M-109, eventually the leo C2s,and our current VOR rate, we are for all practical purposes a light force, albeit an immobile one due to a lack of tpt.

You guys have hit the nail on the head: without aviation, this is just mental masturbation.

So, one thing to remember: this plan is not intended to increase capability, it is intended to DECREASE capability by ensuring a large part of the defense budget gets mis-directed into areas of spending that have no military effect.

Spend money on publicity, enviro studies for the new 'light" base, aquiring land, constructing buildings, hiring civilian staff, moving and posting soldiers and office workers,etc.  But NO money for more soldiers, weapons, aircraft, or equipment related to combat operations.  Just another bureaucratic boondogle designed to fritter away our resources.

I think FM Slim once said something about not creating special units, just properly leading, training, and equiping the ones you have for the roles and missions they have.  He was right.

In Canada, when all is said and done, much is said and little is done.

 

[TCBF]

"In a few of our threads, I think positive arguments are made that a light formation would actually increase capability:"

A light AMERICAN, BRITISH, or ANZAC formation would.  A light Cdn fmn won't.  All of our formations are light formations now, but power is useless without the will to sustain it and use it.  We do not have the political will to fund this, so it is pointless to attemp to aquire it.

One is tempted to sympathize with the Vermont farm wife who said "Stay weak, Canada.  America does not need another Cuba to her north."

 

[jmacleod]

DND Minister should simply reinstate the famed Canadian Airborne Regiment, which should never
have been disbanded. The people responsible for the decision were flunkies to the former PM
and when their talents were combined, created the Canadian Sponsorship Program, now playing
live on Justice Gomery's watch. Logic and common sense dictates; reinstate the Canadian Airborne
Regiment - MacLeod

 

[Matt_Fisher]

To properly do this, we need to "grow" the army by a minimum of five companies: 3 to replace the jump companies in the LIBs, as well as the CS and CSS companies the "Light Force" will need.

Do you think that this new light force will be centred around a single battalion formed by reconstituting the jump companies (essentially a reborn single battalion CAR) or do you think that the 3 LIBs will be grouped together as the new formation (essentially a reborn SSF)?

 

[30 for 30]

Conspiracy!!!

 

[a_majoor]

Do you think that this new light force will be centred around a single battalion formed by reconstituting the jump companies (essentially a reborn single battalion CAR) or do you think that the 3 LIBs will be grouped together as the new formation (essentially a reborn SSF)?

Based on what the opening article said, I would expect the Light Force to be a unitary formation like the "Airborne" of old. Trying to cobble together a force from different units and different areas simply makes no sense (oops, isn't that the new model of Task tailored forces). Since the Light Force needs to be able to move quickly (in theory), then having everyone available in one spot simplifies everything from training, logistics and mounting operations IMO.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

So now the question posed is whether the formation will have the 3 LIBs relocate to a new home as part of a higher formation? Or, whether the 3 LIBs will relinquish control over their jump companies, who will relocate, while the battalion stays in their current status with the CMBGs?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with a_majoor: logic dictates a single light formation, based in one area, near the major flying station which has a tactical transport wing.  There might, also, be another heavier motorized/light armoured formation based in a single area â “ not too far from major seaports.  There is, also, an ongoing requirement for units to relieve/replace elements of these two formations when they (parts of them) are deployed on operations â “ if our light formation has two battle groups (one airborne, one air mobile) and the heavier formation has two more battle groups â “ APC mounted infantry plus MGS (Strykers?) or light tanks, and assuming PPCLI Guy was correct when he said 5:1 is the 'use-up' ratio to sustain deployed forces, then we need an army of 20+ battalions/regiments of infantry/armour - and/or something like panzer-grenadiers, perhaps?  We now have what, a dozen?

Anyway let us not revive the Airborne Regiment or 1 Can Para; no cap badge wars with the attendant angst â “ let us assign the jump role to one battalion.  Maybe others can rotate through the job (and the station) every five years or so, like we did in Germany in the '50s and '60s.

 

[George Wallace]

http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=31a9fa57-81f0-402c-b870-d8652ef4a051

Latest article about the new battalion. Airborne forces are the ultimate in rapid deployment forces. The ability to go anywhere in the world in a matter of hours is unrivaled.

"Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Galea said the new force will be based on the three existing light infantry battalions -- units of about 600 soldiers with light weapons and equipment and almost no vehicles."

Gee.......Tom

Wasn't that what we were able to do back in 1980 in the SSF - anywhere in 24 hours.  As a matter of fact, FMC was supposed to be able to move any formation in a short period of time, less than seven days.

 

[Old Sweat]

George,

FMCHQ in those days couldn't have organized a movement in seven days, let alone moved very much more than a vanguard within a region. How does this fit in with having a battle group embarked cruising the oceans of the world waiting for shyte to happen? Much more thought is required.

Chirs Wattie - an air force brat and grandson of a Boer War vet - is an experienced journalist who was embedded with 3 RCR in Afghanistan for a spell. Some of us may recall the piece he wrote after the two Royals were kia, extracts of which were read at their memorial service in country. (I did not include their names as I am not sure of the junior member's spelling and did not wish to insult his memory.) He also was a Strathcona and is now an officer in the GGHG. I suspect he has left somethings unsaid because he can not pin them down.

There is an awful lot still to glean from all of this, and I am grateful for the thoughtful observations on this means.

 

[TCBF]

Yup.  We didn't have to train, because we WERE trained - in the field constantly.  We didn't have to DAG, because we WERE DAGged - every six months or so.  If you didn't pass DAG, you got sorted out or released.

And we did this with 'normal' brigades.  You want light?  Train light.  But no, we will pee away all of our money in re-organizing, so that there will be none left to train with.

When a unit went to the field, it went to the field - ALL of it. None of this two hundred men on rear party because they are "hurt" or have "issues".

Our brigades, and certainly our units, were mobile enough.  Whether our HQs were robust enough to plan and execute the move is another matter.

Time to cull the herd.

 

[George Wallace]

The reality of Canada putting a Battle Group complete aboard ship, at sea, waiting for shyte to happen is in all probability a figment of fiction.  We may see Troops earmarked for such a contingency, but never prepositioned.  We are currently looking at prepositioning equipment, the downfall of which is that Troops no longer have the kit to train with, and that prepositioned kit deteriorates due to lack of maintenance.  In all our discussions so far, we have basically concluded that we need a major increase in manpower and equipment.  The Government's lack of true and honest support in these matters is what is going to keep us crippled for years to come.  Hollow promises in the Press do us no good.  


[Edit 1805hrs]  Right now, as we discuss, we are experiencing the "Cheque is in the Mail"syndrome with the current 'Budget Increase'.

 

[Old Sweat]

George,

Reference my last, first line, between a and movement, insert, bowel.

There are a ton other later examples. The bungle in the jungle merits examination re the old maxim, if in worry, if in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 

[Zipper]

Did everyone get a gander at this article in the National Post today?

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=31a9fa57-81f0-402c-b870-d8652ef4a051

One of the big things that caught my eye was:

"There are certainly comparisons you could draw (to the CAR), but I don't think what we're talking about is exactly the same," he said. "The parachuting would be limited in scope, parachuting into a permissive environment. So it's parachute operations as opposed to airborne operations."

OK????? So after reading the rest of the article, I'm still confused as to HOW these guys will be trained? For war? Or for limited "intervention" type missions?

 

[TCBF]

I would think the soldiers would be trained for "battle", since "battles" happen across the Full Spectrum of Operations (all three blocks).  By all means, continue with Mission Specific Training - as we do now - AFTER the troops and, more specifically, their leaders, have successfully completed the relevant BTS.

Do you think a generation of soldiers will accept a new generation of leaders who qualify as only "Boy Scouts With Guns"?  Not bloody likely.

 

[a_majoor]

"There are certainly comparisons you could draw (to the CAR), but I don't think what we're talking about is exactly the same," he said. "The parachuting would be limited in scope, parachuting into a permissive environment. So it's parachute operations as opposed to airborne operations."

I think this is mostly a PC line to keep opponents of the CAR quiet. After all, any unit must be trained to operate in the "full spectrum" of war, so a jump capable or airmobile unit will have to be able to function should the DZ/LZ suddenly get "hot" for whatever reason.