Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[Kirkhill]

26 Major Airports
42-55 NavCan Airports
1900 Certified/Registered Airports (1200 fixed wing land, 300 fixed wing sea, 400 helicopter)
6000 total landing fields

17 Ports Canada ports

500 Public ports

Coves galore

49,000 km of rail with inland terminals, marshalling yards and control centres
117,000 km of large diameter transmission lines
840,000 km of lines of oil and gas lines of all sorts with collection, storage and distribution sites and pumping stations.
430,000 km of high voltage electrical transmission lines

595 Hydro plants
39 Gas-fired power plants (major public utilities only)
19 Nuclear plants
8 Coal-fired power plants

1200 wind and solar farms.

4100 sewage plants
3300 water plants

56,000 cell towers

1100 hospitals.

Satellite ground stations..... and many, many more.

Defence of those assets competes with the need to project force in the national interest.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes, I remember those days. Ridiculous. To be honest, we were overtrained.

At last glance, Army policy is reservists join 60 days prior to deployment - it has been extended to 90 days on some occasions due to calendar issues requiring some more time. Sometimes, it is also individual qualification requirements and not unit training time that necessitates earlier arrival.

Our Cyprus training was some PCF courses (mostly drivers) and a three day UN Ex.

 

[ytz]

Our Cyprus training was some PCF courses (mostly drivers) and a three day UN Ex.

Sure. But what was the total number of training days prior to get you trade qualified. I think that's kinda the long pole in the tent (aka critical path). Pre-deployment will be shorter the better trained and more ready the person and unit is prior.

 

[dapaterson]

Sure. But what was the total number of training days prior to get you trade qualified. I think that's kinda the long pole in the tent (aka critical path). Pre-deployment will be shorter the better trained and more ready the person and unit is prior.

Pre deployment would sometimes encompass doing the same thing 3-4 times that had already been completed because each person ordering it done didn't believe the others had done it right.

See: BFT.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Pre deployment would sometimes encompass doing the same thing 3-4 times that had already been completed because each person ordering it done didn't believe the others had done it right.

See: BFT.

Talking to those who deployed, there was a fair amount of blatant abuse as well.

Although some did mention that it was hard to tell if it was specifically directed towards the reservists, or was just 'the way we do things around here'.

Glass half full: it turned some good people off from ever wanting to CT to the Reg F

 

[Kilted]

All the other reservists and I had to report 6 months ahead for Op Reassurance, however some of us had courses to do prior, like ACSV gunnery for me for example.

Didn't some of the pre-employments for Afghanistan stretch out to 18 months? specifically 3-08?

 

[brihard]

Didn't some of the pre-employments for Afghanistan stretch out to 18 months? specifically 3-08?

I think there was an 18 month stream for 3-08, but I’m going by increasingly fuzzy memory on that. I was on that tour as a PRes augmented and most of us showed up at 12 months out.

 

[ytz]

I don't think exceptions (like 18 months pre deployment) are super relevant. Clearly that wasn't normal. I just look at what is on the books today. We have:

9 weeks Basic
16 weeks Infantry DP1
90 days pre-deployment

That's 38 weeks (~9 months) from the getting off the bus in St. Jean to Latvia.

The question becomes what can be cut and optimized without increasing risk because of training gaps. And how can this be fit into the 3 summers that most college/university students have.

I accept that the Ukrainians have reduced that substantially to 8 weeks. I'm not sure that it doesn't necessarily sacrifice some skills development they would do if they weren't at war. There's also just a normal CAF training burden that all members have to know that won't get cut during peacetime. So I'm guessing our optimal is going to be higher than 8 weeks.

 

[ytz]

That brings me to the fundamental issue which is that Canada needs to prepare for a non optional war that will require mass at home as much as abroad.

To what end? That's the question. As it is right now we aren't planning on sustaining more than a division abroad anyway.

But also what's the scenario where we need mass at home and mass abroad?I would argue any such scenario is genuinely in the "End of the world" nuclear territory. Is it reasonable to plan around the most dangerous COA? Debatable for me.

Our most likely is a sustained division abroad and maybe 10-15 000 doing infrastructure protection at home. That's a six figure CA. But probably not several six figures.

"Higher skilled and higher value assets" and "mass" are no longer either/or options to choose from. They are part of the same team. To tell Latvia we'll send you an air defence regiment and you bring the cannon fodder doesn't build viable teams.

This is how NATO operates today. The Americans bring most of the high end assets. All that's changing here is that middle powers like Canada have to fill in where the Americans pull back. And that's honestly more important to the Alliance than another infantry battalion which they can fire up the conscript pool for.

We need to embrace our unique position in the alliance as a middle population, high value and high skill economy that is geographically separated from the primary theatre. We have the population of Poland. But we have industrial capacity that they can only dream of. And it's outside SRBM and Geran range. We have to be the strategic depth for the alliance with manufacturing and training. And when it comes to the war part we need to bring the things they can't necessarily afford of generate easily. That's not generally rifleman.

I spent last week on a course where one of the lectures/brief was the Russian Recce Strike Complex. The density of EW, long and medium range fires, long range recce and air defence was truly impressive and frankly scary. Defeating that is going to take way more than just infantry. That's really the pacing threat if we're honest.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I don't think exceptions (like 18 months pre deployment) are super relevant. Clearly that wasn't normal. I just look at what is on the books today. We have:

9 weeks Basic
16 weeks Infantry DP1
90 days pre-deployment

That's 38 weeks (~9 months) from the getting off the bus in St. Jean to Latvia.

The question becomes what can be cut and optimized without increasing risk because of training gaps. And how can this be fit into the 3 summers that most college/university students have.

I accept that the Ukrainians have reduced that substantially to 8 weeks. I'm not sure that it doesn't necessarily sacrifice some skills development they would do if they weren't at war. There's also just a normal CAF training burden that all members have to know that won't get cut during peacetime. So I'm guessing our optimal is going to be higher than 8 weeks.

8-9 months is a totally reasonable timeframe for walking in off civvy street to a high quality soldier deploying on operations.

8-9 weeks will get you cannon fodder...

 

[ytz]

8-9 months is a totally reasonable timeframe for walking in off civvy street to a high quality soldier deploying on operations.

8-9 weeks will get you cannon fodder...

How do you square that with this:

this five week period was imposed by the Ukrainians, not by western trainers. And the training was not massively deficient, despite what some will claim for other reasons. I've been directly involved in both the design of training and actual training of Ukrainians, so feel free to dispute this if you wish.

FWIW, an infantry recruit in 1942 would do eight weeks basic training and nine weeks trade training, for a total of 15 weeks.

For the record, I don't think 9 months too bad. I'm guessing that if pushed during war time, we'd probably cut that down to 5-6 months. And if the majority of reservists have completed the equivalent 6 months and are trade qualified, we should be able to do some intense pre-deployment and get them out the door in 30-60 days.

 

[daftandbarmy]

How do you square that with this:



For the record, I don't think 9 months too bad. I'm guessing that if pushed during war time, we'd probably cut that down to 5-6 months. And if the majority of reservists have completed the equivalent 6 months and are trade qualified, we should be able to do some intense pre-deployment and get them out the door in 30-60 days.

If you operate a continental style conscription system, and process all eligible males through their mandatory year (or whatever) of service prior to being called up for 'the big one', it doesn't take long to get conscripts up to battlefield standard when recalled during a national crisis.

If you run an 'expeditionary' style military, like Canada, the UK, USA and others, you need to start from scratch because, before the crisis, you're more focused on saving money and not inconveniencing the population (largely for political and economic reasons) than national survival/ achieving national foreign policy goals.

Pay now vs. pay later.... our choice.

 

[markppcli]

Talking to those who deployed, there was a fair amount of blatant abuse as well.

Although some did mention that it was hard to tell if it was specifically directed towards the reservists, or was just 'the way we do things around here'.

Glass half full: it turned some good people off from ever wanting to CT to the Reg F

Conversely i never wanted to go back after deploying.

How do you square that with this:



For the record, I don't think 9 months too bad. I'm guessing that if pushed during war time, we'd probably cut that down to 5-6 months. And if the majority of reservists have completed the equivalent 6 months and are trade qualified, we should be able to do some intense pre-deployment and get them out the door in 30-60 days.

You're ignoring that Ukrainians are 5 weeks to arrive at a unit. The better comparison is 9 week basic and RQ1 to the Ukranian five weeks. If a Ukranian arrives at a unit thats been rotated out theyll training collectively as well.

 

[OldSolduer]

Years ago I wrote an Emergency Training Plan for recruits.

I was given 21 calendar days to get the recruits trained and out the door.

Three weeks. It can be done but you need to cull a lot of peacetime training and focus on what’s important.
I wish I’d hung onto that.

 

[FJAG]

Years ago I wrote an Emergency Training Plan for recruits.

I was given 21 calendar days to get the recruits trained and out the door.

Three weeks. It can be done but you need to cull a lot of peacetime training and focus on what’s important.
I wish I’d hung onto that.

And work more than 7 hours a day and five days per week. That's no problem for the trainees but needs a few extra instructors.

 

[OldSolduer]

And work more than 7 hours a day and five days per week. That's no problem for the trainees but needs a few extra instructors.

Absolutely.

 

[FJAG]

To what end? That's the question. As it is right now we aren't planning on sustaining more than a division abroad anyway.

So here's a quick laydown for the army's Phase 2 field force restructure that I see. (Phase 1 would be the initial restructure based on today's authorized personnel strength and equipment. Phase 2 represents the expanded end state for the fully manned and equipped army)

Remember that I make heavy use of reservists and prepositioned equipment and flyover for standing overseas operations. Note that brigades generally average 3,000 pers or less and divisions (except 7 Div) generally around 11,000. These are not designed as merely force generating headquarters but are all designed as lean operational formations.

Ser	Division #/Type	Location	Brigades included	RegF	ResF	Ranger
1.0	Defence of Canada
1.1	1st - Arctic Airborne	Petawawa/East ON	2x Arctic airborne; 1x fires; 1x sustain; 2x Rgr Gp	7,300	3,400	4,000
1.2	5th - A2/AD Coastal	Vancouver/BC	1x A2/AD; 1x light mech; 1x fires; 1x sustain; 1 x Rgr Gp	2,900	6,600	2,000
1.3	6th - A3/AD Coastal	Halifax/Maritimes	1x A2/AD; 1x light mech; 1x fires; 1x sustain; 1 x Rgr Gp	2,900	6,600	2,000
			Subtotal (incl a coord HQ)	13,360	16,600	8,000
2.0	Expeditionary
2.1	2rd - Armoured	Montreal/Quebec	2x armd/mech; 1x fires; 1x sustain	3,800	7,500
2.2	3rd - Armoured	Edmonton/Prairies	2x armd/mech; 1x fires; 1x sustain	3,800	7,500
2.3	4th - Armoured	Toronto/Central ON	2x armd/mech; 1x fires; 1x sustain	3,800	7,500
			Subtotal (incl a coord HQ)	11,700	22,600
3.0	General Support
3.1	7th - Gen Sup	Borden/Cross Canada	1x Sigs; 1x fires; 1 x Engr; 1x CS; 1x log; 1 x sust; 1 x med	4,700	14,700
			Grand Total - Army Field Forces	29,700	48,400

Note that these numbers do not include institutional fixed support structures for Canadian bases or the army's training system .

Note that 1, 5 and 6 Divs support and supplement the coastal defences already provided by the RCN and RCAF. 1 Div is the army's quick reaction force. These units tie in with Regional JTFs if and when required.

Note that 2, 3 and 4 Armd Divs' roles are to provide a div (partially forward deployed, partially flyover on prepositioned equipment) and two divisions as sustainment forces for the deployed division.

Note that 7 Div provides theatre-level combat support and/or combat service support unit and formations for both expeditionary or defence of Canada deployed divisions as required.

Note that there is some, but not a lot, of depth for other operational deployments beyond the standing NATO one. In theory 1 Div can provide up to a standing battlegroup for a quick reaction mission and 7 Div can provide up to a composite battalion of CS/CSS troops for miscellaneous missions. Beyond that all brigades have the ability to force generate a brigade headquarters, a battalion headquarters and company-sized elements if required.

Finally, note that the hybrid structures of all units and brigades within each division make them capable of becoming the core elements required for national mobilization of the civilian population or the "home guard" (which is not included in the above table.

This is how NATO operates today. The Americans bring most of the high end assets. All that's changing here is that middle powers like Canada have to fill in where the Americans pull back.

Of course they do. And maybe tonight Trump will tell us they won't bring it anymore. If that becomes the case, and NATO looks to change the task tables for its forces for the NATO Force Model's components. (Incidentally one should have a look at the readiness requirements for the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 forces as they are fairly generous and, IMHO can easily be met even with hybrid formations requiring some predeployment training so long as equipment and munitions are prepositioned)

Here's my problem with the high end/mass end debate.

Believe it or not, a nation's reputation as a contributor comes from troops on the ground in large visible numbers and flag pins/symbols on the map. There's a lot more juice from a Canadian divisional marker (not just as part of a multinational division) and troops in vehicles with their flags roaming around than what you would get from two or three missile batteries, two or three EW squadrons and four F-35s located back in Sweden. There's a quality to lots of visible boots on the ground that tells them that you are seriously putting some skin into the game.

The issue is not a simple either or. It will be both. But let's not forget that the GDP of Germany, the UK, France and Italy all exceed our own, in the aggregate by a factor of 6.5. Plus they own most of the manufacturing systems that produce the high end tech systems and weapons needed. We ought to be able to manufacture everything needed by our own forward deployed NATO division.