Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

Such a simple thing to do, as well. It would be great if the CO of a unit, or the senior leadership of an Army Reserve area would reach out and do just that.

- Great PR to have the local Army Reserve involved in SAR. Coordinate with responsible agency, re accommodations & meals

- To add to the above, it would give the CAF some much needed positive PR, even if just local. Good to remind people that a vast majority of our members are NOT involved with current scandals at the top.

- A great opportunity to be more in the public eye, which if played correctly could eventually mean decently useful reform, reliable funding, etc.

- Gives interested troops an opportunity to help with something meaningful, which is why I think most of us joined up in the first place


The best ideas are usually the simplest. That’s a great one

No CO of any Reserve unit has the time, bandwidth or resources for that kind of reaching out, in my experience anyways.

They tend to live in a world of belt fed emails with various urgent requirements, only about half of which seem relevant to their assigned tasks.

It's all they can do to keep their own troops 'engaged'. Regimental Family are a distant 2nd or 3rd, of course.

 

[KevinB]

I'll repeat here what I said in the Arctic Ops thread when you suggested having the existing "185" Res F units be formed into units of 100 paid troops and 500 unpaid volunteers with each generating a platoon to be paired with one of the 190 odd Ranger patrols.



With respect to the "Alaska" proposal, the limitation is the same as for North Norway/Sweden - the lack of population vs the scale of the territory involved. Alaska has a population of 731,000 with an area of 1.7 million sq km compared to our North's 150,000 spread over roughly 4.75 million sq kms. Almost half of those people live around Anchorage which is also where the majority of the Alaska ARNG come from. There are only some 1,850 soldiers in the Alaska ARNG (which is admittedly a higher ratio that P Res personnel in Alberta).

Should we designate a Reg F brigade for the Arctic. Yup. I've said this a long time ago - we should form into heavy, medium and light brigades (a Reg F brigade of each) with the heavy targeted at NATO, the medium to peacekeeping/failed states scenarios and the light to quick reaction and defence of Canada (including the Arctic). Right now there are three light battalions which amongst other things have a capability to deploy North including a para capability. On top of that we have a Special Forces Regiment that has even better capabilities to deal with small incursions and is advertised as being able to operate in harsh conditions with a mandate to be deployed domestically as well as abroad).

But let's remember the scale here. The US has 2 of its 45 Active Army manoeuvre BCTs in Alaska. That's 5% of the Active US Army. 5% of Canada's 12 Reg F Manoeuvre bns/regts is a little over 1/2 a battalion. We already have JTF North in Yellowknife with some 314 staff plus some minor assigned units (1 Ranger Patrol Group [with roughly 50 full-time staff and 2,000 part-time Rangers], a coy of the LER, and 440 Trans Sqn). That's almost half a battalion right there. In addition there are 3 other Ranger Patrol Groups and their full-time staff and four northern response companies, one with each Division) That's a full battalion.

We might have a massive amount of territory to deal with but we only have a tiny military which seems to be doing what is reasonable as far as allocating troops. Do we need a better infrastructure and sustainment system - sure - we need a better system for a lot of things but that isn't to say we have an aversion to matching the US's Arctic force. Within the limits of what we can do, we're doing okay.

To Kirkill's point - Alaska is 1 State, of 50, while Canada has a much larger portion of it's Provinces arctic facing/bordering.
Which make the 5% number not comparable, and most likely should be a 25-33% number for Canada.

Additionally when one looks at Canada's coast line - and terrain across Canada - the lack of Amphibious, Arctic, Mountain etc troops is kind of confusing, as well as when one looks at the "Heavy" Bde, and it's lack of ATGM's etc -- one has to wonder what the CA is focused on - because it really is neither Fish nor Fowl.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Militia Regiment is a community unit. The Honoraries are reflective of that. CO's May not have the bandwidth. The Honoraries and the Regiment should have the bandwidth.

The Militia Unit is an administrative one. One of its jobs is to raise soldiers for service with the Regs. It is a marketing and recruiting agency. Its primary job is to get local youngsters engaged and keep volunteers available.

To ask that each Militia Regiment maintain a Company of "Active" volunteers, with Regular Force trainers, is neither unrealistic nor is it without historical precedence. In fact is the essence of the Militia system. Preceding Sam Hughes by a millenia or two at least.

The Army has come to understand the advantages of Cadets and the Cadet Instructor Cadre. They have welcomed both the Bold Eagle and the Junior Ranger programs which sit well with both Northern and Western First Nations. The Militia Regiment could just as easily supply a formed GSAR element, or CCGA, or CASARA element that would raise the profile of the Regiment, and by extension, the Army.

Are you an Indigenous person living in western Canada or north-western Ontario? Interested in a challenging summer experience that delivers hands-on skills development, encourages teamwork, provides physical fitness training and promotes cultural awareness?

If so, Bold Eagle is the program for you! This unique summer training program combines Indigenous culture and teachings with military training, that will help you develop valuable skills such as self-confidence, self-discipline, teamwork, time management, respect and fitness.

The program is made up of two parts.

The first week involves the Culture Camp, where you will learn traditional Indigenous values and teachings as demonstrated by Indigenous Elders or teachers. The Culture Camp helps candidates understand the need for self-discipline and teamwork and instills pride and the sense of continuing the Indigenous tradition of military service.

At the end of the first week, you will continue your military training with CAF military instructors. The course itself is the standard five-week Army Reserve Basic Military Qualification (BMQ). During the BMQ course, you will learn a number of skills, including weapons handling, navigation with a map and compass, first aid, drill, outdoor field craft and survival skills.

What Junior Canadian Rangers do

What Junior Canadian Rangers do - Canada.ca

Junior Canadian Ranger (JCR) program has three basic “circles” of training: ranger skills, life skills, and traditional skills.

www.canada.ca

What Army (And Other) Cadets do

Army Cadets - Canada.ca

Information regarding the Royal Canadian Army Cadet Program.

www.canada.ca

What Cadets do - Canada.ca

Skills that Cadets from all 3 elements can gain during the program.

www.canada.ca

What Rangers do

The Canadian Rangers are a part of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Reserves working in remote, isolated and coastal regions of Canada. They provide lightly-equipped, self-sufficient mobile forces to support CAF national security and public safety operations within Canada. They regularly train alongside other CAF members to remain prepared.

Their motto is ‘Vigilans,’ meaning ‘The Watchers.’

Some of the ways they protect Canada include:

• Conducting patrols;
• Reporting unusual activities or sightings;
• Collecting local data for the CAF;
• Performing sovereignty or national security duties;
• Assisting in search and rescue efforts;
• Assisting with natural disasters such as forest fires and floods.

Training​

Canadian Rangers are considered trained on enrolment, which is based on the recognition that:

• They are knowledgeable and personally equipped to survive and efficiently operate on the land;
• They are intimately familiar with the local population, industries, terrain, weather and other conditions within their area;
• They are able to recognize, observe and report on any unusual ships, aircraft or incidents within their area; and
• In the opinion of the Commanding Officer of the Canadian Ranger Patrol Group (CRPG), they possess useful skills for duties in their area.

Canadian Rangers can chose to participate in two optional individual training courses:

1. Basic Military Indoctrination Training (10 days), which includes:

• General Canadian Ranger service knowledge;
• How to function as a patrol member;
• Canadian Armed Forces benefits and administrative requirements;
• How to fire the service rifle; and
• How to employ bush craft and first aid.

1. Canadian Ranger Patrol Leaders Course (10 days), which includes:

• Leading a patrol;
• Conducting patrol administration; and
• Conducting small arms ranges.

Canadian Rangers also receive 12 days of collective patrol sustainment training each year which may involve advanced levels of first aid, flood and fire evacuation, search and rescue, disaster assistance, communications, marksmanship exercises, navigation, and setting up bivouac sites. While they support Canadian Armed Forces tactical maneuvers and other operations as guides or terrain experts, they are not tactically trained.

The "trained on enrolment" acceptance could apply equally to anybody who works in downtown Calgary or spends all their free time up the Forestry Trunk Road on the Eastern Slopes.



It is fashionable to laugh at Sam Hughes. At the same time we revere Arthur Currie. Both were products of the Militia and the Militia System. Arguably Arthur Currie, and the Australian Monash, were exemplars of the Militia system.



For 150 years the Canadian Regular Force has lived in fear of being relegated to its roots and employed as a few thousand bodies in training companies scattered across the country. It happened in 1886 after the NW Rebellion, in 1904 after the Boer War, in 1919 after the Great War, in 1945 after WW2. And it is bound and determined it won't happen again.

And I agree. It shouldn't happen again.

But the Militia is not the enemy. It is an exploitable resource for the Regular Force. A source of willing bodies, potentially with skill sets that can be employed when hired to operate "the Army Way".


And for the record, this is also soldiering.

Just as much as this

So the dichotomy is not between

Those are the same people. Someday's all that's needed are a cell phone and a cool set of Raybans.

 

[GR66]

To Kirkill's point - Alaska is 1 State, of 50, while Canada has a much larger portion of it's Provinces arctic facing/bordering.
Which make the 5% number not comparable, and most likely should be a 25-33% number for Canada.

One factor that makes the Alaska situation different than the Canadian Arctic situation is the proximity of US military airfields in Alaska to the Bering Strait and Russian naval and air bases in the Russian Far East. The Alaskan bases provide an offensive risk to Russian forces in a way that Canadian Arctic military facilities do not.

That puts the Alaskan facilities more at risk to attack by Russian forces to eliminate that risk (thus requiring their own military forces to defend against such attacks) while by comparison Canadian Arctic facilities are primarily designed to detect an attack on North America by Russian strategic nuclear forces. If the Russians attack our NWS facilities it means that ICBMs and nuclear cruise missiles are incoming. If that happens we'll have much more to worry about than defending 47 remote radar sites against Spetznaz teams (and those 47 x Arctic Vital Point Defence Platoons will now likely be stranded in their remote Arctic locations with little hope of evacuation or relief).

 

[Kirkhill]

To Kirkill's point - Alaska is 1 State, of 50, while Canada has a much larger portion of it's Provinces arctic facing/bordering.
Which make the 5% number not comparable, and most likely should be a 25-33% number for Canada.

Additionally when one looks at Canada's coast line - and terrain across Canada - the lack of Amphibious, Arctic, Mountain etc troops is kind of confusing, as well as when one looks at the "Heavy" Bde, and it's lack of ATGM's etc -- one has to wonder what the CA is focused on - because it really is neither Fish nor Fowl.

From the 1 CRPG site.

The 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group (1 CRPG) is responsible for Nunavut Territory, Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, and Atlin, British Columbia, which accounts for about 40 percent of Canada's land mass. 1 CRPG has an establishment of 1,800 Canadian Rangers in 60 patrols and more than 1,400 Junior Canadian Rangers (JCRs) in 44 patrols located in communities across the north. 1 CRPG’s headquarters is located in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories and reports to 3rd Canadian Division.

Population of Nunavut - 38,780
Population of Yukon - 42,986
Population of Northwest Territories - 44,826
Population of Atlin, BC - 477

40% of Landmass of Canada - 4,000,000 km2 (2000 km x 2000 km square, or a circle of radius 1100 km)


So, to the point, with 90,000 Homeguard Volunteers organized around the Militia Regiment, you are looking at 90,000 security guards with cell phones, 90,000 Cadet Instructors, 90,000 SAR volunteers, 90,000 emergency responders, 90,000 rangers, 90,000 active reservists if required, or, even 90,000 regular force gunners should the government decide that is what is required.

Currently the requirement of the Militia is that it provide 19,000 volunteers at various levels of readiness to reinforce the regular force in exchange for a generally stipendiary payment.

 

[Kirkhill]

To reiterate from the Danish Homeguard website

• The task of the Home Guard is to support the Armed Forces – nationally as well as internationally. In addition, the Home Guard supports the police, the emergency services and other authorities in carrying out their duties.

The members of the Home Guard take part in the defence and support of the country on a voluntary and unpaid basis.

Men and women from the age of 18 can apply for membership. A military background is not necessary. The wish to participate is more important.

 

[KevinB]

One factor that makes the Alaska situation different than the Canadian Arctic situation is the proximity of US military airfields in Alaska to the Bering Strait and Russian naval and air bases in the Russian Far East. The Alaskan bases provide an offensive risk to Russian forces in a way that Canadian Arctic military facilities do not.

Yes and no - I'll explain my theory below

That puts the Alaskan facilities more at risk to attack by Russian forces to eliminate that risk (thus requiring their own military forces to defend against such attacks) while by comparison Canadian Arctic facilities are primarily designed to detect an attack on North America by Russian strategic nuclear forces. If the Russians attack our NWS facilities it means that ICBMs and nuclear cruise missiles are incoming. If that happens we'll have much more to worry about than defending 47 remote radar sites against Spetznaz teams (and those 47 x Arctic Vital Point Defence Platoons will now likely be stranded in their remote Arctic locations with little hope of evacuation or relief).

The Russians, Chinese etc are masters of discontent - they rarely just try the brute force rush these days -- they try to divide alliances, weaken a people, insert insurgents. Global Nuclear War is generally a Lose - Lose proposition, the whole mutually assured destruction aspect.

But sowing discontent - sabotage (as it's happened before) in the North, and 'squatters' aren't unrealistic options. Also as the Ice Age continues to recede, the areas of the North become much more appealing -- China isn't alone in the ability to man make islands.

At the end of the day, possession is 9/10th's the law, and armed possession is the other tenth.
If you can't credibly posses the territory - someone will eventually do that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes and no - I'll explain my theory below

The Russians, Chinese etc are masters of discontent - they rarely just try the brute force rush these days -- they try to divide alliances, weaken a people, insert insurgents. Global Nuclear War is generally a Lose - Lose proposition, the whole mutually assured destruction aspect.

But sowing discontent - sabotage (as it's happened before) in the North, and 'squatters' aren't unrealistic options. Also as the Ice Age continues to recede, the areas of the North become much more appealing -- China isn't alone in the ability to man make islands.

At the end of the day, possession is 9/10th's the law, and armed possession is the other tenth.
If you can't credibly posses the territory - someone will eventually do that.

In 2007, 7 years before little green men started taking vacations in the Crimea in 2014, I found reason to refer to the 1998 book on the SAS.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

I don’t disagree with you, Kirkhill, so long as we stipulate that the ‘democracy’ will look something like that which existed in England under Henry VII, 500ish years ago – when the Lords Spiritual still vastly outnumbered the Lords Temporal and the Commons, combined. If it was good enough for...

army.ca

One of the "baseline" books that I keep referring to is Ken O'Connor's "Ghost Force" about his time in the SAS and his reckoning that his SAS was out of the game these days.

His SAS was a combination of "Green Ops" as I believe you call the "conventional" military role and what I will call "under the radar" conventional ops. Small units, militarily equipped, inserted into Operations Other Than War.

He reckoned that in future people in his business wouldn't be flying around the world with kitbags full of Small Arms and C4. They would fly in in suits with American Express cards. If they wanted to take down a refinery they would use their skills to enter undetected, use a locally purchased adjustable wrench to unbolt the appropriate critical gizmo and leave the way they came. The refinery gets taken down but no one is to blame. Likewise with power grids. Slacken off the plug that keeps the cooling oil in the transformer then watch it drip away and the transformer overheats. Careless maintenance, not an act of war.

Seems likely to result in people being mad at their government rather than the government that dropped the bomb or slapped on the embargo.

A wrench and a pinch of sand.

 

[daftandbarmy]

To reiterate from the Danish Homeguard website

Typically Continental European .... some very fuzzy lines drawn between democracy and totalitarianism

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . it's a shame there's not a more direct link between the PRes and civvy ground SAR: even just something like adding the local Army Reserve to the call list should any wish to turn out as as-available volunteers.

Such a simple thing to do, as well. It would be great if the CO of a unit, or the senior leadership of an Army Reserve area would reach out and do just that.

I tried that once, many years ago (late 1990s). Almost the first question asked when I brought it up in my unit was "when do we sign the pay sheet". Almost the first question when I informally broached the subject with members of a local volunteer SAR group was "what equipment or funding are you going to give us". It didn't go much past that. There might have been one or two of my soldiers who looked into working with the SAR group, but generally it was a no-go.

 

[GR66]

Yes and no - I'll explain my theory below

The Russians, Chinese etc are masters of discontent - they rarely just try the brute force rush these days -- they try to divide alliances, weaken a people, insert insurgents. Global Nuclear War is generally a Lose - Lose proposition, the whole mutually assured destruction aspect.

But sowing discontent - sabotage (as it's happened before) in the North, and 'squatters' aren't unrealistic options. Also as the Ice Age continues to recede, the areas of the North become much more appealing -- China isn't alone in the ability to man make islands.

At the end of the day, possession is 9/10th's the law, and armed possession is the other tenth.
If you can't credibly posses the territory - someone will eventually do that.

To be clear, I'm not against expanding our military presence in the Arctic. I'm totally in favour of that. It is absolutely required along with various other forms of non-military infrastructure and development in order to secure our ongoing control over the territory.

Do I think we need a Brigade specifically tasked for Arctic defence, or 90,000 volunteers rotating through remote Arctic postings annually to achieve that? No. Targeted specific and persistent capabilities to provide ongoing surveillance of our territory with the ability to forcefully respond (air, land and sea) if required. From an Army perspective I think that can be achieved through ensuring we have the technical capability to deploy to and operate in the Arctic and we need to practice/demonstrate that capability on an ongoing basis.

 

[Kirkhill]

Typically Continental European .... some very fuzzy lines drawn between democracy and totalitarianism

What? So your Standing Army is more Anglo-Saxon than my Fyrd?

The Danes are more Anglo-Saxon than either the Franco-Normans or the Erse Highlanders.

 

[Dale Denton]

If that happens we'll have much more to worry about than defending 47 remote radar sites against Spetznaz teams (and those 47 x Arctic Vital Point Defence Platoons will now likely be stranded in their remote Arctic locations with little hope of evacuation or relief).

If that's the case, then the Regular Army - or anyone else - would be stranded anyways. It's also a likely scenario regardless, small isolated units with little mobility (maybe Twin Otters, whatever was close by?).

 

[FJAG]

Typically Continental European .... some very fuzzy lines drawn between democracy and totalitarianism

This is why it's always nice to have a partial conscript force that you can treat like crap, insert into the most inhospitable austere locations and not worry about retention because in a year they're all gone and you start with a new crop.

Home guards are nice if the strategic objective and the home they come from are all in the same place. We're not geographically blessed in that way.

 

[GR66]

Home guards are nice if the strategic objective and the home they come from are all in the same place. We're not geographically blessed in that way.

I'd argue that we are geographically blessed in that we don't need a Home Guard to protect the majority of our population in their homes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'd argue that we are geographically blessed in that we don't need a Home Guard to protect the majority of our population in their homes.

There's also the 'Constitutional Monarchy' thing

 

[Kirkhill]

So, to be clear, we do need a Standing Army?

the Bill of Rights of 1689 requires parliamentary consent for the Crown to maintain a peacetime standing army.[10] Therefore, Parliament approves the army by passing an Armed Forces Act at least once every five years.

We do not need Volunteers?

Number of volunteers growing faster than Canada's population​

Over 13.3 million people—accounting for 47% of Canadians aged 15 and over—did volunteer work in 2010. They devoted almost 2.07 billion hours to their volunteer activities: a volume of work that is equivalent to just under 1.1 million full-time jobs (Table 1).

The number of volunteers in 2010 was significantly greater than in earlier years. The 13.3 million people who volunteered marked an increase of 6.4 % over 2007 and of 12.5% over 2004. In comparison, the rate of growth recorded for the general population aged 15 and over was 8.4% between 2004 and 2010.

While the increase in the number of volunteers continued the upward trend observed since 2004, the number of hours dedicated to volunteer work plateaued. After rising about 4% between 2004 and 2007, the total number of volunteer hours logged in 2010 remained essentially unchanged from 2007, at just under 2.07 billion.

Many Canadians become involved in volunteering because people they know are doing it. In 2010, 43% of volunteers said they did their volunteer work as part of a group project with friends, neighbours or co-workers; another 25% said they had joined members of their immediate family in their volunteer work. These proportions are essentially the same as those recorded in 2007 and 2004.

With the increasing use of the Internet for multiple purposes, one would expect to see more online volunteer activity than in previous survey years. In 2010, 14% of volunteers said they had sought out volunteering opportunities through the Internet, up from 10% in 2007 and 8% in 2004. And one-quarter of volunteers (25%) used the Internet to conduct activities on behalf of non-profit and charitable organizations, compared with 23% in 2007 and 20% in 2004. The Internet may prove a more valuable source of recruitment than these figures suggest—Canadian researchers have found that moderate Internet users recorded higher volunteer rates and more volunteer hours than non-users, even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, education and presence of children.2

Volunteering in Canada

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Most of the work done by few volunteers​

A small proportion of volunteers do most of the work (Chart 1). In fact in 2010, 10% of volunteers accounted for 53% of all volunteer hours given to non-profit and charitable organizations. They dedicated more than 390 hours to their volunteer activities, the equivalent of at least 10 weeks in a full-time job.3

Another 15% of volunteers logged between 161 and 390 hours, corresponding to between 4 and almost 10 full-time weeks of unpaid work; they contributed 24% of the total hours devoted to volunteer work in 2010.

In general, younger Canadians are more likely to volunteer than older Canadians. Well over one-half of people aged 15 to 24 (58%) and 35 to 44 (54%), and close to one-half of those aged 25 to 34 (46%), reported doing volunteer work in 2010. In comparison, pre-retirees aged 55 to 64 had a volunteer rate of 41% in 2010 and seniors recorded a rate of 36% (Table 2). Adults aged 25 to 34 were the only age group to record an increase in volunteerism between 2007 and 2010.

While younger Canadians are more likely to volunteer, they devote fewer hours to their volunteer work. On average, youths aged 15 to 24 (130 hours) and younger adults aged 25 to 34 (109 hours) recorded only about one-half as many hours as seniors (223 hours). Average volunteer hours in 2010 remained unchanged for each age group compared to 2007.

Volunteering - "Sweat Equity", "Taxation in Kind", Donated effort.

All freely adhering to the basic principle - from each according to her ability. And their organizations strive to make the best use of whatever hours the volunteers can put at the service of the organization and, indirectly, the community.

Is there any reason why the Atlin Ranger Patrol Group could not be allied with the Westies, after the GR66 suggestion and have the Westies bring the Rangers south for training and recreation. With the Westies sending a group north for training and recreation. And how about the Westies operating a volunteer 911 call centre for Atlin? Monitoring local sites visually from their smart phones? Monitoring comms? Bringing the rangers south would allow them to see the locals and make personal connections. - all on an unpaid basis.

And, maybe, somebody, somewhere, wants an AirB'n'B week long retreat at a NWS with nothing but her cell phone for company.

 

[CBH99]

To be clear, I'm not against expanding our military presence in the Arctic. I'm totally in favour of that. It is absolutely required along with various other forms of non-military infrastructure and development in order to secure our ongoing control over the territory.

Do I think we need a Brigade specifically tasked for Arctic defence, or 90,000 volunteers rotating through remote Arctic postings annually to achieve that? No. Targeted specific and persistent capabilities to provide ongoing surveillance of our territory with the ability to forcefully respond (air, land and sea) if required. From an Army perspective I think that can be achieved through ensuring we have the technical capability to deploy to and operate in the Arctic and we need to practice/demonstrate that capability on an ongoing basis.

Agreed.

Why not choose one or two companies from PPCLI or RCR to be tasked with ‘Arctic Operations’ if anything real world were to happen.

Equip them for such, which wouldn’t be expensive or difficult.

- Our extreme cold-weather kit is pretty decent, our moderately cold-weather kit I found lacking. Replace that kit using a UOR or write specs that only a few bidders can comply with. (Lawsuits only seem to happen if specs are written to favour one bidder.)

- Replace BV-206 with new vehicles of the same type. Not up-armoured, easier to fly up and operate in deep snow/steep inclines sometimes.

- Keep the snow-mobile fleet modern and in good repair. (Perhaps allow those units to purchase replacement vehicles as needed on their own. Orders would be small.)

- the new kitchen system coming online is impressive. Keep one or two ready to deploy.


Realistically, Big army is not going to be responding to anything in the arctic at more than company strength anyways.

Instead of rotating various units through arctic warfare training, Operation Nanook, etc - just task those ops to one or two companies, and let those companies excel at it.


0.02

 

[CBH99]

“People are relying on us” — National Guard evolves to fight wars, secure homefront

The last two years have seen a rash of domestic crises and the National Guard has been on the frontline responding to everything from the Covid-19 pandemic to historic fires and flooding, and even widespread protests.

www.armytimes.com

Some good easy reading that is relevant to the thread. FJAG, I thought of you when I first read this

 

[FJAG]

“People are relying on us” — National Guard evolves to fight wars, secure homefront

The last two years have seen a rash of domestic crises and the National Guard has been on the frontline responding to everything from the Covid-19 pandemic to historic fires and flooding, and even widespread protests.

www.armytimes.com

Some good easy reading that is relevant to the thread. FJAG, I thought of you when I first read this

Nothing new for me. This says it all.

Cancian points to a need here for traditional warfighting skills — “tanks, planes, and ships,” as he puts it.

“Ninety-nine percent of what [the guard and the reserves] do are these traditional kinds of capabilities,” Cancian says. “If there were conflict in Europe against Russia, or conflict in the Western Pacific against China, or North Korea — pick your crisis spot, you’re going to be using a lot of reservists.”

This is the point that I keep carping about - the Res F needs to become capable at warfighting and the Army's leadership needs to get it into their thick heads that until they properly organize, equip and train the Res F they will not be able to form a proper defence capability.

An Army with forty plus thousand soldiers whose whole business plan is to be able to generate two battlegroups at a time is missing the point of what a national defence force is. To have half of that force unequipped and grossly undertrained is pure and simple professional negligence.