markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,679
- Points
- 1,260
Please go no CPs in the Pls, just please no.
Informing the Army’s Future Structure
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,089
- Points
- 990
I thought that I had read in this thread that they already were? (The 6.0's, not the ACSV's)
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,679
- Points
- 1,260
@IKnowNothing CPs are coy and up; the backs are not suitable for much below that. We had issues with the initial delivery of 6.0s with CFRs being assigned regardless of if they were CP or ISC.
I’d also argue very strongly against dropping to two sections and loosing the platoon’s ability to maintain its own depth. I’d rather see the platoon drop it’s weapons detachment and each LAV carry an 84 and a C6 to be used as needed. Those PYs would be reassigned to fill out a Javeline / Spike / MMP equipped Anti Armour platoon.
I’d also argue very strongly against dropping to two sections and loosing the platoon’s ability to maintain its own depth. I’d rather see the platoon drop it’s weapons detachment and each LAV carry an 84 and a C6 to be used as needed. Those PYs would be reassigned to fill out a Javeline / Spike / MMP equipped Anti Armour platoon.
- Reaction score
- 19,966
- Points
- 1,260
The CAF issue isn't really manpower - it is the way the CAF employs it's manpower
Which is a major problem
Another major problem
At least
Purchasing needs to be realistic - suitable equipment for a combat peer v peer environment - which sadly hasn't occurred for some time.
It can't - it may be fast for Canadian terms, but there are some many missing gaps that procurment, and training will take some time.
Consider selling the Leo back to Germany.
Yes there has been a considerable amount of work gone into them, and support, but not enough to make it worth keeping that fleet IMHO, when thousands of M1A2 exist a few miles south and have a robust spare parts and maintenance system - including OEM Maintenance contractors etc.
I don't see the gain to retain Leo’s in the number the CAF has.
No your dropping a lot losing a tank from a troop. A 2x2 force can cover each other in bounds and isn’t immediately combat ineffective at one loss.
CFV is a bad name, I think the idea of a Light Armor screen has gone the way of the Dodo.
Again a screening force isn’t. It needs to be able to fight - you can conduct mud Recce and ISR without committing target vehicles.
Terrible idea.
You just robbed a Platoon of 1/2 of its dismounted fighters.
As Mark said, the CP doesn’t belong at the Platoon. The only way that works is a 12 man section with 2 Lav / section and one of the HQ section LAVs being a CP.
It may work with a dispersed environment and pushing other enablers like a Class 1/2 UAV to the Platoon to link with higher G2
Canada at least has historical knowledge with the M109, and tracks do better on debris field areas.
777 is a light role gun, it should never been adopted for a CMBG.
I still stand by the point I think the CAF needs a HEAVY Bde for prepositioning.
200+ CV90 or M2A3 Bradley
120 M1A2
18 M109A6
18 M270A1 MLRS
Tracked GBAD (M and S)
THAAD
Plus ARV, ALVB, and 100 or so HEMTT-A4 for logistics
Plus RCAF assets of real UH Squadron a AH Squadron, a MH Squadron And 2 F-35 Squadrons
Have 1/3rd of the troops prepositioned
The rest have sims back at home station and 1-2 fly overs per year for a Bde level ex -and at least every 2 years have a Multi-National DIV ex.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 979
- Points
- 810
The comments about how we are committed to the LEO fleet is interesting when you look at how ready, willing and able to abandon underperforming equipment (for various reasons) the Australians are. They are basically abandoning European equipment due to supply issues and performance issues, equipment that they only recently purchased.
Not saying they are right or wrong, their mindset is what is interesting here compared to ours as an institution.
Not saying they are right or wrong, their mindset is what is interesting here compared to ours as an institution.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,089
- Points
- 990
Thanks for your reply. Once again - completely ignorant. The post that informed my thinking was this and those around it
FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure
Gave my the impression that the 6.0 CP was functional very similar to the ISC, could provide a 4th 25mm and the back would be able to house the platoon command element. If my idea were to happen, could the CP's be returreted and converted to go to the armoured regiments to leave the ISC's at the platoon level?
Regarding your second paragraph, would you then say that you completely disagree with the discussion earlier in the thread to transition to the Swedish/ weapons locker model with better equipped but smaller platoons? I was trying to make use of that concept.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,089
- Points
- 990
@KevinB
Thank-you very much for your reply. Could you elaborate on the death of the light armoured screening force?
I was thinking that what we're seeing in Ukraine is showing the reverse, that with training, logistics support, and the right kit (ATGM) that a lighter force has role in defending against heavy armour.
Re- the heavy regiment (Leo vs M1 aside), if it were revised to be 4x3 (+2) with 9 tanks (4x2 +1 command) and 5 Brad's in 1st squadron, 4 tanks and 10 Brads in 2nd and 3rd would that work? Still fits inside the existing Leo complement just needs more Bradleys - I was trying to keep new vehicles to a minimum.
Re- disregarding the assumptions / constraints as "problems" and your proposal, as a taxpayer I'd absolutely love if we went completely asymmetrical with a light brigade, lav brigade, properly outfitted combined arms heavy brigade, with a full prepositioned 2nd set of kit for the heavy and a spare battle group set for the LAV, but (and with all respect)
-I think that stands as much chance of happening as my protestant ass being elected Pope,
-erasing all the constraints makes for a much less challenging puzzle
-as an outsider, refusing to acknowledge them and having my first post be a pie in the sky complete reimagining of the army seemed like a good way to piss people off
Thank-you very much for your reply. Could you elaborate on the death of the light armoured screening force?
I was thinking that what we're seeing in Ukraine is showing the reverse, that with training, logistics support, and the right kit (ATGM) that a lighter force has role in defending against heavy armour.
Re- the heavy regiment (Leo vs M1 aside), if it were revised to be 4x3 (+2) with 9 tanks (4x2 +1 command) and 5 Brad's in 1st squadron, 4 tanks and 10 Brads in 2nd and 3rd would that work? Still fits inside the existing Leo complement just needs more Bradleys - I was trying to keep new vehicles to a minimum.
Re- disregarding the assumptions / constraints as "problems" and your proposal, as a taxpayer I'd absolutely love if we went completely asymmetrical with a light brigade, lav brigade, properly outfitted combined arms heavy brigade, with a full prepositioned 2nd set of kit for the heavy and a spare battle group set for the LAV, but (and with all respect)
-I think that stands as much chance of happening as my protestant ass being elected Pope,
-erasing all the constraints makes for a much less challenging puzzle
-as an outsider, refusing to acknowledge them and having my first post be a pie in the sky complete reimagining of the army seemed like a good way to piss people off
- Reaction score
- 19,966
- Points
- 1,260
What is occurring in public in the Ukraine is Armored formations road bound and spread out - they aren't able to use their mobility - or to bring effective fire to bear while moving.
NATO MBT's remain fairly resilient against enemy (Russian) ATGM's and RPG's - but lighter vehicles are not.
As such I am not a fan of light armor screens - I would have a heavy armor unit backed up with AH and UAV's - with HIVF Infantry - maybe with some dismount Inf Recce - but definitely STA/ISR assets - and both ATGM, and AD assets.
People smarter than me have made points that peacetime Composite Combat Teams don't work well, and that by keeping the units separate they get better individual and collective training, as well as retaining the ability to force Inf or Arm heavy Cbt Teams/Btl Groups.
Yeah same - but I love titling at windmills.
I pissed people off when I was in the CAF, I wouldn't want to change from the outside
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,679
- Points
- 1,260
The difference between a LAV CP and ISC is the layout of the troop compartment. Infantry platoon commanders don’t need a map board in the back, having the ISC means weapons det goes with the Pl Comd and sits in their back pocket.
Smaller platoons a la Sweden ? Maybe, but they don’t have a weapons section, they have three squads, which gives them the ability to fight 2 up 1 back. A weapons squad will support by fire, but won’t be able to rapidly shift to fill the gap left by casualties or new enemy positions.
I find the Swedish model interesting, but I also remind myself they haven’t been in a war since the invention of the combustion engine.
An interesting proposal for possible light forces, particularly expeditionary.
smallwarsjournal.com
Developing an Experimental Joint Airborne Division for Hybrid Warfare and Great Power Competition | Small Wars Journal
This article details the advantages the US military can gain by developing an experimental joint airborne division for use in current or future hybrid conflicts while simultaneously countering emerging proxy threats during Great Power Competition. It highlights the current capability gap in our...
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 29,736
- Points
- 1,160
An interesting proposal for possible light forces, particularly expeditionary.
Developing an Experimental Joint Airborne Division for Hybrid Warfare and Great Power Competition | Small Wars Journal
This article details the advantages the US military can gain by developing an experimental joint airborne division for use in current or future hybrid conflicts while simultaneously countering emerging proxy threats during Great Power Competition. It highlights the current capability gap in our...
You had me at 'Shock Trooper'
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,089
- Points
- 990
Scenario:
In a politically motivated move, PMJT "contributes" our Leo fleet to NATO allies, with no plans for a replacement MBT. What there is funding for:
-A Spike/Javelin Launcher added to 120 LAV ISC/LRSS turrets
-100 new LAV hulls, with a mix of 120mm mortar (turret or carrier), 105mm gun, ATGM UA, UAV UA
-MANPAT, GBAD, SPG looked after separately.
Given a free hand to reorganize the armoured regiments and LAV battalions:
-where do you put the strap on ATGM's
-what is your mix for the new LAV hulls
-how do you set it all up
-is the Army better for it?
(Edit- "it" being the Leo for 100 various specialty lav's + 120 ATGM turrets, hold MANPAT/GBAD/SPG equal)
@Kirkhill @FJAG @GR66
In a politically motivated move, PMJT "contributes" our Leo fleet to NATO allies, with no plans for a replacement MBT. What there is funding for:
-A Spike/Javelin Launcher added to 120 LAV ISC/LRSS turrets
-100 new LAV hulls, with a mix of 120mm mortar (turret or carrier), 105mm gun, ATGM UA, UAV UA
-MANPAT, GBAD, SPG looked after separately.
Given a free hand to reorganize the armoured regiments and LAV battalions:
-where do you put the strap on ATGM's
-what is your mix for the new LAV hulls
-how do you set it all up
-is the Army better for it?
(Edit- "it" being the Leo for 100 various specialty lav's + 120 ATGM turrets, hold MANPAT/GBAD/SPG equal)
@Kirkhill @FJAG @GR66
Last edited:
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,774
- Points
- 1,160
Not 100% sure I follow the scenario and question but I'll put my views forward.
1) We should not contribute a force that doesn't have tanks. The eFP in Latvia has tanks from other countries and I can live with that. However, our own army needs tanks. If we give up tanks to NATO allies then we need to acquire new ones. Both the M1 and the Leo2 are good tanks. I tend to give the Leo the edge because of its lower fuel consumption but I prefer the M1 for the reason of compatibility with our North American ally/industry/maintenance base. I prefer standardizing more with the US. IMHO, a LAV with a 105 mm gun is an invitation to misuse it as a tank - that won't work. The US removed them from their Stryker companies and put a few into their Stryker cavalry squadron together with ATGMs as a support arm for their scouts. Conceptually that is more acceptable.
2) I'm not a LAV fan. I'm an HIFV fan because I believe in combined arms battalions for offensive action. There are several types I would take. I'll tolerate the LAV 6.0 because we have them and realistically we won't change that for a long time. Tolerating the LAV 6.0 means accepting the casualties that will come with them if they are used in offensive combined arms operations.
3) I wouldn't change the organization of the infantry companies and armoured squadrons very much. I tend to favour combined arms battalions as configured in a US ABCT. Both our concept and theirs allows for reconfiguring battalions for specific tasks by moving a company or squadron to another battalion. However, I prefer the US combined arms battalion because that way the battalion's CSS echelon is set up from day one to cater to supporting both tanks and HIFVs. The problem for Canada is that we generally do not go with a standard configuration and doctrine when we deploy. We tend to tailor build a force as needed. That type of a force employment model, where for example you don't always want to deploy your tanks with the infantry on a given mission, makes combined arms battalions a little less flexible.
4) IMHO, CS systems are vital for an infantry battalion. 120mm mortars under armour, ATGM under armour, are critical. I'm an old guy used to seeing mortars and heavy ATGMs in platoons at the battalion level but am wide open to a wider distribution down to company level. medium ATGMs should be widely deployed both in turret mounts and as man portables.
5) As far as set-up is concerned, I trend towards the US ABCT and SBCT organizations. What's clear is those organizations have very different roles and equipment. For a European theatre I favour the ABCT set up because it has a much greater counter attack capability than the SBCT and from what I've been seeing in Ukraine one needs that.
One final thought. Your scenario is based on trading off old capabilities for new ones. Canada has done that for over twenty years now and IMHO that has been a fundamental error. We've been giving up critical capabilities - SPs, armour for a time, GBAD, ATGMs - because we didn't think we would ever need them and didn't feel we had the $ to maintain and support them. That's a mug's game and it was obvious as we were looking at giving the Ukrainians weapon systems. The ones they needed most were the ones not in our inventory.
Building a force is a detailed and intellectually challenging exercise which starts with defining the effect you wish to have and then working backwards to determine which of all the many interrelated moving parts you need to deliver that. If you start the exercise by cherry picking a piece of gear here and another piece of gear there (and even worse, cutting something out) then you won't get to having a coherent or credible force structure.
I know there are others in this forum that have a different view of things, but for me the effect that the Canadian Army needs to deliver includes an armoured brigade group capable of conducting offensive operations (principally counter attacks) in a high intensity conflict in the European theatre against enemy armoured formations. There are also, lesser missions that we may need to perform which might require a lower standard of equipment and a different organization, but the ability to deploy and sustain that single Armoured brigade group is the minimum standard to aim for.
To add to FJAG above this I dont really see much of the point of the medium weight brigade ala LAVs. It can take small arms fire but can take anything. Would probably be cheaper to move to IMV like the griffon and jaguar France has. The 105mm is going to be covered off by the new US light tank. 105mm on a chasis that cant take a hit from the vehicles it needs to take out itself makes little sense. You are effectively doing the same thing the Royal Navy did with the Type 21.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 29,736
- Points
- 1,160
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. That new Gender Neutral Dress code should fill up the armoured brigades
Canada's military reports that it's roughly 7,600 members short of full strength — just as NATO is deploying more troops to eastern Europe in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The latest figure was recorded on Feb. 15 and shows a major shortfall in what the military calls its "trained, effective strength." The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has roughly 65,000 regular members.
"This is of course a number one priority for all of us, ensuring readiness is not affected by our current trained, effective strength," said Brig.-Gen. Simon Bernard, the military's lead on reconstituting the forces.
Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of defence staff, said earlier this month that operational readiness is "one of the things that keeps me awake at night" as he laid out his plans to rebuild the military for an "increasingly dangerous future."
NATO's Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday the alliance is deploying four more battle groups to Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as a show of unity and force in the face of Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine. NATO leaders are expected to discuss whether to make that deployment permanent when they meet in Brussels on Thursday.
David Perry, the president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said CAF's membership shortfall is "significant."
"[The military] always put the highest priority on operational commitments, including NATO, so the short-term impacts will probably be low," said Perry. "But if we can't quickly fix that shortfall, it will impact what we can commit to NATO in the medium and long term."
Conservative MP Pierre Paul-Hus, vice-chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, said the shortfall is a "huge problem" and raises questions about Canada's ability to deploy the 3,400 military personnel now on standby to join NATO's high-readiness force.
"I think the government needs to change things quickly," said Hus. "We need to recruit."
The military has seen a drop in numbers during the pandemic and over the course of its recent sexual misconduct crisis. Multiple senior male leaders have been sidelined, investigated or forced into retirement in connection with sexual misconduct claims.
The military said it does not yet know how many members have left in response to sexual misconduct claims.
Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan was appointed the military's chief of professional conduct and culture a year ago. She gave a briefing Wednesday with acting chief of military personnel Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon.
"We've seen an impact, sadly. I wish I could tell you that we've not, but we've seen an impact, and we need to work on that," Bourgon said of the effect of sexual misconduct allegations on recruitment and retention.
Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon said the Canadian Armed Forces will adopt a gender-neutral dress code and relax rules banning long or colourful hair. (OP Impact/DND)
Bourgon said 71 per cent of the military's workforce is made up of "white males."
"The bottom line ... is that diversity enhances readiness and, in turn, our operational effectiveness," Bourgon said.
"So as an organization, we must attract, recruit, retain and develop talent that is representative of our Canadian society. The situation requires serious attention and clear leadership."
Women, minority groups and Indigenous members "continue to be under-represented" in the military, she said.
Only 631 women enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces in the 2021-2022 fiscal year — roughly 15 per cent of all new recruits into the regular forces. The number of women who enrolled over the year is the lowest recorded since 2015-2016 and represents a 10 per cent drop from the previous fiscal year.
In 2016, the military committed to increasing the number of women in uniform and is striving to reach the goal of 25 per cent of all military personnel by 2026.
CAF said it's taking steps to diversify the forces. It said it's adopting a gender-neutral dress code and relaxing rules banning long hair and hair dyed in bright colours.
"It's going to be the first visual change of our culture change," said Bourgon. "We can't define our soldiers by short hair anymore. The colour and the length of the hair does not define your quality as a solider, an aviator, and a sailor. So this is going to be a big departure."
Canadian Military reports sagging recruitment as NATO ramps up deployment in eastern Europe
- The Canadian Armed Forces says it's still struggling to recruit women
Canada's military reports that it's roughly 7,600 members short of full strength — just as NATO is deploying more troops to eastern Europe in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The latest figure was recorded on Feb. 15 and shows a major shortfall in what the military calls its "trained, effective strength." The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has roughly 65,000 regular members.
"This is of course a number one priority for all of us, ensuring readiness is not affected by our current trained, effective strength," said Brig.-Gen. Simon Bernard, the military's lead on reconstituting the forces.
Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of defence staff, said earlier this month that operational readiness is "one of the things that keeps me awake at night" as he laid out his plans to rebuild the military for an "increasingly dangerous future."
NATO's Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday the alliance is deploying four more battle groups to Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as a show of unity and force in the face of Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine. NATO leaders are expected to discuss whether to make that deployment permanent when they meet in Brussels on Thursday.
David Perry, the president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said CAF's membership shortfall is "significant."
"[The military] always put the highest priority on operational commitments, including NATO, so the short-term impacts will probably be low," said Perry. "But if we can't quickly fix that shortfall, it will impact what we can commit to NATO in the medium and long term."
Conservative MP Pierre Paul-Hus, vice-chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, said the shortfall is a "huge problem" and raises questions about Canada's ability to deploy the 3,400 military personnel now on standby to join NATO's high-readiness force.
"I think the government needs to change things quickly," said Hus. "We need to recruit."
The military has seen a drop in numbers during the pandemic and over the course of its recent sexual misconduct crisis. Multiple senior male leaders have been sidelined, investigated or forced into retirement in connection with sexual misconduct claims.
The military said it does not yet know how many members have left in response to sexual misconduct claims.
Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan was appointed the military's chief of professional conduct and culture a year ago. She gave a briefing Wednesday with acting chief of military personnel Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon.
"We've seen an impact, sadly. I wish I could tell you that we've not, but we've seen an impact, and we need to work on that," Bourgon said of the effect of sexual misconduct allegations on recruitment and retention.
Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon said the Canadian Armed Forces will adopt a gender-neutral dress code and relax rules banning long or colourful hair. (OP Impact/DND)
Bourgon said 71 per cent of the military's workforce is made up of "white males."
"The bottom line ... is that diversity enhances readiness and, in turn, our operational effectiveness," Bourgon said.
"So as an organization, we must attract, recruit, retain and develop talent that is representative of our Canadian society. The situation requires serious attention and clear leadership."
Women, minority groups and Indigenous members "continue to be under-represented" in the military, she said.
Only 631 women enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces in the 2021-2022 fiscal year — roughly 15 per cent of all new recruits into the regular forces. The number of women who enrolled over the year is the lowest recorded since 2015-2016 and represents a 10 per cent drop from the previous fiscal year.
In 2016, the military committed to increasing the number of women in uniform and is striving to reach the goal of 25 per cent of all military personnel by 2026.
CAF said it's taking steps to diversify the forces. It said it's adopting a gender-neutral dress code and relaxing rules banning long hair and hair dyed in bright colours.
"It's going to be the first visual change of our culture change," said Bourgon. "We can't define our soldiers by short hair anymore. The colour and the length of the hair does not define your quality as a solider, an aviator, and a sailor. So this is going to be a big departure."
Sad that they think short and bland colored hair is the issue in the CAF that needs to change. I think we're done in forI'm shocked, shocked I tell you. That new Gender Neutral Dress code should fill up the armoured brigades
Canadian Military reports sagging recruitment as NATO ramps up deployment in eastern Europe
- The Canadian Armed Forces says it's still struggling to recruit women
Canada's military reports that it's roughly 7,600 members short of full strength — just as NATO is deploying more troops to eastern Europe in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The latest figure was recorded on Feb. 15 and shows a major shortfall in what the military calls its "trained, effective strength." The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has roughly 65,000 regular members.
"This is of course a number one priority for all of us, ensuring readiness is not affected by our current trained, effective strength," said Brig.-Gen. Simon Bernard, the military's lead on reconstituting the forces.
Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of defence staff, said earlier this month that operational readiness is "one of the things that keeps me awake at night" as he laid out his plans to rebuild the military for an "increasingly dangerous future."
NATO's Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday the alliance is deploying four more battle groups to Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as a show of unity and force in the face of Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine. NATO leaders are expected to discuss whether to make that deployment permanent when they meet in Brussels on Thursday.
David Perry, the president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said CAF's membership shortfall is "significant."
"[The military] always put the highest priority on operational commitments, including NATO, so the short-term impacts will probably be low," said Perry. "But if we can't quickly fix that shortfall, it will impact what we can commit to NATO in the medium and long term."
Conservative MP Pierre Paul-Hus, vice-chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, said the shortfall is a "huge problem" and raises questions about Canada's ability to deploy the 3,400 military personnel now on standby to join NATO's high-readiness force.
"I think the government needs to change things quickly," said Hus. "We need to recruit."
The military has seen a drop in numbers during the pandemic and over the course of its recent sexual misconduct crisis. Multiple senior male leaders have been sidelined, investigated or forced into retirement in connection with sexual misconduct claims.
The military said it does not yet know how many members have left in response to sexual misconduct claims.
Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan was appointed the military's chief of professional conduct and culture a year ago. She gave a briefing Wednesday with acting chief of military personnel Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon.
"We've seen an impact, sadly. I wish I could tell you that we've not, but we've seen an impact, and we need to work on that," Bourgon said of the effect of sexual misconduct allegations on recruitment and retention.
Maj.-Gen. Lise Bourgon said the Canadian Armed Forces will adopt a gender-neutral dress code and relax rules banning long or colourful hair. (OP Impact/DND)
Bourgon said 71 per cent of the military's workforce is made up of "white males."
"The bottom line ... is that diversity enhances readiness and, in turn, our operational effectiveness," Bourgon said.
"So as an organization, we must attract, recruit, retain and develop talent that is representative of our Canadian society. The situation requires serious attention and clear leadership."
Women, minority groups and Indigenous members "continue to be under-represented" in the military, she said.
Only 631 women enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces in the 2021-2022 fiscal year — roughly 15 per cent of all new recruits into the regular forces. The number of women who enrolled over the year is the lowest recorded since 2015-2016 and represents a 10 per cent drop from the previous fiscal year.
In 2016, the military committed to increasing the number of women in uniform and is striving to reach the goal of 25 per cent of all military personnel by 2026.
CAF said it's taking steps to diversify the forces. It said it's adopting a gender-neutral dress code and relaxing rules banning long hair and hair dyed in bright colours.
"It's going to be the first visual change of our culture change," said Bourgon. "We can't define our soldiers by short hair anymore. The colour and the length of the hair does not define your quality as a solider, an aviator, and a sailor. So this is going to be a big departure."
- Reaction score
- 6,878
- Points
- 1,310
While I support these initiatives wholly, I don't think they're going to do anything damn thing.
Dress and inclusivity are easy things to fix; but actual solutions cost money no one is willing to spend.
Hell a lot of people that would even consider a job in the CAF are turned off by:
-terrible pay for comparable civilian jobs
-arbitrary postings
-decrepit infrastructure
-having to crew and maintain vehicles and systems that are older than most recruits by many years
-lack of equivalencies for training/civilian crossover
-our inability to provide members with adequate clothing, equipment, weapons systems, protective gear, let alone dress uniforms that fit or look "cool"
Trying to sell the Old Lie is hard in the Information Age. Zoomers can see all our faults and are taking a pass. Until we provide a viable option, doesn't matter if you want to recruit a Battalion of minorities... they won't come because we aren't a winning horse to bet on.
Dress and inclusivity are easy things to fix; but actual solutions cost money no one is willing to spend.
Hell a lot of people that would even consider a job in the CAF are turned off by:
-terrible pay for comparable civilian jobs
-arbitrary postings
-decrepit infrastructure
-having to crew and maintain vehicles and systems that are older than most recruits by many years
-lack of equivalencies for training/civilian crossover
-our inability to provide members with adequate clothing, equipment, weapons systems, protective gear, let alone dress uniforms that fit or look "cool"
Trying to sell the Old Lie is hard in the Information Age. Zoomers can see all our faults and are taking a pass. Until we provide a viable option, doesn't matter if you want to recruit a Battalion of minorities... they won't come because we aren't a winning horse to bet on.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,679
- Points
- 1,260
I see this HIFV comment fly around here quite a bit. Can you provide examples of an HIFV and define its protection ? I feel like most of the not a LAV fan posters here have a somewhat … inaccurate view of its frontal and side arc protection and very glossy views of the competition.Not 100% sure I follow the scenario and question but I'll put my views forward.
1) We should not contribute a force that doesn't have tanks. The eFP in Latvia has tanks from other countries and I can live with that. However, our own army needs tanks. If we give up tanks to NATO allies then we need to acquire new ones. Both the M1 and the Leo2 are good tanks. I tend to give the Leo the edge because of its lower fuel consumption but I prefer the M1 for the reason of compatibility with our North American ally/industry/maintenance base. I prefer standardizing more with the US. IMHO, a LAV with a 105 mm gun is an invitation to misuse it as a tank - that won't work. The US removed them from their Stryker companies and put a few into their Stryker cavalry squadron together with ATGMs as a support arm for their scouts. Conceptually that is more acceptable.
2) I'm not a LAV fan. I'm an HIFV fan because I believe in combined arms battalions for offensive action. There are several types I would take. I'll tolerate the LAV 6.0 because we have them and realistically we won't change that for a long time. Tolerating the LAV 6.0 means accepting the casualties that will come with them if they are used in offensive combined arms operations.
3) I wouldn't change the organization of the infantry companies and armoured squadrons very much. I tend to favour combined arms battalions as configured in a US ABCT. Both our concept and theirs allows for reconfiguring battalions for specific tasks by moving a company or squadron to another battalion. However, I prefer the US combined arms battalion because that way the battalion's CSS echelon is set up from day one to cater to supporting both tanks and HIFVs. The problem for Canada is that we generally do not go with a standard configuration and doctrine when we deploy. We tend to tailor build a force as needed. That type of a force employment model, where for example you don't always want to deploy your tanks with the infantry on a given mission, makes combined arms battalions a little less flexible.
4) IMHO, CS systems are vital for an infantry battalion. 120mm mortars under armour, ATGM under armour, are critical. I'm an old guy used to seeing mortars and heavy ATGMs in platoons at the battalion level but am wide open to a wider distribution down to company level. medium ATGMs should be widely deployed both in turret mounts and as man portables.
5) As far as set-up is concerned, I trend towards the US ABCT and SBCT organizations. What's clear is those organizations have very different roles and equipment. For a European theatre I favour the ABCT set up because it has a much greater counter attack capability than the SBCT and from what I've been seeing in Ukraine one needs that.
One final thought. Your scenario is based on trading off old capabilities for new ones. Canada has done that for over twenty years now and IMHO that has been a fundamental error. We've been giving up critical capabilities - SPs, armour for a time, GBAD, ATGMs - because we didn't think we would ever need them and didn't feel we had the $ to maintain and support them. That's a mug's game and it was obvious as we were looking at giving the Ukrainians weapon systems. The ones they needed most were the ones not in our inventory.
Building a force is a detailed and intellectually challenging exercise which starts with defining the effect you wish to have and then working backwards to determine which of all the many interrelated moving parts you need to deliver that. If you start the exercise by cherry picking a piece of gear here and another piece of gear there (and even worse, cutting something out) then you won't get to having a coherent or credible force structure.
I know there are others in this forum that have a different view of things, but for me the effect that the Canadian Army needs to deliver includes an armoured brigade group capable of conducting offensive operations (principally counter attacks) in a high intensity conflict in the European theatre against enemy armoured formations. There are also, lesser missions that we may need to perform which might require a lower standard of equipment and a different organization, but the ability to deploy and sustain that single Armoured brigade group is the minimum standard to aim for.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,679
- Points
- 1,260
ATGMs held at Coy level weapon detachments in the Italian model of 2x IFV with a turret equipped system and a det with a stand in the back each. Ideally this is a LAV 6.0 with a reconfigured back, but I’d accept a ACSV with an rws system for the atgm carrier.
Mortars massed at Bn as a separate platoon.
