- Reaction score
- 8,305
- Points
- 1,160
Actually I was more thinking about MAMs and Hellfires. I assume the TB2s and Predators are out of reach of all but SHORAD/MRAD missiles.
Informing the Army’s Future Structure
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
Actually I was more thinking about MAMs and Hellfires. I assume the TB2s and Predators are out of reach of all but SHORAD/MRAD missiles.
- Reaction score
- 8,305
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 21,964
- Points
- 1,260
Mark, honestly tracks can pivot way easier than wheels can turn - the LAV III wasn’t nimble and the 6.0 can’t be any better.
Regardless anything man made can be destroyed given enough explosives.
Also I’ve of them opinion that BTR 4 was extremely lucky. Having driven around Fallujah, MASOC was a lot more mobile in their Hummers than the LAV-25’s because the rubble was a killer for the LAV’s the Abrams could go over/through it - and the Hummers could usually eek out a precarious path, or just got out and walked - while the LAV’s needed a dozer to clear some of the rubble off the road - chucks of concrete are brutal accidental roadblocks.
Army Bradleys didn’t have nearly the same issues as the LAV’s did.
Plus nothing like seeing a LAV listing like a sinking ship with 4 right side shredded tires as the commander and driver though some of the rubble was negotiable
- Reaction score
- 8,305
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile, I think the answer to lots of Javelins and NLAWs and Loitering Munitions is lots of low cost targets.
Lots of little unmanned and optionally manned little tankettes running around all over the place.
Lots of little unmanned and optionally manned little tankettes running around all over the place.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,260
That BTR 4 was doing a very good job against what looked like bad opponents. I imagine luck played in quite a bit.
I probably overstated a bit, we definitely found roads that LAVs couldn’t take in Kandahar. It was more a response to Kirkill’s hyperbole frankly.
- Reaction score
- 8,305
- Points
- 1,160
Hyperbole!!!! (need to add couple more exclamation points !!)
I am stunned. Shocked. Flabbergasted. Nay even gobsmacked.
I still prefer to walk thanks.
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 151
- Points
- 580
Speaking of LAVs, since slat armour has proved so effective lately (sarcastic), maybe slat armour will be the next "Double V/IED-proof" topic n the next conflict.
Maybe this is the time to be looking into the CCV 2.0 project and for someone to look at the future of Tanks and if Active Protection is worth it, and for which fleet?
It's worth it to start building an Army NSS where we think of how to Canadianize different MOTS APC/Tanks of all types?
Maybe this is the time to be looking into the CCV 2.0 project and for someone to look at the future of Tanks and if Active Protection is worth it, and for which fleet?
It's worth it to start building an Army NSS where we think of how to Canadianize different MOTS APC/Tanks of all types?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,256
- Points
- 1,160
Or maybe we should focus mainly on selecting and developing the highest quality operational and strategic level leaders who, as history shows, can generally figure out how to overcome the many and various kit (and other) defficiencies we will always experience in any peer-peer conflict.
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 151
- Points
- 580
I've read lots of these sort of responses to some good ideas for change and it's pretty cyclical.
"We should/n't do XYZ in the future because reasons."
Reply: "Yes, but what about this valid thing as well?"
Then repeat. Everything really needs to be given attention, thought, and responded to; it's all about which priorities first (B,A or A,B?) and shouldn't be boiled down (A vs. B).
----------------
We should really articulate how we want to do all of the things the CAF has to do.
How do we drive the discussion for Canadians' need to accept a level of capability that we can fund and sustain for the CAF?
How do we balance commitments to: NATO, NORAD, Arctic, 5EYES and meaningful UN Peacekeeping?
On top of all of this, we need many decisions made in short order for:
"We should/n't do XYZ in the future because reasons."
Reply: "Yes, but what about this valid thing as well?"
Then repeat. Everything really needs to be given attention, thought, and responded to; it's all about which priorities first (B,A or A,B?) and shouldn't be boiled down (A vs. B).
----------------
We should really articulate how we want to do all of the things the CAF has to do.
How do we drive the discussion for Canadians' need to accept a level of capability that we can fund and sustain for the CAF?
How do we balance commitments to: NATO, NORAD, Arctic, 5EYES and meaningful UN Peacekeeping?
How do we sell this to the public and prove this needs to be funded over many other needs? ("Build-in-Canada" costs, post-COVID rebuild, healthcare commitments, deficit, etc...).
On top of all of this, we need many decisions made in short order for:
- People Power: Retention, recruitment, culture maturity and diversity,
- Arctic: Capability, infrastructure, the future of CAF in the Arctic, ASW?
- NORAD commitments: Future of DEW, Hypersonic defence, fighter commitment/availability/infrastructure,
- Mobility: Sealift? 2 AORs enough?, enough airlift? Foreign basing/leases?
- Marquee large projects: Fighters, submarines, FORC2025/30 changes in this thread.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,151
- Points
- 1,160
Throwing this out as an idea...
What if we used our Edmonton-based units (plus 1 RCHA in Shilo) as the basis for a Canadian Armoured Brigade Combat Team in Latvia?
We could re-organize the Strathconas as a straight tank Regiment using 15-tank Squadrons (same as US Tank Companies). This would allow us to have 5 x Tank Squadrons with 7 tanks as spares.
We could deploy 1 Brigade HQ along with a single Armoured Battalion (2 x Tank Squadrons from the Strathconas and 1 x LAV Company from 1 PPCLI). We could pre-position the vehicles for the 2nd Armoured Battalion there for fly-over troops. The eFP Latvia Battlegroup would act as the 3rd (Mechanized Infantry) Battalion of the Brigade.
The 3rd Squadron personnel from the Strathconas plus a Reserve Squadron made up from troops from the South Alberta Light Horse and the King's Own Calgary Regiment would have the 5th Squadron of tanks in Wainwright to train on and they would fly over to Latvia to man the 2nd Armoured Battalion vehicles when required.
1 PPCLI would provide the LAV Company for the 1st Armoured Battalion as well as the LAV Company for the eFP Latvia Battlegroup. The 3rd Company would remain in Edmonton and would be tasked to fly over to be the LAV Company for the 2nd Armoured Battalion.
We already have deployed a single Artillery Battery deployed to Latvia in support of the eFP Battlegroup. It would remain there as the forward element of the Brigade's Artillery Regiment with pre-positioned guns for the other two Batteries.
Additional elements of 1 RCHA, 1 CER and 1 Service would be stationed in Latvia as required, with the remaining elements flying over as required.
The rest of the Canadian Army would be re-organized into 2 x Infantry Brigades (2 Brigade in Shilo & Petawawa and 5 Brigade in Valcartier & Gagetown). Each Brigade would have an Armoured Recce Regiment, an Artillery Regiment and a Service Battalion along with 4 x Infantry Battalions (a Reg Force Mechanized Infantry Battalion and a 30/70 Reg Force/Reserve Light Infantry Battalion at each of the four CFBs).
What if we used our Edmonton-based units (plus 1 RCHA in Shilo) as the basis for a Canadian Armoured Brigade Combat Team in Latvia?
We could re-organize the Strathconas as a straight tank Regiment using 15-tank Squadrons (same as US Tank Companies). This would allow us to have 5 x Tank Squadrons with 7 tanks as spares.
We could deploy 1 Brigade HQ along with a single Armoured Battalion (2 x Tank Squadrons from the Strathconas and 1 x LAV Company from 1 PPCLI). We could pre-position the vehicles for the 2nd Armoured Battalion there for fly-over troops. The eFP Latvia Battlegroup would act as the 3rd (Mechanized Infantry) Battalion of the Brigade.
The 3rd Squadron personnel from the Strathconas plus a Reserve Squadron made up from troops from the South Alberta Light Horse and the King's Own Calgary Regiment would have the 5th Squadron of tanks in Wainwright to train on and they would fly over to Latvia to man the 2nd Armoured Battalion vehicles when required.
1 PPCLI would provide the LAV Company for the 1st Armoured Battalion as well as the LAV Company for the eFP Latvia Battlegroup. The 3rd Company would remain in Edmonton and would be tasked to fly over to be the LAV Company for the 2nd Armoured Battalion.
We already have deployed a single Artillery Battery deployed to Latvia in support of the eFP Battlegroup. It would remain there as the forward element of the Brigade's Artillery Regiment with pre-positioned guns for the other two Batteries.
Additional elements of 1 RCHA, 1 CER and 1 Service would be stationed in Latvia as required, with the remaining elements flying over as required.
The rest of the Canadian Army would be re-organized into 2 x Infantry Brigades (2 Brigade in Shilo & Petawawa and 5 Brigade in Valcartier & Gagetown). Each Brigade would have an Armoured Recce Regiment, an Artillery Regiment and a Service Battalion along with 4 x Infantry Battalions (a Reg Force Mechanized Infantry Battalion and a 30/70 Reg Force/Reserve Light Infantry Battalion at each of the four CFBs).
- Reaction score
- 21,964
- Points
- 1,260
Light forces are easier and quicker to deploy, they get there first while your heavy and medium units are packing up to deploy.
Make Pet a Light Bde
I think the LAV is a terrible vehicle for Europe, but you could make 5Bde a LAV Bde and have a LAV res Bde
Get 200 ish CV90 for Europe with all the Leo 2 and get 18 M109 etc For a CABG, then have a 20 pool CV90 and 6 M109 in Wainwright for training for fly over forces.
Invest in a lot of simulators so the at home CABG can conduct virtual Bde and higher training
Make Pet a Light Bde
I think the LAV is a terrible vehicle for Europe, but you could make 5Bde a LAV Bde and have a LAV res Bde
Get 200 ish CV90 for Europe with all the Leo 2 and get 18 M109 etc For a CABG, then have a 20 pool CV90 and 6 M109 in Wainwright for training for fly over forces.
Invest in a lot of simulators so the at home CABG can conduct virtual Bde and higher training
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,151
- Points
- 1,160
The point of the above is that you'd have your heavy equipment (4 x Tank Squadrons, 2 x LAV Companies, 1 x Arty Battery and Engineer/Service support for those...plus our eFP contribution) already deployed to Latvia. The troops for the 2nd Armoured Battalion and the additional Gunners, Sappers, etc. would be flyover troops to take over the equipment already in position.
You may be right about the LAV, but politically it's likely here to stay at least for the short to mid-term. As Ukraine has shown, dismounted infantry can be quite effective against attacking armour, so the LAV as a battle taxi could be serviceable in a defensive scenario defending the Baltics IF we also properly equip our dismounts with the anti-armour and AA manpads required to do their job. In the counter attack...maybe not so much.
We'd also need to provide the other support vehicles (AT, SHORAD, UAV/Loitering Munition/Mortars) required for a peer fight. All of these are available as LAV existing variants and could be added to the CF without much difficulty if the will and money are there.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,804
- Points
- 1,160
Let me throw something out there and in this respect I do not know what the present arrangement for the Latvian eFB BG nor the artillery support it gets currently but let's do a hypothetical.
In short, Latvia has one mechanized brigade (without tanks) and four National Guard brigades (essentially light infantry).
The eFP BG is a heavy BG with four mech coys (two of which have their own integral tanks platoons) and a further armoured company. It also has a mortar platoon but no integral artillery (notwithstanding the four M777s just sent over.)
Latvia does now have enough M109A5OS to form three x 18-gun battalions; which is interesting.
Lets just play with numbers.
If one were to add that brigade HQ and those four tank squadrons and two LAV companies that you recommend then you could clearly form two combined arms battalions which, together with the eFP BG (also a combined arms battalion) would give you the manoeuvre elements of an American ABCT (notwithstanding the issue of the LAV as an IFV - you play with what you've got).
If Latvia/Multinational Division North would then put one Latvian M109 battalion in direct support of that brigade then all that would be needed to complete it is a cavalry regiment, a CER, a Svc Bn and some SHORAD. (Some if not most, of the cavalry elements could come from the overly strong eFP BG - it would need some rejigging) You could even send those M777s home or assign them to work with the light Latvian National Guard brigades which would suit their role better.
Another benefit of getting a commitment of an M109A5OS battalion assigned by Latvia would allow 1 RCHA's M777s to be redistributed to up gun 2 RCHA and 5 RALC. 1 RCHA could be reduced to a brigade FSCC, An OP Bty with three tactical groups (a BG FSCC and three FOO/JTACs), an STA battery and a small gun battery with C3 howitzers to provide live fire trg support to the FOOs.
Whether there is a need or not to deploy more elements to Latvia (other than the obvious maintainers and log/admin staff to keep the prepositioned equipment maintained, is an open question. My personal preference is to keep the rest of the force in Canada but flyover frequently to exercise the equipment, the personnel and the plan.
What is necessary is to ensure that 1 CMBG maintains enough tanks and LAVs to train itself throughout the year as well as a brigade's worth of reservists as augmentees/replacements. That would entail stripping 2 CMBG of at least one LAV bn (I would prefer both and sending the second to 5 CMBG thus making 2 CMBG a light brigade) 2 CMBG would therefore be relieved of the Latvia rotation role and look at other missions while 5 CMBG would still take part in eFP BG rotations but not the flyover role.
That really only leaves one major question. Are there enough tanks left in Canada to train the LdSH as well as at the CTC (and should those functions be combined in Edmonton?) One solution might be to reduce the number of tank squadrons in Latvia to three and increase the LAV companies to three. That would make the forward deployed brigade slightly tank lighter than an ABCT but still viable. Another is to pick up another squadron of Leos - there are still some in storage around Europe.
- Reaction score
- 21,964
- Points
- 1,260
Or go to the US Army and ask to lease a ABCT for Europe - and get a time share on a ABCT down here for training.Let me throw something out there and in this respect I do not know what the present arrangement for the Latvian eFB BG nor the artillery support it gets currently but let's do a hypothetical.
In short, Latvia has one mechanized brigade (without tanks) and four National Guard brigades (essentially light infantry).
The eFP BG is a heavy BG with four mech coys (two of which have their own integral tanks platoons) and a further armoured company. It also has a mortar platoon but no integral artillery (notwithstanding the four M777s just sent over.)
Latvia does now have enough M109A5OS to form three x 18-gun battalions; which is interesting.
Lets just play with numbers.
If one were to add that brigade HQ and those four tank squadrons and two LAV companies that you recommend then you could clearly form two combined arms battalions which, together with the eFP BG (also a combined arms battalion) would give you the manoeuvre elements of an American ABCT (notwithstanding the issue of the LAV as an IFV - you play with what you've got).
If Latvia/Multinational Division North would then put one Latvian M109 battalion in direct support of that brigade then all that would be needed to complete it is a cavalry regiment, a CER, a Svc Bn and some SHORAD. (Some if not most, of the cavalry elements could come from the overly strong eFP BG - it would need some rejigging) You could even send those M777s home or assign them to work with the light Latvian National Guard brigades which would suit their role better.
Another benefit of getting a commitment of an M109A5OS battalion assigned by Latvia would allow 1 RCHA's M777s to be redistributed to up gun 2 RCHA and 5 RALC. 1 RCHA could be reduced to a brigade FSCC, An OP Bty with three tactical groups (a BG FSCC and three FOO/JTACs), an STA battery and a small gun battery with C3 howitzers to provide live fire trg support to the FOOs.
Whether there is a need or not to deploy more elements to Latvia (other than the obvious maintainers and log/admin staff to keep the prepositioned equipment maintained, is an open question. My personal preference is to keep the rest of the force in Canada but flyover frequently to exercise the equipment, the personnel and the plan.
What is necessary is to ensure that 1 CMBG maintains enough tanks and LAVs to train itself throughout the year as well as a brigade's worth of reservists as augmentees/replacements. That would entail stripping 2 CMBG of at least one LAV bn (I would prefer both and sending the second to 5 CMBG thus making 2 CMBG a light brigade) 2 CMBG would therefore be relieved of the Latvia rotation role and look at other missions while 5 CMBG would still take part in eFP BG rotations but not the flyover role.
That really only leaves one major question. Are there enough tanks left in Canada to train the LdSH as well as at the CTC (and should those functions be combined in Edmonton?) One solution might be to reduce the number of tank squadrons in Latvia to three and increase the LAV companies to three. That would make the forward deployed brigade slightly tank lighter than an ABCT but still viable. Another is to pick up another squadron of Leos - there are still some in storage around Europe.
No we must continue to buy European equipment that is expensive and hard to maintain. Just look at the aussies and all the cool European stuff they got/s
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,260
If we’re talking about Force 2025-30 it’s going to stay Leopards. Nothing wrong with Leo 2 A4-6 , it’s just that we bought surplus tanks that were old when we got them and the UOR didn’t adequately provide for parts 15 years later.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,256
- Points
- 1,160
quadrapiper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 477
- Points
- 810
Wonder if KMW could be induced to open a plant in Canada, especially if the PzH 2000 were to be chosen as a much-belated SPG replacement. There's some appeal to both not being tied to the US design and build cycle, and to having a better resident, if not fully domestic, capability.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,256
- Points
- 1,160
There is a lesson hidden somewhere in the tale of the Ram tank.
Like: When you're a major industrialized nation and you're in a war, and your major allies can't spare any tanks, you need to be able to build your own.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,804
- Points
- 1,160
This is just phase 2. I'm looking at an immediate action drill using equipment we have and do not need to retrain on.
For Phase 2 it would be to obtain a complete ABCT for Europe (less the international component of the eFP BG). I'm not even sure that we'd have to lease it. My guess would be that the US would be happy to provide it from their surplus stocks so long as we man and maintain it. The Canadian equipment in Europe could then come back to Canada and bulk up the eastern brigades.
We would probably need to lease enough gear for individual training in Canada although an arrangement could probably be worked out to train with the 116th Cavalry BCT mostly out of Idaho, Montana and Oregon.
I really can't see any other way to go for the time being than leasing. There is a new generation of gear coming out in the next decade and to buy into older generation equipment doesn't make sense. We've also got more than enough equipment vis a vis LAVs to equip two full medium brigade groups which are a viable force if rounded out with appropriate artillery, SHORAD and ATGMs which ought to be good for the next 15 to 20 years easy.
One armoured brigade in Europe with two brigades worth (one RegF one ResF) of trained people to man it and sustain it, two equipped light brigades (one RegF one ResF) and two equipped LAV brigades (One RegF one ResF) are all the manoeuvre brigades we could hope to sustain. Time to concentrate on the CS and CSS formations and units.
Easily done in two phases; the first concentrating on using the mechanized equipment what we have but focusing on retuning the structuring of the people component of the force and retooling our training system; the second implementing the equipment restructure.
When you think about it there's not much being done in expanding the size of the force. Its already critical to fill the capability gaps for SHORAD, ATGM and artillery. Beyond that we have almost all the gear for two medium mech brigades (The idea for having one of those a ResF heavy total force brigade probably won't sell because the RCR mafia would whine at becoming light - even if we give many of them parachutes to play with). In essence all we really need is the equipment for one heavy brigade (plus the training gear) - and a better CS and CSS.
Why not leverage the SW Ontario automotive triangle and build on the existing facilities in London linked to the facilities in Lima Ohio. I'm with @WestIsle - cut the ties with European manufacturers. Build our own with ties into the US industry. If we buy and build American we tie into the largest weapons R&D and manufacturing industrial complex in the world. If we can manufacture parts and assemble our own gear here and stream parts into the US and foreign users then we might just might be able to sustain a defence industry here.
