Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[markppcli]

We/You/They have experimented with companies and battalions working with the USMC and the USN, (R22eR and PPCLI), with allied light and airborne troops, with mountain troops, with helicopters....and with LAVs.

Doing a single RIMPAC training event is hardly “expecting everyone todo everything.” Although it does prove that getting off a landing vessel isn’t rocket science, in the same way that getting out of a helicopter isn’t.

 

[MilEME09]

Okay long term idea here, get in on the US armys light tank project. Once production starts, we equip the RCDs, and 12 RBC with them. That will give us 1 x heavy brigade with our Leopards, and 2 x brigades with light tanks with faster mobility.

Get AT/AA pods for our LAVs. Combining these elements together would create one brigade for Spear head operations, and 2 x brigades that have a flexibility, mobility and can hopefully transported quickly by air.

 

[FJAG]

So how often does Level 5 get exercised? And in how many of the infinite combinations and permutations that that formulation permits?

I think that you need to remember that the activities conducted at the different training levels varies by corps. We used to have separate "gun" camps for the artillery and armoured corps where we just did our thing - live fire. For artillery that would be progressive training from troop (when we had them) to battery to regiment. We did that twice a year - a fall and spring "practice camp". In addition to that the Bty Comds and FOOs would probably do three maybe four level 5 & 6 exercises with our supported battalions and 1 x Level 7 per year. We did that many because each battery supported two battalions but those would generally not involve the guns or arty live fire. I can only remember doing two exercises like that with the RCR in my two years as an FOO. Did a lot more with the Germans but that doesn't address Canadian training.

The only time I ever did any real work with Canadian tanks would have been during my Cbt Team Commanders course and on a flyover exercise to 4 CMBG. They pretty much disappeared in Canada during my years and I don't count Cougars.

Just an observation. Canada being infantry centric generally deals with square or infantry heavy combat teams. The Germans tended not to deal very much with mixed companies. I only remember one small exercise in their three week cycle where they did that. Generally they trained as unmixed companies and built up to a battlegroup exercise with two tank companies and one Marder company. The Americans seem to at least have a whole manual (ATP 3-90.1) on what they call the Armored and Mechanized Infantry Company Team.

 

[GR66]

I'll take a shot...

We consolidate.

1 x Heavy Brigade in the West. 1/2/3 PPCLI all LAV Battalions and LdSH a Cavalry Regiment along the lines being discussed in the Armoured Recce threads (Tanks & Recce elements). 1RCHA would get a 3rd Battery (from 5RALC) and be equipped with SP 155mm.

1 x Light Brigade in the East with 1RCR (Petawawa)/1R22eR (Valcartier)/2RCR (Gagetown) all Light Battalions. The infantry, RCD, 2RCHA, 2 CER and 2 Service all equipped to be air transportable as our Rapid Reaction Force. 2RCHA would get a 3rd Battery (from 5RALC) and be equipped with M777s.

The following units would move to the Canadian Combat Support Brigade and be re-roled and re-equipped as follows:

• 12RBC - Re-roles as a Sense/Strike Regiment with LAV LRSS and LAV-UAV/Loitering Munitions vehicles.
• 2R22eR - Re-roles as an AT Battalion with LAV-ATGMs [Edit: Dropped per informed comments. Integrate LAV-AT vehicles into existing CS elements]
• 2R22eR - Re-roles as an AA Battalion with LAV-SHORAD
• 5RACL - HQ and STA Batteries remain. 2 x Reg Force Gun Batteries to 1RCHA and 2RCHA. Gains 3 x Reserve Gun Batteries equipped with SP 155mm. Regiment to act as General Support artillery for any deployed Brigade Group.
• 5CER - Becomes the Combat Engineer Regiment for the CCSB
• 5Svc - Becomes the Service Battalion for the CCSB

3RCR and 3R22eR [added] would be disbanded and the troops distributed to the 6 x remaining Infantry Battalions and the 3 x Reserve Brigade HQ's [added] (along with the surplus infantry troops from 2R22eR as the SHORAD battalion will not require as many personnel as an Infantry Battalion).

Consolidate the Reserves into 3 x Reserve Light Infantry Brigade Groups. The Infantry Regiments from each existing Reserve Brigade would be consolidated into a single Infantry Battalion. The Armoured, Artillery, Combat Engineer and Service Regiments/Battalions would be composite units from across all the existing Brigades.

• 3 (Res.) Brigade (from existing 31/32/33 Brigades)
• 4 (Res.) Brigade (from existing 38/39/41 Brigades)
• 5 (Res.) Brigade (from existing 34/35/36/37 Brigades)

All this can be done with minimal new equipment. SP 155's are already part of an indirect fire program. The LAV-AT, LAV-SHORAD and LAV-UAV's can all be obtained by using existing LAV hulls plus the same RiWP Remote Weapon Station with different weapon mounting options, but as a short-term expedient these specialty units could still be re-roled using MANPAD AT/SAM/UAV launchers until dedicated vehicle upgrades are possible.

Not a perfect solution, but a good short-term solution to reduce manning pressures, HQ overhead and key capability gaps.

Here's what the consolidation would look like:

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Here's what the consolidation would look like:

Can we right a historical wrong and encorporate a Sigs Regiment into CCSB? 21 EW is not equipped to support Brigade level comms.

 

[McG]

Can we right a historical wrong and encorporate a Sigs Regiment into CCSB? 21 EW is not equipped to support Brigade level comms.

Why does every cap badge need a silo of greatness? If we want brigades properly resourced for comms, then properly resource the signals squadrons in the brigades and the signals platoons/troops in every unit.

 

[dapaterson]

Can we right a historical wrong and encorporate a Sigs Regiment into CCSB? 21 EW is not equipped to support Brigade level comms.

I don't know, I think a Bde with a Sigs unit dedicated to denying the use of the EM spectrum is a refreshing bit of truth in advertising.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Why does every cap badge need a silo of greatness? If we want brigades properly resourced for comms, then properly resource the signals squadrons in the brigades and the signals platoons/troops in every unit.

Great for a VHF based, mechanized Rifle Coy, terrible for a C5iSR heavy formation like CCSB.

All the recce sensors, AD, and IA(especially if you're in the Cyber Realm) need interconnectivity, with a lot of specialization.

And with the way our manning is currently set up, you will most likely see Jimmy badged folks consolidated to a Brigade unit do 2nd and 3rd line support before you see more folks in a Bn Sigs Pl.

 

[McG]

Great for a VHF based, mechanized Rifle Coy, terrible for a C5iSR heavy formation like CCSB.

All the recce sensors, AD, and IA(especially if you're in the Cyber Realm) need interconnectivity, with a lot of specialization.

So your proposal is based on the premise that the CCSB will deploy and fight as a CCSB?

And with the way our manning is currently set up, you will most likely see Jimmy badged folks consolidated to a Brigade unit do 2nd and 3rd line support before you see more folks in a Bn Sigs Pl.

Units need to do first line, and a brigade needs the ability to do second line. Third line is a higher function.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I don't know, I think a Bde with a Sigs unit dedicated to denying the use of the EM spectrum is a refreshing bit of truth in advertising.

Oh believe me I'm not denying we have historically put our EW eggs in one basket since before Afghanistan. I was merely stating that within CCSB, there aren't enough operators and technicians to support Brigade level comms, especially within a tech heavy Bde like CCSB.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So your proposal is based on the premise that the CCSB will deploy and fight as a CCSB?

Not at all. Day 1 and Day 2 Comms can be handled by whatever Ad Hoc formation gets sent out the door. It's the Day zero and before work that requires a unit capable of stringing together all the complex effects (which most have a high Tac2IS footprint) together to make them talk together.

That Day 0 work is what sets the SOPs for the Day 1 Day 2 attached elements when it's the piecemeal deployed force.

Units need to do first line, and a brigade needs the ability to do second line. Third line is a higher function.

3rd line, in a traditional sense, doesn't currently exist withing our current Army establishment. It becomes a beast with 4 or 5 masters to fix a 3rd line fault. Depending on equipment or policy, it can either go to DLCI, 7 Comm Grp, Adm(Mat), or in most cases, BLR, returned to the Vendor, and replaced with a new one.

 

[markppcli]

Can we right a historical wrong and encorporate a Sigs Regiment into CCSB? 21 EW is not equipped to support Brigade level comms.

Maybe we could get really wild and have the brigades fall under our deployable divisional command and the joint signals regiment could support.

 

[markppcli]

Here's what the consolidation would look like:

View attachment 69984

Is there a reason the strata would be recce ? I thought we went over the absurdity of anti tank battalions already?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Maybe we could get really wild and have the brigades fall under our deployable divisional command and the joint signals regiment could support.

That has been the dream for the last 15 years. CJOC won't let go of its death grip on that unit and capabilities, as the RCAF and RCN won't step up and fill the gap operationally.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

So how often does Level 5 get exercised? And in how many of the infinite combinations and permutations that that formulation permits?

A Recce squadron minus with a LAV platoon attached? An artillery battery with a Recce troop attached? An Engineer Squadron with a LAV troop?

As has been said, this is going to depend. The seasons (planetary, posting, managed readiness plan etc) have an effect on training. Units will tend to conduct field training in the fall and spring. They will conduct winter warfare and heavy weapons ranges plus computer assisted exercises in the winter. The summer will not have much going on due to the posting season and the demand for support to Reserve courses.

Going back 10 years or so, I was OC of a Recce Sqn that was not earmarked for deployment but was otherwise busy. In September we supported the Combat Team Commander's Course and then in October found ourselves on a Level 3.5 Live Fire range where a Patrol would support a LAV Platoon with an Engineer Section attached. From Nov until Mar we were occupied with the Olympics. From April until June we conducted a series of Patrol and Troop level exercises, culminating in our support to a Tank Squadron validation exercise. We switched gears for the summer and early fall to a busy PCF (Primary Combat Function - Gunner, Surv Op etc, Air Brakes, FAR operator etc) cycle but also executed a Level 3.5 Live Fire again. We spent part of the winter in the US using their Close Combat Tactical Trainer system as part of our conversion to a tank squadron that was slated to occur the following year. We closed out the two years with another Combat Team Commander's Course in May.

So over that two year period we conducted three significant "Combat Team" level exercises and two Level 3.5 live fire ranges. For the leadership we also executed two fairly major Computer Assisted Exercises (CAXs) where we were training at Level 6.

I would expect that a infantry battalion entering a Build Year now would conduct training to Level 5 Dry in the fall, although this might be delayed if they entered that year with a significant deficit in PCF qualifications. They might then conduct Level 5 Live in the late winter/early spring followed by Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE where they would be validated at Level 6. Sequencing this part can be tricky. The Brigade HQ and units with HQs that are closely involved with them (Guns, Svc Bn, CER) would have conducted the UNIFIED RESOLVE series from September to February.

That unit would then enter the Hold or Contingency phase of the three-year cycle. They could be tapped to execute unforeseen international commitments. They would conduct training to maintain their training level throughout the year. The Ship of Theseus paradox comes into play - as you change people is the unit still the same unit at the same readiness? Our rather gold-plated individual training system produces Privates and Second Lieutenants that are ready to be dropped into a given unit and go. A major posting season, though, can disrupt key leadership positions right down to Section/Crew level so the Hold Year will see some progressive training.

Collective Training consumes things like parts that we often don't think about. If everyone wants to exercise at the same high intensity at the same time the parts run out. CT builds people's capacities but it also wears them out. They need a rest/change as well. We have big training areas, but space runs out quickly at the peak training demand times when you factor in courses etc. So the need for training discipline comes in.

I recall our CO (who was later the CDS) telling us young Lieutenants at an afternoon gathering that while we were no doubt keen to have the "best training year ever", to our troops it would be yet another such year in a row. His message was to train hard but to preserve our people. Its a long game - don't risk breaking the troops for reasons of ego.

 

[quadrapiper]

At no point should a Bn be trying to train for war while delivering base line DP 1 training.

That makes sense.

Noting that recruiting, retention, and career management should be set up so this isn't a problem: I'm assuming neither should a Bn be (as seemed to have been described) full of gaps to support other establishments.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe we could get really wild and have the brigades fall under our deployable divisional command and the joint signals regiment could support.

We could get really wild and realize our only Signal Regiment in Canada shouldn't just be doing rear link comms and supporting a HQ that will never deploy. JSR needs a massive role change as it's basically an irrelevant waste of precious Sigs PYs in its current construct.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We could get really wild and realize our only Signal Regiment in Canada shouldn't just be doing rear link comms and supporting a HQ that will never deploy. JSR needs a massive role change as it's basically an irrelevant waste of precious Sigs PYs in its current construct.

We both chewed a lot of the same dirt.

CJOC (and in turn, CFJOSG) made CFJSR into their own personal GD Battalion/Sigs Support Unit. Is it easier from a Force Employment model? Hell yes. Force Generation on the other hand... it becomes a nightmare.

 

[GR66]

Is there a reason the strata would be recce ? I thought we went over the absurdity of anti tank battalions already?

Because we don't have enough tanks to support a full Tank Regiment? Unless you want to give up our tank capability all together it's best to find a use for them. Gives some weight for recce in force as well as providing the opportunity for the Brigade commander to parcel out the squadrons to Combat Teams.

 

[Kirkhill]

As has been said, this is going to depend. The seasons (planetary, posting, managed readiness plan etc) have an effect on training. Units will tend to conduct field training in the fall and spring. They will conduct winter warfare and heavy weapons ranges plus computer assisted exercises in the winter. The summer will not have much going on due to the posting season and the demand for support to Reserve courses.

Going back 10 years or so, I was OC of a Recce Sqn that was not earmarked for deployment but was otherwise busy. In September we supported the Combat Team Commander's Course and then in October found ourselves on a Level 3.5 Live Fire range where a Patrol would support a LAV Platoon with an Engineer Section attached. From Nov until Mar we were occupied with the Olympics. From April until June we conducted a series of Patrol and Troop level exercises, culminating in our support to a Tank Squadron validation exercise. We switched gears for the summer and early fall to a busy PCF (Primary Combat Function - Gunner, Surv Op etc, Air Brakes, FAR operator etc) cycle but also executed a Level 3.5 Live Fire again. We spent part of the winter in the US using their Close Combat Tactical Trainer system as part of our conversion to a tank squadron that was slated to occur the following year. We closed out the two years with another Combat Team Commander's Course in May.

So over that two year period we conducted three significant "Combat Team" level exercises and two Level 3.5 live fire ranges. For the leadership we also executed two fairly major Computer Assisted Exercises (CAXs) where we were training at Level 6.

I would expect that a infantry battalion entering a Build Year now would conduct training to Level 5 Dry in the fall, although this might be delayed if they entered that year with a significant deficit in PCF qualifications. They might then conduct Level 5 Live in the late winter/early spring followed by Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE where they would be validated at Level 6. Sequencing this part can be tricky. The Brigade HQ and units with HQs that are closely involved with them (Guns, Svc Bn, CER) would have conducted the UNIFIED RESOLVE series from September to February.

That unit would then enter the Hold or Contingency phase of the three-year cycle. They could be tapped to execute unforeseen international commitments. They would conduct training to maintain their training level throughout the year. The Ship of Theseus paradox comes into play - as you change people is the unit still the same unit at the same readiness? Our rather gold-plated individual training system produces Privates and Second Lieutenants that are ready to be dropped into a given unit and go. A major posting season, though, can disrupt key leadership positions right down to Section/Crew level so the Hold Year will see some progressive training.

Collective Training consumes things like parts that we often don't think about. If everyone wants to exercise at the same high intensity at the same time the parts run out. CT builds people's capacities but it also wears them out. They need a rest/change as well. We have big training areas, but space runs out quickly at the peak training demand times when you factor in courses etc. So the need for training discipline comes in.

I recall our CO (who was later the CDS) telling us young Lieutenants at an afternoon gathering that while we were no doubt keen to have the "best training year ever", to our troops it would be yet another such year in a row. His message was to train hard but to preserve our people. Its a long game - don't risk breaking the troops for reasons of ego.

Thanks for that T2B. It helps a lot.

If increased field work isn't a viable proposition are there other opportunities to increase familiarity and integration at low levels across cap-badges and corps?

On the other hand is the problem as simple as a lack of money to maintain, repair, replace equipment necessary to sustain an appropriate level of training?

The posting rhythm is something that is often mentioned. Is there a fix for that so that once the unit is validated it can be kept intact at a high readiness until its replacement is ready? And while I'm thinking about it, is it just single cap-badge entities that are validated and readied for deployment or are combat teams and battlegroups validated and readied?

And I completely understand not wanting to wear out the troops (although I suspect a married sergeant sees things differently than a first year private). I'm going to guess that the young private would rather be out and doing rather than sitting in barracks while the sergeant has a life at home on top of his administrative duties. For the sergeant a field exercise is as likely to be seen as an imposition as an excursion?