Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

The RCAF lost 10,000 positions, or the majority of the defence reductions since 1987.

So where did the RCAF lose these positions

Challenge and Commitment described the RCAF as having:

8x Ftr Sqns (CF-18s and CF-5s)
9s Maritime Sqns (CP-140s, Sea Kings and Trackers)
11x TacHel Sqns (Kiowa, Iroquois, Chinook)
6x Transport and Rescue Sqns
4x Transport Sqns
19x Radar Sqns.

The stand out elements are the loss of

Fighter Sqns (4 Reg)
Tracker Sqns (4? - 3 Reg and 1 Res?)
TacHel Sqns (5? - 3 Reg and 2 Res?))

But the largest loss is the 19 Radar Squadrons. There are currently 2 Radar Squadrons in service.

The other 17 Squadrons were struck off with the closures of the PineTree and DEW stations and the commissioning of the automated North Warning System.

So, shoulda-woulda-coulda time.

1. Don't eliminate the Radar PYs - transfer them instead to GBAD Sqns, Perhaps some of them could be reallocated to Reserve positions in 10/90 or 30/70 Squadrons.

How to make nice with Uncle Sam.

Take advantage of the geopolitical situation revisit Canada's position on Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence now that it is obvious that Russia has gone rogue.

Return the lost 10,000 to the CAF in general and the RCAF in particular.
Reinstate the 19 Radar Squadrons
Redesignate them as GBAD Squadrons

Arm 2 with SM3 Block IIA ABMs and locate them in Inuvik and Iqaluit.

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

1,500 km alt​

2500 km​

Mach 18​

Mid-Course Intercept

25 MCAD

Arm 1 with RPAS

Arm 4 with SM6 ERAM and locate them in the Lower Mainland, the St Lawrence Valley, the Maritimes, the Prairies.

RIM-174 Standard Missile 6 ERAM

34 km alt​

370 km​

Mach 3.5​

Multi-Purpose

5 MCAD

Arm the remaining 12 with CAMM-ER and distribute them across the National Airport System (48 Airports and Sea Ports)

CAMM-ER

45 km​

Mach 4​

Add a ManPADs Troop to every Battery (Reg and Reserve)

Add a GBAD Regiment to the Reg Force.

Add SM3s and 6s to CSC Loadouts. CAMM-ER already on board.

Add a couple of RRCA Coastal Defence Batteries.

 

[GR66]

During peacetime, both brigades would share the equipment in Canada and deploy regularly to exercise in Europe on the prepositioned equipment.

For Res F, all of the vehicles more complicated than a pickup truck should go to the Res F Svc Bns which have proper maintenance facilities. Might produce a recruitment bump for keeners who want to drive and maintain the beasts.

These two comments got me to thinking about how we organize and equip our Reg Force and Reserve units.

Since our Brigade Groups are technically Force Generation units as opposed to Force Deployment units do we need to equip them as if they are to be deployed the same way they are based?

For example, if 1 Brigade were to be set as our "Heavy" Brigade Group with 1 x Tank Regiment and 2 x LAV Battalions all co-located in Edmonton would we need 2 x full Battalions worth of LAVs in Edmonton/Wainwright to train the two Mech Battalions?

Could we instead base 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs in Wainwright for 1 & 2 PPCLI to train on and split the other Battalion worth of LAVs up to have for example 1 x Company co-located in Saskatoon with 38 Service Battalion/North Saskatchewan Regiment, 1 x Company co-located in Richmond with 39 Service Battalion/The Royal Westminster Regiment/The Seaforth Highlanders and 1 x Company co-located in Calgary with 41 Service Battalion/The Calgary Highlanders?

The Service Battalions could be hybrid staffed with a mix of Reg Force and Reserve maintainers and the Reserve Combat Arms units would have access to the same vehicles/equipment as the Reg Force without having to make any additional vehicle purchases.

Alternately, perhaps a Reg Force/Reserve Force equipment sharing system could be set up somewhat similar to the Blue Team/Gold Team dual-crew system that the USN uses to man their Ballistic Missile Submarines. For example, Lord Strathcona's Horse could have their Leapards maintained by their Regimental maintainers but the vehicles have dual-crew Reg Force/Reserve Force manning.

For example the vehicles of one Tank Squadron might have Blue Team manning by A Sqn, LdSH and Gold Team manning by the South Alberta Light Horse while the vehicles of the next Tank Squadron might have Blue Team manning by B Sqn, LdSH and Gold Team manning by the King's Own Calgary Regiment.

Thoughts?

 

[McG]

Could we instead base 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs in Wainwright for 1 & 2 PPCLI to train on and split the other Battalion worth of LAVs up to have for example 1 x Company co-located in Saskatoon with 38 Service Battalion/North Saskatchewan Regiment, 1 x Company co-located in Richmond with 39 Service Battalion/The Royal Westminster Regiment/The Seaforth Highlanders and 1 x Company co-located in Calgary with 41 Service Battalion/The Calgary Highlanders?

The Service Battalions could be hybrid staffed with a mix of Reg Force and Reserve maintainers and the Reserve Combat Arms units would have access to the same vehicles/equipment as the Reg Force without having to make any additional vehicle purchases.

This is a great way to destroy the vehicle fleet, reduced readiness, and limit training. Having 1 PPCLI & 2 PPCLI share a vehicle pool means a barrier to concurrent training. It means there is no sense of vehicle ownership and the resultant level of care and maintenance that crews give when it is their vehicle. It means every training activity (including collective training and operator courses) requires a deployment away from home. It means you are posting a lot of maintaners to Wainwright to babysit an equipment pool (which did not work so well when we tried it 18 years ago). It means you are doubling the wear rate of the vehicles, but probably not halving the time to seeing a replacement fleet.

And down that the PRes units that now have a sprinkling of AFV, the equipment probably starts suffering the faults that come from under-utilization and from not having the proper infrastructure to park and maintain it. There is limited amounts of STTE and recovery vehicles capable of handling AFV, so you will have trouble keeping things fixed once they are spread much thiner across much broader geography. Your LAV fleet in lower mainland BC will have a hard time finding a training area to support live fire. The CA cannot even figure out how to fully quallify PRes Veh Techs to look after B fleet, so you are dreaming if thinking PRes techs will support AFV maintenance even with increased Reg F Veh Tech posted to these locations.

If anyone is so emotionally invested in the idea that PRes needs AFV that they cannot consider any other options, then the supporting course of action must consist of Canada buying more AFV with the intent of equiping the PRes. Not robbing from too-small Reg F vehicle allocations, and not cascading exhausted old Reg F vehicles that are past due for retirement. You are also going to need to by more STTE so that can be sprinkled to all the places you want to put vehicles, and you are going to need a lot more PYs for CSS to support this larger vehicle fleet.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is a great way to destroy the vehicle fleet, reduced readiness, and limit training. Having 1 PPCLI & 2 PPCLI share a vehicle pool means a barrier to concurrent training. It means there is no sense of vehicle ownership and the resultant level of care and maintenance that crews give when it is their vehicle. It means every training activity (including collective training and operator courses) requires a deployment away from home. It means you are posting a lot of maintaners to Wainwright to babysit an equipment pool (which did not work so well when we tried it 18 years ago). It means you are doubling the wear rate of the vehicles, but probably not halving the time to seeing a replacement fleet.

And down that the PRes units that now have a sprinkling of AFV, the equipment probably starts suffering the faults that come from under-utilization and from not having the proper infrastructure to park and maintain it. There is limited amounts of STTE and recovery vehicles capable of handling AFV, so you will have trouble keeping things fixed once they are spread much thiner across much broader geography. Your LAV fleet in lower mainland BC will have a hard time finding a training area to support live fire. The CA cannot even figure out how to fully quallify PRes Veh Techs to look after B fleet, so you are dreaming if thinking PRes techs will support AFV maintenance even with increased Reg F Veh Tech posted to these locations.

If anyone is so emotionally invested in the idea that PRes needs AFV that they cannot consider any other options, then the supporting course of action must consist of Canada buying more AFV with the intent of equiping the PRes. Not robbing from too-small Reg F vehicle allocations, and not cascading exhausted old Reg F vehicles that are past due for retirement. You are also going to need to by more STTE so that can be sprinkled to all the places you want to put vehicles, and you are going to need a lot more PYs for CSS to support this larger vehicle fleet.

We had 4 x Grizzlies on Vancouver Island when some genius decided that a gigantic mountainous Island rain forest would be a great place to train for armoured Infantry warfare.

It was a complete waste of time and vehicles, when the vehicles were serviceable (which they were not alot of the time).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I always assumed it had more to do with the fact that a Grizzly battalion (and facilities) was at Work Point. Otherwise "they" could have co-located those 4 with the Cougars held by the BCD so that the BCD and RM Rang could play together.

 

[KevinB]

National Guard holds their armored vehicles at training centers…
With full time maintenance teams.

Might be a clue.

 

[OldSolduer]

National Guard holds their armored vehicles at training centers…
With full time maintenance teams.

Might be a clue.

That costs money!! Money we'd rather spend on a variety of useless programs that basically bribe the Canadian population WITH THEIR OWN MONEY!!

 

[rmc_wannabe]

National Guard holds their armored vehicles at training centers…
With full time maintenance teams.

Might be a clue.

I used to hate the shit show that was Maple Guardian at CMTC strictly because of the road moves, trail parties, railhead moves, etc.

So many staff hours could have been saved if they had a BG's worth of LAVs and other vehicles sitting in location that could get beat to hell and fixed in loc. But no, we drive, flatbed, and rail car 3 different brigades worth of kit into location because it's "cheaper" than buying and maintaining a Collective Training fleet.

 

[dapaterson]

That costs money!! Money we'd rather spend on a variety of useless programs that basically bribe the Canadian population WITH THEIR OWN MONEY!!

Also costs full-time personnel, that we'd rather pretend are operationally ready infantry with (checks notes) no integral indirect fire, no vehicles, insufficient range time...

Cash out a Reg F Inf BN and convert them to maintainers and supply and the Reg F and Res F would be significantly more operationally capable.

 

[Kirkhill]

We had 4 x Grizzlies on Vancouver Island when some genius decided that a gigantic mountainous Island rain forest would be a great place to train for armoured Infantry warfare.

It was a complete waste of time and vehicles, when the vehicles were serviceable (which they were not alot of the time).

Armoured Warfare? Or Urban Riot Control?
Not much to choose between a Grizzly and a Saracen.

 

[KevinB]

Cash out a Reg F Bde and make them maintainers

Fixed it for you

 

[daftandbarmy]

National Guard holds their armored vehicles at training centers…
With full time maintenance teams.

Might be a clue.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Armoured Warfare? Or Urban Riot Control?
Not much to choose between a Grizzly and a Saracen.

The 'mean streets' of downtown Victoria hardly require armoured vehicles to tame them.

More like a few dozen bags of free weed....

 

[Kirkhill]

The 'mean streets' of downtown Victoria hardly require armoured vehicles to tame them.

More like a few dozen bags of free weed....

Unfortunately, while you were swanning around Armagh cow paddies our current leader's father was debating alternatives to tanks in the streets. Apparently there was some kind of dust up in Quebec that got his attention just about the time the Paras were getting in some range time in the Bogside. Grizzlies were going to be just the thing. So of course every city needed a set of four.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Unfortunately, while you were swanning around Armagh cow paddies our current leader's father was debating alternatives to tanks in the streets. Apparently there was some kind of dust up in Quebec that got his attention just about the time the Paras were getting in some range time in the Bogside. Grizzlies were going to be just the thing. So of course every city needed a set of four.

Well, in that case, in our city at least the base maintenance section would be well defended

 

[KevinB]

The biggest fail in all the Reg/Res mixes comes down to the inadequate number of bases available for actual training and support.

The number of base closures to form "Super Bases" in the 90's was significant. I use quotes around "Super Base" simply because down here, we have Div + bases in abundance - and Bde+ Sized NG Support "Camps"

Back when 3 VP was in Work Point Barracks Esquimalt, 1 VP was in Currie Barracks Calgary, and 2 VP was in Kapyong Barracks Winnipeg, they offered at least a Bn sized entity and had some minor training areas and ranges, that could have been leverage significantly in a Total Force concept (3 VP briefly had been 10/90 before being shuttered).

The loss of those sites to the Canadian Army significantly reduced any ability to make regional training/support areas for the Res.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The biggest fail in all the Reg/Res mixes comes down to the inadequate number of bases available for actual training and support.

The number of base closures to form "Super Bases" in the 90's was significant. I use quotes around "Super Base" simply because down here, we have Div + bases in abundance - and Bde+ Sized NG Support "Camps"

Back when 3 VP was in Work Point Barracks Esquimalt, 1 VP was in Currie Barracks Calgary, and 2 VP was in Kapyong Barracks Winnipeg, they offered at least a Bn sized entity and had some minor training areas and ranges, that could have been leverage significantly in a Total Force concept (3 VP briefly had been 10/90 before being shuttered).

The loss of those sites to the Canadian Army significantly reduced any ability to make regional training/support areas for the Res.

I was in a reserve Infantry unit in Victoria when 3 VP was in town.

We never, ever, connected with them for anything: training, Pro D, social events etc.

As a result, their presence did nothing for us apart from removing every shred of public good will and support for our local training activities when they trashed the Galloping Goose trail (including dumping loads of unwanted ammo and pyro en route) during an infamous battalion death march back from a big exercise they ran in Sooke in the early 90s.

We were banned from using that trail, usually for our annual 13km BFT, for years after their departure for Edmonton. A wonderful legacy

 

[Kirkhill]

I was in a reserve Infantry unit in Victoria when 3 VP was in town.

We never, ever, connected with them for anything: training, Pro D, social events etc.

As a result, their presence did nothing for us apart from removing every shred of public good will and support for our local training activities when they trashed the Galloping Goose trail (including dumping loads of unwanted ammo and pyro en route) during an infamous battalion death march back from a big exercise they ran in Sooke in the early 90s.

We were banned from using that trail, usually for our annual 13km BFT, for years after their departure for Edmonton. A wonderful legacy

But..... Professionals....

 

[daftandbarmy]

But..... Professionals....

To be fair, some members of 3 VP were horrified. Other, more senior folks, didn't seem to GAF

 

[KevinB]

I was in a reserve Infantry unit in Victoria when 3 VP was in town.

We never, ever, connected with them for anything: training, Pro D, social events etc.

As a result, their presence did nothing for us apart from removing every shred of public good will and support for our local training activities when they trashed the Galloping Goose trail (including dumping loads of unwanted ammo and pyro en route) during an infamous battalion death march back from a big exercise they ran in Sooke in the early 90s.

We were banned from using that trail, usually for our annual 13km BFT, for years after their departure for Edmonton. A wonderful legacy

Which also goes to prove the fact that the CA really doesn’t give 2 shits about the PRes until they need augmentation…

Which is pretty FUBAR