Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

The issue isn’t that your idea is bad, it is simply that the GOC has zero interest.

To make it work there would need to be a national merchant marine, financially incentivized by the GOC to acquire certain ships, and a major change to the CAF PRes.
Neither the PRes nor the Regular Army appears to be interested in changes to the PRes, and the GOC hasn’t called anyone on the carpet for that.

There are hundreds of other things the GOC could (should) do WRT Canadian Defense, and they don’t, and there are many missed opportunities that would be exceptionally valuable to Canada (Northern Infrastructure and Transportation for one).

You mean this landmark 'amphibious invasion' exercise wasn't a warning to Putin? Geez...


Army, navy storm Comox beach in joint training operation

Canadian Armed Forces personnel combined forces the morning of May 11 to storm a beach in Comox.

The littoral, or shore, assault was part of Exercise Cougar Gauntlet in the area as of March 6 for a one-week period.

More than 300 reserve members, primarily army reserve from 39 Canadian Brigade, but with assistance from navy members stationed in a few vessels off Air Force Beach, took part.

Army, navy storm Comox beach in joint training operation

Exercise Cougar Gauntlet provides week of training for military reservists

www.comoxvalleyrecord.com

 

[KevinB]

You mean this landmark 'amphibious invasion' exercise wasn't a warning to Putin? Geez...


Army, navy storm Comox beach in joint training operation

Canadian Armed Forces personnel combined forces the morning of May 11 to storm a beach in Comox.

The littoral, or shore, assault was part of Exercise Cougar Gauntlet in the area as of March 6 for a one-week period.

More than 300 reserve members, primarily army reserve from 39 Canadian Brigade, but with assistance from navy members stationed in a few vessels off Air Force Beach, took part.

Army, navy storm Comox beach in joint training operation

Exercise Cougar Gauntlet provides week of training for military reservists

www.comoxvalleyrecord.com

The Halifax class anchored off the beach was a bit of a hint this was an administrative event in everything but name.
I had honestly expected a massive train wreck - due to the lack of familiarity with OTB (Over the Beach) Operations the CAF has outside of CANSOF - I am glad that it was conducted without a loss of life.
But I don't think there was any actual training value gained from this - other than one needs more assets to make something like this viable.

Now, do I think that both coasts should have some sort of OTB ability - totally - but that requires buy in from all the services to be able to acquire the needed tools, and train together to make amphibious and littoral operations viable.
Missing are:
1) Doctrine to support
2) Large Naval Assets (think a Tarawa type LHA)
3) MH/TacHel Assets in enough quantity to be able to move troops in quantities inland
4) Real Surf Zone small transports (an Assault Raft is not a practical surf zone setup)
5) Some sort of Amphibious Armored Transport
6) Landing Craft for large vehicles (Light Tanks, LAV, Artillery and logistics vehicles).

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Halifax class anchored off the beach was a bit of a hint this was an administrative event in everything but name.
I had honestly expected a massive train wreck - due to the lack of familiarity with OTB (Over the Beach) Operations the CAF has outside of CANSOF - I am glad that it was conducted without a loss of life.
But I don't think there was any actual training value gained from this - other than one needs more assets to make something like this viable.

Now, do I think that both coasts should have some sort of OTB ability - totally - but that requires buy in from all the services to be able to acquire the needed tools, and train together to make amphibious and littoral operations viable.
Missing are:
1) Doctrine to support
2) Large Naval Assets (think a Tarawa type LHA)
3) MH/TacHel Assets in enough quantity to be able to move troops in quantities inland
4) Real Surf Zone small transports (an Assault Raft is not a practical surf zone setup)
5) Some sort of Amphibious Armored Transport
6) Landing Craft for large vehicles (Light Tanks, LAV, Artillery and logistics vehicles).

Trained leadership is probably a good start point. I'm guessing we'd need a 'few good Coles' on the job

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Halifax class anchored off the beach was a bit of a hint this was an administrative event in everything but name.
I had honestly expected a massive train wreck - due to the lack of familiarity with OTB (Over the Beach) Operations the CAF has outside of CANSOF - I am glad that it was conducted without a loss of life.
But I don't think there was any actual training value gained from this - other than one needs more assets to make something like this viable.

Now, do I think that both coasts should have some sort of OTB ability - totally - but that requires buy in from all the services to be able to acquire the needed tools, and train together to make amphibious and littoral operations viable.
Missing are:
1) Doctrine to support
2) Large Naval Assets (think a Tarawa type LHA)
3) MH/TacHel Assets in enough quantity to be able to move troops in quantities inland
4) Real Surf Zone small transports (an Assault Raft is not a practical surf zone setup)
5) Some sort of Amphibious Armored Transport
6) Landing Craft for large vehicles (Light Tanks, LAV, Artillery and logistics vehicles).

This is more akin to the classic RM landings of the 19th Century to capture high ground over a fort to compel surrender, just missing the Sailors dragging some artillery ashore.

Canada could certainly use a couple of these. Crew is around 18-25

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/2e/a6/682ea64b678142e6f8a3dc93cbeccd4d.jpg

 

[GR66]

This is more akin to the classic RM landings of the 19th Century to capture high ground over a fort to compel surrender, just missing the Sailors dragging some artillery ashore.

Canada could certainly use a couple of these. Crew is around 18-25

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/2e/a6/682ea64b678142e6f8a3dc93cbeccd4d.jpg

For a small Army like Canada's, rather than having a limited niche capability that a few Landing Ship carrying vessels would provide (near shore to shore transport only), wouldn't we be better off with longer range aviation assets like the Chinook or the FVL program winner?

Aircraft let you deploy from further off shore and land your troops beyond the shoreline. Vertical lift aircraft can potentially deploy from a range of bases...including both land-based FOBs as well as a range of our own (or allies) naval vessels that have the appropriately sized landing deck.

 

[Kirkhill]

For a small Army like Canada's, rather than having a limited niche capability that a few Landing Ship carrying vessels would provide (near shore to shore transport only), wouldn't we be better off with longer range aviation assets like the Chinook or the FVL program winner?

Aircraft let you deploy from further off shore and land your troops beyond the shoreline. Vertical lift aircraft can potentially deploy from a range of bases...including both land-based FOBs as well as a range of our own (or allies) naval vessels that have the appropriately sized landing deck.

Absalon. Absalon. Absalon.

Absalon class Frigate Command Support Ship Royal Danish Navy

absalon class frigate command support ship royal danish navy hdms esbern snare stanflex essm missile harpoon

www.seaforces.org

It wouldn't take much to configure a Type 25 from the current design to the Command & Support configuration - and the navy gets to keep most of the utility of a frigate with the added utility of a mothership. The army gains a transport and the air force gains a FARP.

 

[GR66]

Absalon. Absalon. Absalon.

Absalon class Frigate Command Support Ship Royal Danish Navy

absalon class frigate command support ship royal danish navy hdms esbern snare stanflex essm missile harpoon

www.seaforces.org

It wouldn't take much to configure a Type 25 from the current design to the Command & Support configuration - and the navy gets to keep most of the utility of a frigate with the added utility of a mothership. The army gains a transport and the air force gains a FARP.

Wouldn't the JSS fit the same role?

 

[Kirkhill]

Wouldn't the JSS fit the same role?

Dutch JSS or Canadian JSS? The RCN wanted, and needed AORs. The Army saw a big ship and said "take me" so a bunch of stuff was grafted on to it. The Dutch built their JSS/LPD fleet as dedicated vessels for their Marine Corps - the Corps from which the Royals and the USMC descended.

The Danish Navy built a ship that could defend itself, transport a company combat team and hunt subs. In the Canadian context, and with the notion that something is better than nothing, combined with the rising costs of the CSC programme I like the idea of converting some of the CSC build, perhaps a flight, to the C&S model.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For a small Army like Canada's, rather than having a limited niche capability that a few Landing Ship carrying vessels would provide (near shore to shore transport only), wouldn't we be better off with longer range aviation assets like the Chinook or the FVL program winner?

Aircraft let you deploy from further off shore and land your troops beyond the shoreline. Vertical lift aircraft can potentially deploy from a range of bases...including both land-based FOBs as well as a range of our own (or allies) naval vessels that have the appropriately sized landing deck.

The landing ship lets you deploy the LAV's and other equipment which seems to be what our infantry is built around. Plus the larger ones can self deploy. They would do well in the Arctic exercises and fulfil the needs for domestic emergence and responding to disasters overseas, which our current government loves to talk about. Not to mention supporting our allies in various ops around the world. The base crew is around MCDV levels or even less. I know there is a lot of other stuff we need to fix first, but I think in the long run it's a capability we should have.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The landing ship lets you deploy the LAV's and other equipment which seems to be what our infantry is built around. Plus the larger ones can self deploy. They would do well in the Arctic exercises and fulfil the needs for domestic emergence and responding to disasters overseas, which our current government loves to talk about. Not to mention supporting our allies in various ops around the world. The base crew is around MCDV levels or even less. I know there is a lot of other stuff we need to fix first, but I think in the long run it's a capability we should have.

Canada used to be pretty good at operating these things when we were known as 'The Water Rats':

LVT-4 Water Buffalo (1943)

The Landing, Vehicle, Tracked Mark 4 was used on all front from 1944

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[GR66]

The landing ship lets you deploy the LAV's and other equipment which seems to be what our infantry is built around. Plus the larger ones can self deploy. They would do well in the Arctic exercises and fulfil the needs for domestic emergence and responding to disasters overseas, which our current government loves to talk about. Not to mention supporting our allies in various ops around the world. The base crew is around MCDV levels or even less. I know there is a lot of other stuff we need to fix first, but I think in the long run it's a capability we should have.

Not arguing that something like that wouldn't be a nice to have capability...but there are lots of "nice to haves" on the list. Not sure that this one would make it into my top 10 though.

I don't see Canada getting into the opposed amphibious landing business any time soon, so what we're really looking at is littoral deployment capabilities into permissive environments. JSS can support deployment by Chinooks. AOPS and CSC's can support deployments by medium-lift helicopters. All of the above have small craft for over the beach deployments. If LAVs are needed we can deploy them by C-17 or JSS if required.

For emergency response along our own coasts one look at the map will tell you that wherever you place your handful of amphibious ships they are likely to be quite far away from where they are needed. Airborne deployments will certainly be your quicker response option so if I had to choose where to invest my limited dollars I'd pick additional aircraft over the amphibious capability. Aircraft also have the advantage of being able go places other than the shoreline.

Again, not discounting amphibs as an excellent capability to have, but in the absence of having the funds available to fully and properly develop the capability as @KevinB outlined above, then to my mind improving our air transport capability is the smarter way to go.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Even these are not for opposed landing, in fact I don't see anyone doing opposed landings anymore, unless it's a bunch of tribesman armed with AK's opposing. If we went for stuff like this they could be manned by Canadian RFA types. It does allow you to quickly bring heavy equipment, trucks and AFV's to shore without any available infrastructure.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we have a working skeleton on which to build.

Marine Atlantic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Depending on how you look at the map the Arctic Coast of Canada is an extension of the Atlantic Coast.

Marine Atlantic Inc. (French: Marine Atlantique) is an independent Canadian federal Crown corporation which is mandated to operate ferry services between the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Extend the mandate and vary the composition of the fleet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bay Ferries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bay Ferries Limited, or simply, Bay Ferries, is a ferry company operating in eastern Canada and is headquartered in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. It is a subsidiary of Northumberland Ferries Limited and a sister company to the defunct Bay Ferries Great Lakes Limited.

Bay Ferries began operations in 1997 upon being awarded the operating licenses for ferry routes in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine which were being discontinued by federal Crown corporation Marine Atlantic as part of cost-cutting measures.

And that type of cost cutting is exactly what the government should not be doing. Would you destroy a bridge or highway as a cost-cutting measure?

Ferries, Ports and Airports are critical to the development of Canada. Especially north of 55.

 

[KevinB]

The CAF needs to figure out what it really wants to be. Right now IMHO the taxpayer gets a pretty terrible return on investment due to lack of strategic planning and inter service (and inter regimental) rivalries.

I think there needs to be a massive increase in the TacHel to properly support domestic response - as well as overseas.

 

[Kirkhill]

The CAF needs to figure out what it really wants to be. Right now IMHO the taxpayer gets a pretty terrible return on investment due to lack of strategic planning and inter service (and inter regimental) rivalries.

I think there needs to be a massive increase in the TacHel to properly support domestic response - as well as overseas.

An easy way to start, if they wanted to go that route, would be to buy another 24 CH-47s and split them between 408 and 438 while adding more CH-146/Bell 412 qualified civvies into the Reserve ranks and/or reallocate the Combat Support "Squadrons" at Cold Lake and Bagotville.

 

[KevinB]

An easy way to start, if they wanted to go that route, would be to buy another 24 CH-47s and split them between 408 and 438 while adding more CH-146/Bell 412 qualified civvies into the Reserve ranks and/or reallocate the Combat Support "Squadrons" at Cold Lake and Bagotville.

I cannot support the Griffon, I'd gladly take the Hook's - but the Griffon really isn't a useful UH, unless 4 troops and a Toboggan is your idea of a valid UH...
Upgrade them to the UH-1Y, and I will shut my mouth - but I think the better option is get more Hooks now and look at FVL for the winner...

 

[Kirkhill]

I cannot support the Griffon, I'd gladly take the Hook's - but the Griffon really isn't a useful UH, unless 4 troops and a Toboggan is your idea of a valid UH...
Upgrade them to the UH-1Y, and I will shut my mouth - but I think the better option is get more Hooks now and look at FVL for the winner...

Limited bucks - First things first. I would spend money on the Hooks before Vipers, Venoms or Hawks. The need for, and utility of, the Hooks is greater.

 

[GR66]

The CAF needs to figure out what it really wants to be. Right now IMHO the taxpayer gets a pretty terrible return on investment due to lack of strategic planning and inter service (and inter regimental) rivalries.

I think there needs to be a massive increase in the TacHel to properly support domestic response - as well as overseas.

The highlighted part really is (always has been) the key missing piece. The CAF has a tendency to half-ass EVERYTHING rather than focusing on properly and fully investing in key capabilities even if it might potentially mean that other capabilities may suffer.

We tend to blame the government for this, but in reality I think most of the blame goes to the CAF itself. Strong, Secure, Engaged (along with literally every previous defence policy document put out by governments of both federal parties) calls for Canada's military to be:

• Strong at home, its sovereignty well-defended by a Canadian Armed Forces also ready to assist in times of natural disaster, other emergencies, and search and rescue.
• Secure in North America, active in a renewed defence partnership in NORAD and with the United States.
• Engaged in the world, with the Canadian Armed Forces doing its part in Canada's contributions to a more stable, peaceful world, including through peace support operations and peacekeeping.

The first two objectives are very closely related in the capabilities required and due to the huge size of our country those same capabilities are essentially expeditionary in nature and can be used to meet the third requirement.

Military threats to Canada primarily come from the Sea and Air. Detecting those threats is the first priority, so NORAD modernization, Satellites, OPVs, MPA's, UAVs, etc. are required. Then we need to be able to respond to those threats so Fighters, surface combatants, submarines and AD systems are required.

Then we need to be able to respond to any ground and non-kinetic threats, so a rapidly deployable (light) force that can get quickly to any point in Canada is required along with the ability to counter cyber threats and non-conventional threats that are beyond the capabilities of law enforcement to handle.

All of the above require robust logistics capabilities. Lots of air transport. Air-to-Air Refueling. Ships capable of carrying supplies.

Meet those domestic requirements with a properly equipped force and you will automatically be able to fulfill the requirements to be engaged elsewhere in the World. Fighters, naval forces, AAR and transport aircraft, AD systems, Light Rapid Response forces, robust logistics support. I think all of our allies would be quite happy if we could provide those things even if it means we don't have an Armoured Division to add to the mix.

 

[Skysix]

An easy way to start, if they wanted to go that route, would be to buy another 24 CH-47s and split them between 408 and 438 while adding more CH-146/Bell 412 qualified civvies into the Reserve ranks and/or reallocate the Combat Support "Squadrons" at Cold Lake and Bagotville.

Close, but....

Get out of the 412 platform for tac hel (move them into domestic only use for dispersed SAR etc (like 417 SQN) or RW initial flight training and get a fleet of S70i plus a few MH6 for CanSOFCom