Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

That’s fine, it’s also not what I was talking about. JFO does not mean in and of itself your carrying an LTD.

OK. I look forwards to being educated.

 

[markppcli]

OK. I look forwards to being educated.

JFO is a designation that includes training on terminal guidance. TGO is 100 percent inside their wheel house, but does that mean every marine squad is going to be carrying an LTD? I have my doubts given their bulk, weight, and fragility. Similarly the use of an LTD, especially if your going to be having 1 per squad / section, has some complexities to it in terms of angles (between the emitter and the weapon being released) and coding that would require a hefty bit of coordination.

The thing is - that is not the only source I have seen describe the Asst Sqd Ldr as a Forward Observer.

As to munitions?

Stuff carried by F35s (Small Diameter Bombs and Paveway).

I mentioned that I was curious about Sea and Land, since any air attack will be handled by a JTAC or FAC (A).

Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs launched by HIMARS.

Laser guided for a deep strike weapon would be odd.

Joint Air Ground Munitions replacing TOWs, Hellfires, Brimstones and Longbows

See above

70mm APKWS

Air launched or ground ?

Vulcano 155mm, 127mm and 76mm artillery rounds
With experimental work being done with 40mm, 82mm and 120mm rounds.

Laser guided artillery is a weird one for me. You’re expecting the supported arm to be exposed to fire and it’s going to need to designate each round, seems sun optimal to me personally.

 

[markppcli]

But the question is are there enough combat arms reservists in Alberta to generate 4 x 90% Mech Companies, 2 x 90% Tank Squadrons, 2 x 90%
Armoured Recce Squadrons, 2 x 70% CS Companies (4 if the Tank and Armoured Recce Regiments are to have CS Squadrons) and 4 x 70% CSS Companies?

No, I also don’t think we’ll ever see much of an increase in reserve CSS without heavy education incentives, or targeted contracts to ensure released members have reserve obligations.

 

[Kirkhill]

JFO is a designation that includes training on terminal guidance. TGO is 100 percent inside their wheel house, but does that mean every marine squad is going to be carrying an LTD? I have my doubts given their bulk, weight, and fragility. Similarly the use of an LTD, especially if your going to be having 1 per squad / section, has some complexities to it in terms of angles (between the emitter and the weapon being released) and coding that would require a hefty bit of coordination.


I mentioned that I was curious about Sea and Land, since any air attack will be handled by a JTAC or FAC (A).


Laser guided for a deep strike weapon would be odd.


See above


Air launched or ground ?

Laser guided artillery is a weird one for me. You’re expecting the supported arm to be exposed to fire and it’s going to need to designate each round, seems sun optimal to me personally.

Thanks for the education.

I think a major part of the discussion revolves around the whole concept of dispersion.

In Ukraine we are looking at a 2000 km frontline and a couple of hundred kilometers of depth with maybe 20 or so brigades operating on each side? The I am not seeing fields of tanks or even black masses of troops moving on the surface. I am seeing independent sections and platoons operating out of sight of mutual support.

In the marines case we are looking at 3 Regiments with one infantry battalion each with 3 companies with 3 platoons supported by 30 or so light amphibious vessels and 3 missile regiments. So 27 to 30 independent platoons operating over 5410 km from Tokyo to Darwin (as the crow flies) and thousands of islands.

That battle plan doesn't really seem to fit with Wainwright and Gagetown exercises - or even Suffield Battle Groups.

It feels to me as if the Marines are planning for, and the Ukrainians are opting for, something that is more akin to the way Special Forces have operated. A lot more self sufficiency, more autonomy and a lot less mutual support - more open flanks.

Edit - I think the key difference is going to be in the definition of what close means - especially when it applies to close combat. Range, stand-off, I would expect, would be your friend whenever possible.

 

[daftandbarmy]

But the question is are there enough combat arms reservists in Alberta to generate 4 x 90% Mech Companies, 2 x 90% Tank Squadrons, 2 x 90%
Armoured Recce Squadrons, 2 x 70% CS Companies (4 if the Tank and Armoured Recce Regiments are to have CS Squadrons) and 4 x 70% CSS Companies?

IIRC that there are over a million people in Alberta in the right age ranges to join the Reserves. If we can't recruit a few thousand, we really, really suck....



By 2046, Alberta's population is expected to reach almost 6.4 million people, an increase of roughly 1.9 million people from 2020, as arrivals from other countries account for about 54% of the expected growth over the projection period. The population become more concentrated in urban centres, especially along the Edmonton-Calgary Corridor, 80% of Albertans are expected to live in this region by 2046.

As per 2016 census, Below is the population by Age and sex. Population of Alberta as per 2016 census is 4,067,175, increase of 412,918 people from the last 2011 census of Population with 3,645,257. By 2016 census the Population from 0 to 14 years are 779,155, 15 to 64 years are 2,787,805, 65 years and over are 500,215, 85 years and over are 63,385. Alberta population in 2021 is to be 4.43 million(estimated).

Age Group	Total	Male	Female
0 to 4 years	266,515	136,520	129,995
5 to 9 years	270,715	138,990	131,725
10 to 14 years	241,920	124,060	117,860
15 to 19 years	240,035	123,625	116,410
20 to 24 years	261,830	133,990	127,840
25 to 29 years	310,940	156,715	154,225
30 to 34 years	333,175	167,555	165,620
35 to 39 years	305,505	153,655	151,850
40 to 44 years	281,205	142,545	138,660
45 to 49 years	269,030	135,855	133,180
50 to 54 years	284,310	142,205	142,100
55 to 59 years	275,540	138,565	136,970
60 to 64 years	226,230	113,440	112,790
65 to 69 years	173,680	85,500	88,180
70 to 74 years	117,035	56,430	60,610
75 to 79 years	83,955	39,105	44,845
80 to 84 years	62,165	27,590	34,575
85 to 89 years	39,965	16,050	23,915
90 to 94 years	18,025	5,755	12,275
95 to 99 years	4,735	1,145	3,595
100 years and over	650	115	535

Alberta Population 2024

www.populationu.com

 

[markppcli]

Thanks for the education.

I think a major part of the discussion revolves around the whole concept of dispersion.

In Ukraine we are looking at a 2000 km frontline and a couple of hundred kilometers of depth with maybe 20 or so brigades operating on each side? The I am not seeing fields of tanks or even black masses of troops moving on the surface. I am seeing independent sections and platoons operating out of sight of mutual support.

In the marines case we are looking at 3 Regiments with one infantry battalion each with 3 companies with 3 platoons supported by 30 or so light amphibious vessels and 3 missile regiments. So 27 to 30 independent platoons operating over 5410 km from Tokyo to Darwin (as the crow flies) and thousands of islands.

That battle plan doesn't really seem to fit with Wainwright and Gagetown exercises - or even Suffield Battle Groups.

It feels to me as if the Marines are planning for, and the Ukrainians are opting for, something that is more akin to the way Special Forces have operated. A lot more self sufficiency, more autonomy and a lot less mutual support - more open flanks.

Edit - I think the key difference is going to be in the definition of what close means - especially when it applies to close combat. Range, stand-off, I would expect, would be your friend whenever possible.

We literally just saw the Ukrainians launch an offensive with light mechanized Bdes, yes plural, across a narrow front to isolate1 st Guards Tank Army. What comes out in videos is not the whole picture.

 

[GR66]

IIRC that there are over a million people in Alberta in the right age ranges to join the Reserves. If we can't recruit a few thousand, we really, really suck....



By 2046, Alberta's population is expected to reach almost 6.4 million people, an increase of roughly 1.9 million people from 2020, as arrivals from other countries account for about 54% of the expected growth over the projection period. The population become more concentrated in urban centres, especially along the Edmonton-Calgary Corridor, 80% of Albertans are expected to live in this region by 2046.

As per 2016 census, Below is the population by Age and sex. Population of Alberta as per 2016 census is 4,067,175, increase of 412,918 people from the last 2011 census of Population with 3,645,257. By 2016 census the Population from 0 to 14 years are 779,155, 15 to 64 years are 2,787,805, 65 years and over are 500,215, 85 years and over are 63,385. Alberta population in 2021 is to be 4.43 million(estimated).

Age Group	Total	Male	Female
0 to 4 years	266,515	136,520	129,995
5 to 9 years	270,715	138,990	131,725
10 to 14 years	241,920	124,060	117,860
15 to 19 years	240,035	123,625	116,410
20 to 24 years	261,830	133,990	127,840
25 to 29 years	310,940	156,715	154,225
30 to 34 years	333,175	167,555	165,620
35 to 39 years	305,505	153,655	151,850
40 to 44 years	281,205	142,545	138,660
45 to 49 years	269,030	135,855	133,180
50 to 54 years	284,310	142,205	142,100
55 to 59 years	275,540	138,565	136,970
60 to 64 years	226,230	113,440	112,790
65 to 69 years	173,680	85,500	88,180
70 to 74 years	117,035	56,430	60,610
75 to 79 years	83,955	39,105	44,845
80 to 84 years	62,165	27,590	34,575
85 to 89 years	39,965	16,050	23,915
90 to 94 years	18,025	5,755	12,275
95 to 99 years	4,735	1,145	3,595
100 years and over	650	115	535

Alberta Population 2024

www.populationu.com

Maybe we do really, really suck. I have no idea how many Reservists are in the South Alberta Light Horse, King's Own Calgary Regiment, Loyal Edmonton Regiment and Calgary Highlanders but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's not enough to fill all the positions that FJAG's proposed plan would require.

So to my mind either the plan needs to change, or something needs to be done to significantly increase the number of Albertans that are willing to join the Reserves.

 

[Kirkhill]

We literally just saw the Ukrainians launch an offensive with light mechanized Bdes, yes plural, across a narrow front to isolate1 st Guards Tank Army. What comes out in videos is not the whole picture.

Fair comment

 

[FJAG]

Where I struggle with most attempts at integrated force structures is Geography vs Population.

You have a 30/70 Armoured Brigade in Edmonton. With 1 x 100% Reg Force Company/Squadron per Battalion/Regiment that leaves 4 x Mech Companies and 2 x Tank Squadrons to be manned 90% by Reservists (plus 2 x CS and 3 x CSS Companies to be 70% Reservists). 41 Brigade in Alberta only has 2 x Infantry and 2 x Armoured Reserve units. Even drawing in the Saskatchewan Reserve units you're only adding 1 x Armoured and 2 x Infantry units but the travel distances required to train with their parent units in Edmonton are impractical.

Your Toronto and Montreal Armoured Brigades have the opposite problems. There are plenty of Reservists available in these large metro areas, but what training facilities are there that can handle a Mechanized Brigade?

By moving our training areas away from our population centres we've created a situation where it is very difficult to achieve your objective Heavy forces being largely manned by Reservists. I totally understand the goal, but not sure I see a doable path toward it at this point in time.

The 1 Bde HQ is in Edmonton but draws its units from across all three Prairie Provinces with equipment stationed in Edmonton/Wainwright and Shilo.

The Prairies can support around 2,500 reservists. Deduct roughly 400 for the Prairie-based artillery regiment and lets say 300 total for a Prairie-based Div engineer squadron and Div recce squadron and that leaves roughly 1,800 for the rest of 1 Bde which is roughly what is needed to round out the brigade. If you recall from some previous calculations, these brigades come out at roughly 3,000 all ranks as they do not have integral recce, arty or engineers which are all a divisional resource and only about a third of those come from the Prairies.

Remember too that these are not fully equipped brigades. Essentially a full brigade's worth of equipment is distributed between the three 30/70 brigades. In Toronto and Montreal you are looking at basic dry training at the DP 1 level. Live firing for all three brigades can be done in Wainwright and Europe. I see collective manoeuvre exercises taking place on flyover to 3 Bde's equipment in Europe on a summer basis for ResF companies/squadrons and during the winter for the RegF companies/squadrons. Not only does that familiarize the troops with their operational environment but also practices the RCAF in flyover ops and as a bonus provides a recruiting incentive to help build numbers.

It's not just the organization that is changing but also the training and some basic concepts of how the organizations are operated.

Sorry that wasn't clear here. Previous versions of this structure included drill-down locations to the company level for each of 1 and 2 Div. I'm still working on those for the new version.

I should point out that I still have three RegF rifle companies unallocated and am pondering where best to allocate them (there are 27 and I have allocated 24) (There are 18 companies worth of LAVs available for distribution and 12 allocated to 1 Div [6 in Europe and 6 in Canada] leaving 6 for 2 Div)

As @daftandbarmy points out, population numbers are rising and, given the right incentives, numbers can climb. In all my calculations I use PYs as currently assigned to the Army establishments across the country and several sources to establish how many reservists paraded in each province several years ago (rather than authorized positions) Those numbers may have changed a bit but are nonetheless realistic "as-is" figures.

 

[FJAG]

I've got to say I am still struggling with the notion of Mixed Units. 90/10-70/30-50/50-30/70-10/90. I just think that terms of service and geography both work against the concept.

I think I prefer a small, ready, deployable full-time force and a 10/90 reserve with a Reg Force Cadre responsible for ensuring that the Reserves can supply competent sub-units.

The "ready deployable force" is in 2 Div where there are four infantry battalions and 2 recce squadrons that are 100/0. In addition in 2 Div there are 6 battalions each of which has a RegF Bn HQ and 1 x 100/0 rifle company. In other words 2 Div can deploy 10 battalion HQs and 18 x 100/0 rifle companies.

1 Div has a different concept. It has the ability to deploy 3 x RegF tank regt HQs and 6 x Reg F Inf Bn HQ with 3 x 100/0 tank squadrons and 6 x 100/0 LAV companies (plus CS and CSS). Essentially there are enough RegF elements to do 6 to 9 RegF Latvia style rotations or even deploy a full RegF armoured brigade in the aggregate (with two additional brigades of ResF personnel and 1 bde of equipment back in Canada). Plus three 100/0 rifle companies as yet unallocated. Essentially both brigades have sufficient 100/0 RegF elements for rapid deployments as well as significant ResF and equipment depth.

There is no reduction in the number of RegF 100/0 tank squadrons, recce squadrons and rifle and CS companies. There are more deployable battalion HQs and bde HQs to help look after less than full battalion level rotations such as training missions to the Ukraine and operational ones to Latvia (from 12 manoeuvre bn HQs to 20 and from 3 manoeuvre bde HQs to 8 (including 36 and 39 Regt which are "bde HQs Lite")).

CS and CSS functions in the same way.

For me, the benefit of the hybrid structure is that every ResF company, squadron or battery comes under the command of a RegF leadership structure which is accountable for managing its training and has sufficient personnel and equipment available to train itself and it's reserve component on. That is essentially not available in a 10/90 battalion as it stands with the current RegF RSS cadre. Tweaking that alone won't help.

 

[Kirkhill]

The "ready deployable force" is in 2 Div where there are four infantry battalions and 2 recce squadrons that are 100/0. In addition in 2 Div there are 6 battalions each of which has a RegF Bn HQ and 1 x 100/0 rifle company. In other words 2 Div can deploy 10 battalion HQs and 18 x 100/0 rifle companies.

1 Div has a different concept. It has the ability to deploy 3 x RegF tank regt HQs and 6 x Reg F Inf Bn HQ with 3 x 100/0 tank squadrons and 6 x 100/0 LAV companies (plus CS and CSS). Essentially there are enough RegF elements to do 6 to 9 RegF Latvia style rotations or even deploy a full RegF armoured brigade in the aggregate (with two additional brigades of ResF personnel and 1 bde of equipment back in Canada). Plus three 100/0 rifle companies as yet unallocated. Essentially both brigades have sufficient 100/0 RegF elements for rapid deployments as well as significant ResF and equipment depth.

There is no reduction in the number of RegF 100/0 tank squadrons, recce squadrons and rifle and CS companies. There are more deployable battalion HQs and bde HQs to help look after less than full battalion level rotations such as training missions to the Ukraine and operational ones to Latvia (from 12 manoeuvre bn HQs to 20 and from 3 manoeuvre bde HQs to 8 (including 36 and 39 Regt which are "bde HQs Lite")).

CS and CSS functions in the same way.

For me, the benefit of the hybrid structure is that every ResF company, squadron or battery comes under the command of a RegF leadership structure which is accountable for managing its training and has sufficient personnel and equipment available to train itself and it's reserve component on. That is essentially not available in a 10/90 battalion as it stands with the current RegF RSS cadre. Tweaking that alone won't help.

OK - I'm tracking now.

 

[Kirkhill]

We literally just saw the Ukrainians launch an offensive with light mechanized Bdes, yes plural, across a narrow front to isolate1 st Guards Tank Army. What comes out in videos is not the whole picture.

Just for clarification - I am not arguing against Corps-Division-Brigade-Battalion-Company-Platoon coordination. The Ukrainians are obviously co-ordinating at all those levels. My belief is that the platoons of the Battalion are operating over much wider frontages and penetrating much deeper when they get the opportunity. They are still under higher control but are operating with a greater degree of local autonomy.

 

[FJAG]

Just for clarification - I am not arguing against Corps-Division-Brigade-Battalion-Company-Platoon coordination. The Ukrainians are obviously co-ordinating at all those levels. My belief is that the platoons of the Battalion are operating over much wider frontages and penetrating much deeper when they get the opportunity. They are still under higher control but are operating with a greater degree of local autonomy.

... and a greater degree of risk during periods when they operate beyond mutual support of other elements of the force.

There's always a balance to these things.

 

[Kirkhill]

... and a greater degree of risk during periods when they operate beyond mutual support of other elements of the force.

There's always a balance to these things.

Absolutely there is a balance - there is always a risk.

The Ukrainians seem to be a lot less risk averse, at all levels of society, than Canadians generally or the CAF in particular.

 

[markppcli]

I think you’re seeing a nation having to make due by virtue of extreme circumstances rather than any kind of coherent plan to make high risk choices.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you’re seeing a nation having to make due by virtue of extreme circumstances rather than any kind of coherent plan to make high risk choices.

That is true. Conversely Canada, and the CAF have little motivation to make any choices.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Maybe we do really, really suck. I have no idea how many Reservists are in the South Alberta Light Horse, King's Own Calgary Regiment, Loyal Edmonton Regiment and Calgary Highlanders but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's not enough to fill all the positions that FJAG's proposed plan would require.

So to my mind either the plan needs to change, or something needs to be done to significantly increase the number of Albertans that are willing to join the Reserves.

Why don't we do what other 'crazy outside the box innovation leaders' do and just ask them?

For example, I regularly travel through various airports and other high volume transportation nodes and see lots of ads for jobs in alot of different organizations.

The CAF? Not so much.

CFRG seems to be a gatekeeper, not a gate opener, sadly.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I regularly travel through various airports and other high volume transportation nodes and see lots of ads for jobs in alot of different organizations.

The CAF? Not so much.

CFRG seems to be a gatekeeper, not a gate opener, sadly.

CFRG still labours under the delusion that we're an employer of choice and we can be extremely picky about who we take on even as a potential candidate.

Couple that with social engineering policies from on high, you're left with a hiring body that has more metrics stating "this is the exact kind of candidate we're looking for" instead of "can we work with this? Do we see potential?"

I honestly would love to see recruiting be taken over by a private industry HR firm for a year, just solely to see if it's the CFRCs that are the problem or if we end up shooting ourselves in the foot with our own policies.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why don't we do what other 'crazy outside the box innovation leaders' do and just ask them?

For example, I regularly travel through various airports and other high volume transportation nodes and see lots of ads for jobs in alot of different organizations.

The CAF? Not so much.

CFRG seems to be a gatekeeper, not a gate opener, sadly.

Related - I don't know the current state of play but both the Highlanders and the Eddies sought permission to establish remote companies and platoons in communities that expressed interest in hosting them. They were turned down.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Related - I don't know the current state of play but both the Highlanders and the Eddies sought permission to establish remote companies and platoons in communities that expressed interest in hosting them. They were turned down.

I know the QORof C tried something similar about 20 years ago with moving Buff's Coy out to Scarborough. Like most things, it was a great I initiative that would have seen great promise with 10 to 15 years of buy in.

Instead, there was no immediate payoff and the project was scrapped. So to this day, a sizeable portion of your recruitable force is living in Suburbia/Durham County... your only options east of the downtown core are Oshawa, Cobourg, or Peterborough for Reserve Force employment before you hit Belleville.

Does not make any sense to me.