- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
What is Canada going to be relied on to do? On its own?
I think it is more likely that we end up adding a LAV brigade to an allied Light Division to heavy it up or to a Heavy Division to give it more depth.
Informing the Army’s Future Structure
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
What is Canada going to be relied on to do? On its own?
I think it is more likely that we end up adding a LAV brigade to an allied Light Division to heavy it up or to a Heavy Division to give it more depth.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,522
- Points
- 1,040
Yes, fight with what you have. I haven't studied Soviets closely enough to understand whether it was doctrinally-driven, or merely a way to get more formations under armour within the limits of their industrial base.
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
Iterating from the British Army Review articles and their reference to the NGCT (Next Generation Combat Team) trials being conducted by 2 Yorks this is what I am coming up with in terms of a Combat Team.
Basically I am seeing two platoons backed by a heavy weapons group.
The infantry are all now mounted infantry - either mounted in a Warrior/Ajax, a Boxer, A Foxhound or a MRZR.
The emphasis is on resolution by fires.
The infantry is moving farther away from the bayonet and even the rifle is a Personal Defense Weapon.
The game plan seems to be to stand off at a distance, observe and patiently pick the enemy apart.
The key element is the UAS. They seem to have been swapped in as replacements for binoculars. Everybody has them.
Crew served weapons are now the basis of the Company.
The company's 12 fire teams are to be armed with a 7.62 LMG, a grenade launcher and one shot weapons like the AT4 and the NLAW ATGM.
Those 12 fire teams are split into 6 sections with each of the two "Phalanx" platoons owning 3 sections.
The sections are run by a Section Commander and his Systems Operator who mans the SUAS but also any other sensors - such as acoustics, vibration and conceivably radar and odours...
The Phalanx Platoon Commander backs his two Sections with an SDE Tm (Sensor Decider Effector Team) whose primary weapon is the Carl Gustaf. Reference is made to the Platoon having the 60mm mortar. Perhaps the SDE Tm will function like the old Weapons Det. The Platoon Commander keeps his Sergeant but trades in his Communicator for a Systems Operator. Presumably communications are now seamless. But who's driving? One of the SDE Tm?
The Company's third platoon now becomes a Manoeuvre Support Group with 3x Javelin Teams, 2x 81mm Mortars, 2x SDE Teams (Dr, Ptl Leader and SysOp/MFC) and a Supacat Wolfram loaded with 8x Brimstone ready to fire.
The Review talks about 3x the range. This seems to mean a 500 m section, a 1500 m platoon and a 4500 m company with the company being accompanied by the 15 km Brimstone. That Brimstone would seem to be a Battalion weapon accompanying the companies but capable of supplying mutual support across the battalion front.
In keeping with that larger frontage the battalion will be getting its own 105mm battery - either a towed Lt Gun or perhaps a Self Propelled low recoil gun capable of 15 km with HE.
The battalion will also be getting a 105mm recoilless bunker buster mounted on a truck, a Light Electronics Warfare Team, Counter-UAS/AD capabilities and single shot Loitering Attack Munitions for all. Presumably issued like pyro and NLAWs.
Rather than closing and destroying this looks like destroying and closing. And the troops are going to be tied more tightly to their vehicles.
Even the Royals and the USMC are now going to be zipping around in dune buggies.
Can "P" company be far behind? How many MRZRs to carry a log?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 12,177
- Points
- 1,160
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,307
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 18,808
- Points
- 1,260
Keep in mind that is one unit doing a trial.View attachment 79182
Iterating from the British Army Review articles and their reference to the NGCT (Next Generation Combat Team) trials being conducted by 2 Yorks this is what I am coming up with in terms of a Combat Team.
Basically I am seeing two platoons backed by a heavy weapons group.
The infantry are all now mounted infantry - either mounted in a Warrior/Ajax, a Boxer, A Foxhound or a MRZR.
The emphasis is on resolution by fires.
The infantry is moving farther away from the bayonet and even the rifle is a Personal Defense Weapon.
The game plan seems to be to stand off at a distance, observe and patiently pick the enemy apart.
The key element is the UAS. They seem to have been swapped in as replacements for binoculars. Everybody has them.
Crew served weapons are now the basis of the Company.
The company's 12 fire teams are to be armed with a 7.62 LMG, a grenade launcher and one shot weapons like the AT4 and the NLAW ATGM.
Those 12 fire teams are split into 6 sections with each of the two "Phalanx" platoons owning 3 sections.
The sections are run by a Section Commander and his Systems Operator who mans the SUAS but also any other sensors - such as acoustics, vibration and conceivably radar and odours...
The Phalanx Platoon Commander backs his two Sections with an SDE Tm (Sensor Decider Effector Team) whose primary weapon is the Carl Gustaf. Reference is made to the Platoon having the 60mm mortar. Perhaps the SDE Tm will function like the old Weapons Det. The Platoon Commander keeps his Sergeant but trades in his Communicator for a Systems Operator. Presumably communications are now seamless. But who's driving? One of the SDE Tm?
The Company's third platoon now becomes a Manoeuvre Support Group with 3x Javelin Teams, 2x 81mm Mortars, 2x SDE Teams (Dr, Ptl Leader and SysOp/MFC) and a Supacat Wolfram loaded with 8x Brimstone ready to fire.
The Review talks about 3x the range. This seems to mean a 500 m section, a 1500 m platoon and a 4500 m company with the company being accompanied by the 15 km Brimstone. That Brimstone would seem to be a Battalion weapon accompanying the companies but capable of supplying mutual support across the battalion front.
In keeping with that larger frontage the battalion will be getting its own 105mm battery - either a towed Lt Gun or perhaps a Self Propelled low recoil gun capable of 15 km with HE.
The battalion will also be getting a 105mm recoilless bunker buster mounted on a truck, a Light Electronics Warfare Team, Counter-UAS/AD capabilities and single shot Loitering Attack Munitions for all. Presumably issued like pyro and NLAWs.
Rather than closing and destroying this looks like destroying and closing. And the troops are going to be tied more tightly to their vehicles.
Even the Royals and the USMC are now going to be zipping around in dune buggies.
Can "P" company be far behind? How many MRZRs to carry a log?
Frankly to me it’s absurd, sure there are some decent updates, but it’s not a maneuver force, and doesn’t have any weight to stop those who just want to run it over.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,592
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe something for us to consider when we want to sustain three CMBGs & some higher enablers and we want to conduct operations, but we haven’t ever wanted to spend the money for three brigades worth of equipment and we never want to pay for Op Stock equipment.
- Reaction score
- 18,808
- Points
- 1,260
Honestly I fail to understand the logic behind the CMBG at this point anymore.
1 CMBG has tanks
2 and 5 don’t.
I really don’t understand why the 3rd BN’s are left in the “CMBG’s” as generally most other armies have a 2 Inf 2 Arm Bde structure for ‘Mech’ a 2:1 Armor/Inf for Armor Bde’s and a 3 Inf Bn for Inf Bde’s.
Looking down here the ABCT included 87 Abrams, 152 Bradley IFVs, 18 M109s and 45 M113 APC. Since we have reverted to Div structures the Arty is out of the Bde’s and many of the 113’s
I would think it would make sense to relook at the CA structure
Going to 1 Armoured Bde, acquiring (or upgrading) the 97 MBT (be it upgraded Leo 2 into Leo2A8 or M1A2 SepV4) and a tracked IFV for that Bde.
2 CMBG’s of 2 Inf and 1 Cav on the LAV
Which from my math would provide a third spare set of LAV 6.0 systems for the PRes or a war stock
1 Light Bde.
For the Arty the M777 retained for a 18 gun Reg’t (1 Reg Bty and 2 PRes), M109A7 acquired (ideally 40 or so) for a 18 gun Regiment, and 80 or so Archer type wheeled SPA for the CMBG’s
Hey you got to hit that 2% somehow
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,059
- Points
- 990
So how does that look for Canada Re- more of lesser? Is the baseline for comparison today actual or a hypothetical ideal endstate?
More LAV 6.0's instead of looking to replace with a more expensive IFV?
More of a less capable (turretless) LAV than the 6.0 to expand the the fleet?
On the tank side, what realistic options are there to expand the fleet that will be materially cheaper yet still meet the "good enough" bar?
One would think the used Leo market has dried up with Europe rearming
A7+ and Abrams Sepv4 in don't fit the description
M10 is still currently a 10m dollar vehicle and isn't an MBT
Stored US M1A/A2's at clearance prices, diesel swapped and brought to a minimal standard of modernization?
Ditching the MBT altogether (again) to spend the money rounding out a tankless CMBG construct?
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
Honestly I fail to understand the logic behind the CMBG at this point anymore.
1 CMBG has tanks
2 and 5 don’t.
I really don’t understand why the 3rd BN’s are left in the “CMBG’s” as generally most other armies have a 2 Inf 2 Arm Bde structure for ‘Mech’ a 2:1 Armor/Inf for Armor Bde’s and a 3 Inf Bn for Inf Bde’s.
Looking down here the ABCT included 87 Abrams, 152 Bradley IFVs, 18 M109s and 45 M113 APC. Since we have reverted to Div structures the Arty is out of the Bde’s and many of the 113’s
I would think it would make sense to relook at the CA structure
Going to 1 Armoured Bde, acquiring (or upgrading) the 97 MBT (be it upgraded Leo 2 into Leo2A8 or M1A2 SepV4) and a tracked IFV for that Bde.
2 CMBG’s of 2 Inf and 1 Cav on the LAV
Which from my math would provide a third spare set of LAV 6.0 systems for the PRes or a war stock
1 Light Bde.
For the Arty the M777 retained for a 18 gun Reg’t (1 Reg Bty and 2 PRes), M109A7 acquired (ideally 40 or so) for a 18 gun Regiment, and 80 or so Archer type wheeled SPA for the CMBG’s
Hey you got to hit that 2% somehow
I like Kevin's rationale.
Maybe part of the problem and solution is the management of expectations? We have good soldiers and the kit, based on Ukrainian and Russian standards, or even Polish standards, isn't that bad. It seems to be able to hold its own in the line. I am saying that knowing that Leo1A5s are being pulled out of storage, along with M113s and M109A4s. Consideration is being given to fielding the M198s and all sorts of vehicles, everything from civilian taxis to armoured pickup trucks to dune buggies, are finding homes somewhere in the theatre, often within range of the guns.
We have the ability to field a Canadian Division. It could look a lot like @KevinB 's Division. Or it might look a little more Swedish with each of 1,2 and 5 getting a Combined Arms Battalion and spreading the few tanks we have across those three Brigades. That would keep the politicians happier although Kevin's construct is both more tactically sound and most of the political angst seems to be behind us with the decision already made to concentrate the tanks in the Strats.
Will the Canadian Division look like an American Division, of any type? No. It won't. But neither do most army's. Friend or Foe.
A Canadian Division could contribute effectively to an American battle plan. It may not be a headline grabber but it could be there and useful even as currently constituted.
The biggest problem would be that fielding that Division would gut the CAF and leave nothing to build on if further mobilization were required. Even contributing a Brigade Group, of any type, would be a major "bet" in that it would engage 1/4 to 1/3 of the field force.
Which brings us back to @FJAG's perennial moan
. Engaging the Reserves effectively in a timely fashion.Even before we look at buying new tanks and helicopters would we be better off stocking up on small arms and ammunition, single shot systems like NLAWs and AT4s, SUAS's and NVGs? Purchasing Javelins and a ManPADs system?
@IKnowNothing raising interesting points about the costs of vehicles. Cheap vehicles are not a problem. They are readily available and easy to procure. Even antique 1960s vehicles are available in reasonable numbers at reasonable prices. And those vehicles have characteristics that make them better than some solutions and not as good as others.
It is kind of like the ships we buy for the Navy. As the Absalons demonstrated it is not the mechanicals that are expensive. It is all the electrical components we fill them with that are expensive. Those electrical components both add capabilities and reduce manpower. In the long run which is more readily available? Capital or manpower?
The 105mm cannon debate is as good a reference as any for this. It would be relatively cheap to field large numbers of 105 mm guns without all the electronics but that would require lots of gunners and, when employed, would put lots of gunners' lives at risk. A similar situation exists with old 1960s tanks and M113s.
One way forward might include the ability to add a self-driving capability to some of the existing fleet and judiciously converting existing guns to a more remote operating system so that the number of people put at risk is reduced in any given situation.
If I take the Stryker MGS as an example. In the field it was as welcome as the "Ronsons", the name the Shermans were given because they lit up as reliably as a Ronson cigarette lighter. On the other hand, it had all the elements in place to make it an effective artillery piece if an Optionally Manned kit were added to it permitting the crew to get out, remotely drive it into battery, remotely sight and fire it and remotely drive it out of battery to reload. As an example.
The one big gap that Ukraine has demonstrated is the need for a more effective travelling air defence. By that I am meaning that all of those LAV turrets should have the ability to effectively engage local aerial threats and supply point defence for the LAV, its crew and its passengers.
What can we do incrementally, immediately, with what we have and what is available from open production lines and boneyards?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,182
- Points
- 1,260
I like Kevin's rationale.
Maybe part of the problem and solution is the management of expectations? We have good soldiers and the kit, based on Ukrainian and Russian standards, or even Polish standards, isn't that bad. It seems to be able to hold its own in the line. I am saying that knowing that Leo1A5s are being pulled out of storage, along with M113s and M109A4s. Consideration is being given to fielding the M198s and all sorts of vehicles, everything from civilian taxis to armoured pickup trucks to dune buggies, are finding homes somewhere in the theatre, often within range of the guns.
We have the ability to field a Canadian Division. It could look a lot like @KevinB 's Division. Or it might look a little more Swedish with each of 1,2 and 5 getting a Combined Arms Battalion and spreading the few tanks we have across those three Brigades. That would keep the politicians happier although Kevin's construct is both more tactically sound and most of the political angst seems to be behind us with the decision already made to concentrate the tanks in the Strats.
Will the Canadian Division look like an American Division, of any type? No. It won't. But neither do most army's. Friend or Foe.
A Canadian Division could contribute effectively to an American battle plan. It may not be a headline grabber but it could be there and useful even as currently constituted.
The biggest problem would be that fielding that Division would gut the CAF and leave nothing to build on if further mobilization were required. Even contributing a Brigade Group, of any type, would be a major "bet" in that it would engage 1/4 to 1/3 of the field force.
Which brings us back to @FJAG's perennial moan
Even before we look at buying new tanks and helicopters would we be better off stocking up on small arms and ammunition, single shot systems like NLAWs and AT4s, SUAS's and NVGs? Purchasing Javelins and a ManPADs system?
@IKnowNothing raising interesting points about the costs of vehicles. Cheap vehicles are not a problem. They are readily available and easy to procure. Even antique 1960s vehicles are available in reasonable numbers at reasonable prices. And those vehicles have characteristics that make them better than some solutions and not as good as others.
It is kind of like the ships we buy for the Navy. As the Absalons demonstrated it is not the mechanicals that are expensive. It is all the electrical components we fill them with that are expensive. Those electrical components both add capabilities and reduce manpower. In the long run which is more readily available? Capital or manpower?
The 105mm cannon debate is as good a reference as any for this. It would be relatively cheap to field large numbers of 105 mm guns without all the electronics but that would require lots of gunners and, when employed, would put lots of gunners' lives at risk. A similar situation exists with old 1960s tanks and M113s.
One way forward might include the ability to add a self-driving capability to some of the existing fleet and judiciously converting existing guns to a more remote operating system so that the number of people put at risk is reduced in any given situation.
If I take the Stryker MGS as an example. In the field it was as welcome as the "Ronsons", the name the Shermans were given because they lit up as reliably as a Ronson cigarette lighter. On the other hand, it had all the elements in place to make it an effective artillery piece if an Optionally Manned kit were added to it permitting the crew to get out, remotely drive it into battery, remotely sight and fire it and remotely drive it out of battery to reload. As an example.
The one big gap that Ukraine has demonstrated is the need for a more effective travelling air defence. By that I am meaning that all of those LAV turrets should have the ability to effectively engage local aerial threats and supply point defence for the LAV, its crew and its passengers.
What can we do incrementally, immediately, with what we have and what is available from open production lines and boneyards?
Do we have the ability to field a Canadian division ? How do we get it to the "field" and how do sustain it ?
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
JGSDF Type 96 Armoured Personnel Carrier 396 in service
JGSDF Type 16 Manoeuvre Combat Vehicle 221 in service| Unit cost | 700 million yen (5.1 million USD) [1] |
|---|
126 Type 10 (latest generation), 341 Type 90 and 90 Type 74 | Unit cost | $11.3 million (2022)[1]: 5 |
|---|
It looks to me as if, regardless of the vehicle, the turret, where all the electricals and electronics reside still costs 3 to 4 MUSD.
From what I gather even a "simple" Kongsberg Protector RWS can add 0.5 MUSD to a vehicle.
In 2008 the Stryker MGS was costing around 5 MUSD apiece.
I don't know if they have been scrapped but I would offer them for Optionally Manned conversions and hand them to the Artillery
Up to $326.5M for 62 M1128 Stryker MGS Vehicles
The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System faced issues since deployment in combat situations began in 2007. The Stryker MGS' most prominent feature is a 105mm auto-fed gun mounted on its wheeled LAV-III/ Piranha-III APC chassis. M1128s have anti-tank
www.defenseindustrydaily.com
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 7,693
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 18,808
- Points
- 1,260
Short of WW3, I cannot see the need fro the CA to field a Division or more.
Creating a Division (or more) is however useful for a number of reasons.
Training all parts of one, so you don't
Ensuring Competencies and Capabilities
Break Glass in Case of War.
I believe that Canadians are better served as Coalition members - into Allied Divisions.
With the idea that a Canadian Armored Bde could plug into a US, UK, Polish Etc Division or Corps, Light into XVIII Airborne Corps etc.
However it could be theoretically possible for Canada to Deploy a DIV HQ and a Bde, plus a Arty Bde etc -
So I would prefer two Div HQ, 1 of which is deployable, which also allows for a Second Div in the event of mobilization.
Medium Forces these days aren't see with the same vigor they were in GWOT - but they do offer protected Mobility in larger conflicts or serve fairly well for OOTW. Canada has IMHO over invested in the LAV.
- Reaction score
- 18,808
- Points
- 1,260
I don't think you will see M1A1 or early Sep M1A2 at clearance prices.
For Canada, it has such a small Army that it can't afford not to get top of the line kit.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,059
- Points
- 990
I don't know if I was raising points so much as stumbling around trying to ask how such a theory would actually be implemented.
What is the cost/effectiveness relationship? Is it linear? Whatever the relationship, Is there a real world option to select at our theoretically desired tradeoff point?
- Reaction score
- 18,808
- Points
- 1,260
Cost/Effectiveness is a very very hard metric to gauge, simply because the answer has so many variables.
As well some will weight effectiveness differently.
To me, you generally want as survivable a vehicle as possible, so that your crew can live if the vehicle is stuck by a significant projectile or explosion. It's the old Armor Trilogy: Protection, Firepower, Mobility -- except this day and age, you can often get the best of all three in one platform.
For OOTW, I'm generally a thin skin vehicle fan (may maybe with some up armor in some theaters), simply as anyone can make a bigger bomb, but when it comes to Mech/Armor stuff in a high intensity conflict, I'm all about getting the best one can get.
Similar threads
