Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

And they also seem to have decided that their light force tactical transport, in addition to being a fighting platform, now needs to a Long Range Patrol Vehicle capable of supporting its team in the field, unsupported, for more than 72 hours.

What is this Light Force of which they speak?

 

[KevinB]

And they also seem to have decided that their light force tactical transport, in addition to being a fighting platform, now needs to a Long Range Patrol Vehicle capable of supporting its team in the field, unsupported, for more than 72 hours.

What is this Light Force of which they speak?

Originally I had thought these were for CANSOF. But maybe the 3rd Bn’s? That would explain the TOW as opposed to a modern ATGM..

 

[GK .Dundas]

It's tradition ,the only reason the reserves in the 70s were equipped with 106 mm rifles was because we'd already disposed of six and seventeen pounders.

 

[Fabius]

To prove your point.

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal? | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal? - 11 Jul 23​

Extracts:

The need for a more robust frame and the effects of inflation could mean a smaller initial buy.....

The Army had yet to settle on final quantities but had projected a buy of up to 300 TMPs in two variants — personnel and cargo — to equip the three light infantry battalions, the light engineer squadrons, and the light artillery tactical groups.

Depending on the feedback from the RFI, the project team is now estimating around 90 tactical vehicles, still in the same two variants, plus nine to 10 trailers. The majority, around 60, would be in the troop-carrying variant.

“We are focusing right now on the core capability of the light forces,” Khelil explained. That would mean equipping one light force battle group, which includes a light infantry battalion, a light engineer squadron, and a light artillery battery.

“That’s the minimum scope,” he added. “A middle scope would increase the amount up to 330 vehicles, to equip the three light battalions. The full scope would add around 200 more vehicles to equip Reserve units, including specialists such as pioneers and direct fire support. The Reserve units are one of the main players that will need to use the TMP. But, at this time, we are focused on the minimum scope.”

The Army had anticipated reaching initially operating capability (IOC) with one of the light battalions by 2025. Khelil said the project will now likely go out for tender by the end of 2024 or early 2025, and achieve IOC in 2028

So they are focused on a minimum capability buy to outfit 1 BG, I have questions then.
1. Given we have 3 BGs which one is going to be outfitted?
2. If we outfit only one how will it work when readiness rotates? How will a BG do work up?
3. If we divide the 1 BG worth into 3 small parts and give a small Coy worth to each BG for training, how will that enable a BG readiness as a VHRF element ?
4. How will this enable pre positioning of equipment in Latvia for the new Cdn Bde?

I wonder if anyone has thought of these questions yet in the CA HQ.

 

[Rifleman62]

The were likely trialling the .50 as the new AD for the Lt Bns Pl's.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's tradition ,the only reason the reserves in the 70s were equipped with 106 mm rifles was because we'd already disposed of six and seventeen pounders.

Actually TOW's with new missiles would be a good addition to the Reserves.

 

[KevinB]

Actually TOW's with new missiles would be a good addition to the Reserves.

No it really wouldn't.
The CA has so few TOW systems left, that there aren't even enough to outfit a Reg Force Bde properly.
So maybe its just better to get new ATGM's (modern ones) and missiles...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No it really wouldn't.
The CA has so few TOW systems left, that there aren't even enough to outfit a Reg Force Bde properly.
So maybe its just better to get new ATGM's (modern ones) and missiles...

Your dreaming in "AmericaColor" We will buy the bare minimum to equip 1 Battalion and a few for training.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Actually TOW's with new missiles would be a good addition to the Reserves.

It's been done before, back in the 90s:

The Westies (16.43) had a TOW platoon tasking... about 10 years before that they had a 106mm tasking. Other Reserve units did the same.

 

[GR66]

I'm fully of the mind that within Canada's current defence budget and an army of in excess of 40,000 authorized positions (Reg and Res) we should be capable of fielding and sustaining a mechanized division to be part of a multinational force in a major conflict while being able to generate battle groups during peacetime.

Yes, that will take some additional equipment over time but much more importantly it will need a major change in attitude. IMHO, our current inputs do not match our defence outputs. That needs to change in a very serious way.

I continue to question if a Mechanized Division is really the ideal contribution for Canada to make to our Allies (NATO and non-NATO).

I 100% get the political importance of Canada making a "boots on the ground" contribution to the collective defence of Europe. Personally I think that a Canadian-led Multinational Brigade consisting of eFP Latvia, a Tank Regiment - LdSH (1 x Squadron forward deployed, the balance fly-over) and one rotational Mech Battalion (1 Coy rotationally deployed, the balance fly-over) would be sufficient.

The way I see the situation Russia - even before being decimated in Ukraine - was/is unlikely in the extreme to challenge NATO directly in a conventional war. The numbers (troops, equipment and GDP) are simply against them. Even before the new NATO commitment to a floor of 2% of GDP spending on defence the European members of NATO collectively spent over 3 x what Russia spent annually on their military.

Realistically, with the increased European military investments (especially in Poland) plus the likely eventual inclusion of Ukraine in NATO at that same time that Russia is in a demographic decline, under extreme sanctions and facing a much larger NATO frontier (especially with the addition of Finland, Sweden and Ukraine) I don't see any real reason that the European members of NATO could not deter and defeat a future Russian military attack. And of course the US (and Canada's minor contribution) would also be there to seal the matter.

On the other hand, if a conflict with China is the more likely military situation we're likely to face, what forces would America's European Allies be able to contribute to the fight? What good would a Canadian Mechanized Division be? The ability of almost all European powers to project any significant amount of military power to the Far East is extremely limited (only France and the UK would realistically be able to do anything of note).

Should Canada focus its force design on an unlikely European fight where frankly our European partners and the US have more than enough military power to decisively defeat Russia, or should we focus on what we can potentially provide to support a fight against China where our European NATO allies have very limited capability of helping out?

I'd argue that the RCAF and RCN are best positioned to assist in that theatre and should be a primary focus on our force modernization (and possible expansion). On the Army front, I'd suggest that Mechanized forces modeled after the US Army aren't likely to be nearly as useful as USMC-style forces capable of dispersed, independent operation across all domains. Such a Light force could be equally be useful in the Canadian Arctic or for rapid deployment by air to counter any possible Russian incursions in locations other than where our pre-positioned Latvian forces are located.

$.02

 

[Kirkhill]

So they are focused on a minimum capability buy to outfit 1 BG, I have questions then.
1. Given we have 3 BGs which one is going to be outfitted?
2. If we outfit only one how will it work when readiness rotates? How will a BG do work up?
3. If we divide the 1 BG worth into 3 small parts and give a small Coy worth to each BG for training, how will that enable a BG readiness as a VHRF element ?
4. How will this enable pre positioning of equipment in Latvia for the new Cdn Bde?

I wonder if anyone has thought of these questions yet in the CA HQ.

Did you miss this line?

The Army had yet to settle on final quantities but had projected a buy of up to 300 TMPs in two variants — personnel and cargo — to equip the three light infantry battalions, the light engineer squadrons, and the light artillery tactical groups.

Depending on the feedback from the RFI, the project team is now estimating around 90 tactical vehicles, still in the same two variants, plus nine to 10 trailers. The majority, around 60, would be in the troop-carrying variant.

“We are focusing right now on the core capability of the light forces,” Khelil explained. That would mean equipping one light force battle group, which includes a light infantry battalion, a light engineer squadron, and a light artillery battery.

“That’s the minimum scope,” he added. “A middle scope would increase the amount up to 330 vehicles, to equip the three light battalions. The full scope would add around 200 more vehicles to equip Reserve units, including specialists such as pioneers and direct fire support. The Reserve units are one of the main players that will need to use the TMP. But, at this time, we are focused on the minimum scope.”

So they want 3 Reg force Light Battle Groups and need 330 vehicles. The also want another 200 vehicles of the same type for the Reserves to make them useful. They have a 100,000,000 budget. So rather than deciding to buy 500 vehicles at $200,000 a piece they are pushing to create a brand new vehicle that will cost at least a million a piece.

Tell me this PM isn't the same guy that was in charge of the TAPV procurement.

Or .... they could do this. And join the USMC and the Royals.

Marine Corps Now Fielding Polaris MRZR Alpha

The Marines have started using Polaris’ latest and greatest version of the military RZR.

www.utvdriver.com

2015 pricing....

Special Operations Command will negotiate and award a sole source contract to Polaris Industries [PII] for two- and four-seat Light Tactical All-Terrain-Vehicles (LTATV).

The command wants 1,750 MRZR-4 and 300 MRZR-2 vehicles.

A five-Year Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract, utilizing both Firm- Fixed Price and Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee Contract Line Items, is anticipated. Place of delivery and delivery dates will be determined at the delivery order level. The estimated award date is scheduled for June 2015.

While not indicative of the final contract pricing, GSA currently lists the MRZR-4 at a unit price of $34,926.17, and the MRZR-2 at a unit price of $32,931.21.

Special Operations Command Taps Polaris For Some 2,000 Light Tactical Vehicles - Defense Daily

Special Operations Command will negotiate and award a sole source contract to Polaris Industries for two- and four-seat Light Tactical

www.defensedaily.com

Is it possible to accept that there is a vehicle in existence with a specific set of capabilities and then adjust Tactics, Training and Procedures to suit and not try to turn everything into a LAV?

 

[Kirkhill]

Originally I had thought these were for CANSOF. But maybe the 3rd Bn’s? That would explain the TOW as opposed to a modern ATGM..

The Light Force Enhancement - Tactical Mobility Platforms were originally for the 3rd Battalions and there was some public debate about MRZRs, ISVs or even JLTVs but the MRZRs were the trials vehicles.

 

[KevinB]

I continue to question if a Mechanized Division is really the ideal contribution for Canada to make to our Allies (NATO and non-NATO).

I 100% get the political importance of Canada making a "boots on the ground" contribution to the collective defence of Europe. Personally I think that a Canadian-led Multinational Brigade consisting of eFP Latvia, a Tank Regiment - LdSH (1 x Squadron forward deployed, the balance fly-over) and one rotational Mech Battalion (1 Coy rotationally deployed, the balance fly-over) would be sufficient.

The way I see the situation Russia - even before being decimated in Ukraine - was/is unlikely in the extreme to challenge NATO directly in a conventional war. The numbers (troops, equipment and GDP) are simply against them. Even before the new NATO commitment to a floor of 2% of GDP spending on defence the European members of NATO collectively spent over 3 x what Russia spent annually on their military.

Realistically, with the increased European military investments (especially in Poland) plus the likely eventual inclusion of Ukraine in NATO at that same time that Russia is in a demographic decline, under extreme sanctions and facing a much larger NATO frontier (especially with the addition of Finland, Sweden and Ukraine) I don't see any real reason that the European members of NATO could not deter and defeat a future Russian military attack. And of course the US (and Canada's minor contribution) would also be there to seal the matter.

On the other hand, if a conflict with China is the more likely military situation we're likely to face, what forces would America's European Allies be able to contribute to the fight? What good would a Canadian Mechanized Division be? The ability of almost all European powers to project any significant amount of military power to the Far East is extremely limited (only France and the UK would realistically be able to do anything of note).

Should Canada focus its force design on an unlikely European fight where frankly our European partners and the US have more than enough military power to decisively defeat Russia, or should we focus on what we can potentially provide to support a fight against China where our European NATO allies have very limited capability of helping out?

I'd argue that the RCAF and RCN are best positioned to assist in that theatre and should be a primary focus on our force modernization (and possible expansion). On the Army front, I'd suggest that Mechanized forces modeled after the US Army aren't likely to be nearly as useful as USMC-style forces capable of dispersed, independent operation across all domains. Such a Light force could be equally be useful in the Canadian Arctic or for rapid deployment by air to counter any possible Russian incursions in locations other than where our pre-positioned Latvian forces are located.

$.02

I think you have misunderstood @FJAG
The point is given the strength in PY of the CA, quite frankly it should be able to field a CA Corps.
Which should theoretically be able to have a Mech Div and a Light Div if not more.

 

[Kirkhill]

An Armoured Division and an Infantry Division ca 1939 with all of the same tactical elements found in a Division today.

9,442 in the Armd Div and 13,863 in the Inf Div = 23,305.

In 1939, the armoured division comprised 9,442 men all ranks, this increased to 14,964 men all ranks by 1944;[45] however, of this latter figure, the division had a combat strength of around 7,000 men with only 3,400 of these men being in the division's nine rifle companies compared to a combat strength of around 5,000 men in the American armoured division, of which 3,000 were in the rifle companies.

The 1939 infantry division had a theoretical establishment of 13,863 men. By 1944, the strength had risen to 18,347 men.[25] This increase in manpower resulted mainly from the increased establishment of a division's subunits and formations; except for certain specialist supporting services, the overall structure remained substantially the same throughout the war.

Could we start from Tradition.

 

[GR66]

I think you have misunderstood @FJAG
The point is given the strength in PY of the CA, quite frankly it should be able to field a CA Corps.
Which should theoretically be able to have a Mech Div and a Light Div if not more.

My thinking is more in line with your previous observation on the subject:

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.

When I have a bit of time I'll put together something that shows kind of what I was picturing in my little mind...

 

[Fabius]

Did you miss this line?

I'm reading this as the PM and the CA are focused on getting 90 vehicles for 1 BG as per the bold, yes there is a 330 and 530 vehicle desire but they are focused on getting 90. I am very skeptical of the CA ability to buy additional vehicles especially if they are going to try and go bespoke but I hope I am wrong.
Its interesting that the project is focused on vehicles to units only, not necessarily units and tasks/locations/readiness requirements.
I would argue that the Project needs to be buying vehicle sets for the following:

3 x sets for the 3 BGs in Canada for Trg
1 x set for HR in Trenton, ready to load and go in line with the 10 day NTM.
1 x set prepositioned in Latvia for the fly over Light BG.

So minimum 5 sets for the Reg force light BGs. Then add in what you would want for the Res Force BG elements. The in Canada Reg Force sets could be used to backfill battlefield losses if it came to that in the two forward sets.

The Army had yet to settle on final quantities but had projected a buy of up to 300 TMPs in two variants — personnel and cargo — to equip the three light infantry battalions, the light engineer squadrons, and the light artillery tactical groups.

Depending on the feedback from the RFI, the project team is now estimating around 90 tactical vehicles, still in the same two variants, plus nine to 10 trailers. The majority, around 60, would be in the troop-carrying variant.

“We are focusing right now on the core capability of the light forces,” Khelil explained. That would mean equipping one light force battle group, which includes a light infantry battalion, a light engineer squadron, and a light artillery battery.

“That’s the minimum scope,” he added. “A middle scope would increase the amount up to 330 vehicles, to equip the three light battalions. The full scope would add around 200 more vehicles to equip Reserve units, including specialists such as pioneers and direct fire support. The Reserve units are one of the main players that will need to use the TMP. But, at this time, we are focused on the minimum scope.”

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm reading this as the PM and the CA are focused on getting 90 vehicles for 1 BG as per the bold, yes there is a 330 and 530 vehicle desire but they are focused on getting 90. I am very skeptical of the CA ability to buy additional vehicles especially if they are going to try and go bespoke but I hope I am wrong.
Its interesting that the project is focused on vehicles to units only, not necessarily units and tasks/locations/readiness requirements.
I would argue that the Project needs to be buying vehicle sets for the following:

3 x sets for the 3 BGs in Canada for Trg
1 x set for HR in Trenton, ready to load and go in line with the 10 day NTM.
1 x set prepositioned in Latvia for the fly over Light BG.

So minimum 5 sets for the Reg force light BGs. Then add in what you would want for the Res Force BG elements. The in Canada Reg Force sets could be used to backfill battlefield losses if it came to that in the two forward sets.

I am guessing that part of the problem is the army is not agreed on the role/purpose/need for the light battalions.
It wasn't so long ago that the Light Battalions had a full slate of wreckers, MRTs and POLs.
Then shortly after that they were to be mounted in TAPVs.
Then they were exercising in helicopters.
Then they were trialling MRZRs.
Then there was talk of Parachutes, and Mountains and Amphibians IIRC.
And how to employ them in combination with a LAV brigade, or if they should be employed with a LAV brigade...

I just wish they would go out and buy the 530x 30,000 USD worth of vehicles. That would come in at about 25,000,000 CAD or about half of the minimum budget bracket - 50,000,000 to 99,000,000.
And at that price don't worry about fixing the things. Just get Polaris to send another.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I just wish they would go out and buy the 530x 30,000 USD worth of vehicles. That would come in at about 25,000,000 CAD or about half of the minimum budget bracket - 50,000,000 to 99,000,000.
And at that price don't worry about fixing the things. Just get Polaris to send anoanother

Hell, spend some of the leftover on a complementary vehicle - maybe something suitable as a heavy weapons platform?

 

[FJAG]

I think you have misunderstood @FJAG
The point is given the strength in PY of the CA, quite frankly it should be able to field a CA Corps.
Which should theoretically be able to have a Mech Div and a Light Div if not more.

That is the way that I see it. I'm not so sure about a light "division" my own napkin force has a mech division, a light high readiness brigade, a low readiness light bde, a separate med readiness mech bde, two arty bde, a CS bde and a CSS bde and a training structure within that pers envelope.

@GR66 I agree that the mech bde has little usefulness for the Pacific. It's not meant for that but to earn us brownie points within NATO.

In a previous iteration of my napkin force the mech div with 3 manoeuvre brigades, an arty bde, a sustainment bde and div troops totalled 6,131 RegF and 11,870 Res F leaving over one half the force for other purposes.

The key issue is that we are not a two war military like the US - we can do one. In that one war is Europe the div is the front line and everyone else the replacement and sustainment. If that war is Pacific then everyone else is the the lead and the mech division forms the core of replacement and sustainment. I haven't really given much consideration what the "rest" should look like (except in very broad strokes) because, quite frankly, the Pacific is in my mind more a navy and air force thing and I haven't seen anything in the way of a niche for our army there (except maybe our own coastal defence (and that includes Arctic). Effectively I've earmarked manpower, because I haven't forgotten about it, but haven't designed it.

Regardless. I think our defence outputs should be considerably bigger than what they are for the current investment in treasure and manpower. What's missing is a plan for a "big event". Just to reiterate my thought process - I started in this game when we had nukes. I can't see defending this country with a handful of underequipped, understrength battle groups when things get serious. And I'm firmly convinced that they will get serious. Not today, not tomorrow, but they will.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hell, spend some of the leftover on a complementary vehicle - maybe something suitable as a heavy weapons platform?

Make it a LUV/ISV variant?