Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

Doesn't Calian provide tough battle-hardened and -experienced advisors to the CAF?

Like the guy I met on a CAX who had to use a special chair?

 

[KevinB]

Doesn't Calian provide tough battle-hardened and -experienced advisors to the CAF?

To help run CAX’s - but not field force enemy.

 

[dapaterson]

To help run CAX’s - but not field force enemy.

Exactly.

We draw those from battle hardened and experienced Class Bs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Exactly.

We draw those from battle hardened and experienced Class Bs.

Unless they're on a category of some kind, which helps 'select' the best candidates

 

[KevinB]

The CA still needs some sort of CTC to conduct the collective training piece for the field force.

At what scale? I’m personally of the opinion anything beyond BN scale needs to be joint - as otherwise you’re just fooling yourself.

I am not convinced that the field force can properly challenge itself if it’s left to do collective training (CT)by itself.

I’m not sure anyone else in the CA is going to either.

As is the Army has largely outsourced all CT to either JRTC and JPMRC or to CJOC and the Latvia based CREVALs.

For the LIB’s the JRTC/JPMRC make a lot of sense as the CA has forgotten about the LIB’s since the CAR disbandment.

The Army right now is slowly coming to grips with the decisions made 2-3 years ago that have seen the Army not be in charge of its own CT.
The question then is what does CT look like and who manages it inside the Army, ie what does that CTC look like?

Again I’m not a fan of the Army running CT beyond the unit level as it misses the fact that one needs the Air Force included at the very minimum.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It would be nice to see a line unit designated as an experimentation unit and given larger authorities and responsibilities. That along with some embedded DLR and project type staff with funds that the unit can use as it sees fit to procure and test technology and develop TTPs.

I’d rather shoot DLR and start from the ground up. Pull everyone out of Ottawa and put the Light side in Petawawa. Then the Mech/Armoured in Wx or Suffield.

I think the OPFOR question is harder, but the CA likely needs an entire unit dedicated as OPFOR. I wonder if a 70/30 type Reserve unit would be viable for the OPFOR. Might depend on how many serials the CTC needs to run per year and at what levels.

Again at what scale?


I am a big fan of live fire exercises, done properly. One doesn’t need an OPFOR for that — but a safety staff and a separate evaluation team (that tracks down to the individual their effectiveness in terms of shooting, moving and communicating).

Unless one has the ability to fully instrument a Bde and have an enemy force with at minimum a BTG complement of enemy weapons etc I don’t see the point in the OPFOR - ideally also a sim/miles sort of setup. I would never use blanks for anything as they tend to teach shitty habits.

For most higher than unit levels CAX’s can be done - but I think the Divisional Exercise like RV used to have should be done at least every 4 years if for nothing more than making everyone move their stuff to Suffield and prove that it can run once it gets there.

It would also be a forcing function to get gear for enough people.

 

[McG]

The CA still needs some sort of CTC to conduct the collective training piece for the field force.

Canada has a CTC. It does individual training. Appropriating USA language, with all its baggage & meaning, is probably bringing the wrong perspective to a discussion about designing an army that is not nor can ever be a comparable to the USA. Particularly if CA already has terms for the idea being discussed and different meanings for the term being appropriated.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The CA still needs some sort of CTC to conduct the collective training piece for the field force. I am not convinced that the field force can properly challenge itself if it’s left to do collective training (CT)by itself.

Commanders are the best people to run training for their units/formations, IMHO.

Give them the direction, tools and support, then let them do the job.

Snoopy 'externals' can get in the CP and sit a watchkeeping shift if they really want to help out

 

[Fabius]

At what scale? I’m personally of the opinion anything beyond BN scale needs to be joint - as otherwise you’re just fooling yourself.

For the CA, I am thinking that the Force on Force Trg against an OPFOR should be at the Bn/Bde level. I would suggest in order to generate enough repetition to actually generate learning across the field force the CA should be aiming at multiple Bn force on forces a year.

I agree on the OPFOR needing to be a BTG and I would see force on force needing to have a full suite of simulation for both the OPFOR and Blue forces. Having the OPFOR at BTG level would give you the ability to run a Bde level force on force every 2-3 years. I don't know if I would try and do a Div level FTX on a routine basis.

Again I’m not a fan of the Army running CT beyond the unit level as it misses the fact that one needs the Air Force included at the very minimum.

For the CA, we would need Avn involved at minimum for ideally both unit and formation. Especially if the units are the light units. Once we get above unit level though its not just the joint elements, its also the echelons above Bde enablers that start needing to be considered. EW, AD, ISR etc. etc. The CA would need to make a hard decision on where to cap the training otherwise it will keep expanding in size and scope, that was part of the problem with the Ex MAPLE RESOLVE series towards the end. What was supposed to be a BG centred Lvl 6 was being mission crept into the Lvl 7 territory (perhaps even into a small division scope).

I’d rather shoot DLR and start from the ground up. Pull everyone out of Ottawa and put the Light side in Petawawa. Then the Mech/Armoured in Wx or Suffield.

For the unit designated as the experimentation force, I don't care what we call it but the unit needs to have a rapid fielding and prototyping support / reach back capability in my opinion. That capability needs to be not tied to the same procurement timelines that the rest of the force is tied to. It needs to be able to innovate faster and fail and pivot faster.

I am a big fan of live fire exercises, done properly. One doesn’t need an OPFOR for that — but a safety staff and a separate evaluation team (that tracks down to the individual their effectiveness in terms of shooting, moving and communicating).

Live fire is fine and is useful and needed but I have never seen a live fire range offer the same challenges and lessons to sub unit , unit and formation commanders and staff as force on force exercises with a thinking OPFOR. Live fire exercises rarely present the same challenges in terms of decision making, judgement, and risk management that the force on force exercises force commanders to deal with.
We need both.

 

[Fabius]

Canada has a CTC. It does individual training. Appropriating USA language, with all its baggage & meaning, is probably bringing the wrong perspective to a discussion about designing an army that is not nor can ever be a comparable to the USA. Particularly if CA already has terms for the idea being discussed and different meanings for the term being appropriated.

While Canada does indeed have a Combat Training Centre and in the CA that is understood to equal Gagetown and individual training, the use of Combat Training Centre is not USA language, its a term that is familiar to NATO and the 5 Eyes.
Examples:
Australia Army uses the term Combat Training Centre - Live to refer to their collective training element.
British Army calls their collective training centre the Combat Ready Training Centre.
Germany calls theirs the Army Combat Training Centre.

If we so desire then sure we can refer to CMTC as the Canadian Army's naming concept of what our version of a collective training focused combat training centre is. If that helps clarity here then GTG.

 

[Fabius]

Commanders are the best people to run training for their units/formations, IMHO.

Give them the direction, tools and support, then let them do the job.

Snoopy 'externals' can get in the CP and sit a watchkeeping shift if they really want to help out

I think large elements of our field force would likely agree. However, if that was the case why have all the sizable Army's amongst NATO and the 5 Eyes decided otherwise?

Planning training and organizing it coherently but transparently so that the Blue force is forced into certain situations in order to test how they allocate resources, make decisions, judge and manage risk etc. etc. is not necessarily complex but its not simple. It takes time and effort. Most formations and units aren't going to commit that time and effort. Nor should they, they have better things to focus on.

Integrating an OPFOR and simulation and the monitoring of the various simulation systems to actually provide real metrics and feedback on how the unit/formation is performing vs how it feels its performing is highly useful or at least most armies have decided so.

The "externals" need to be viewed not as impediments or unwelcome detractors but rather as unattached pers who aren't emotionally attached to the personnel and personalities in the Blue Force. The "externals" are the pers who can facilitate and offer an outside opinion and who can offer a wider context.
This is especially true if the OPFOR, Simulation staff, OCTs etc. have seen multiple rotation after rotation and have seen units/formations etc. wrestle with and solve the same problems time and time again.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Commanders are the best people to run training for their units/formations, IMHO.

Hard to get dependably regular measurements without a single well-calibrated instrument.

 

[KevinB]

For the CA, I am thinking that the Force on Force Trg against an OPFOR should be at the Bn/Bde level. I would suggest in order to generate enough repetition to actually generate learning across the field force the CA should be aiming at multiple Bn force on forces a year.

I agree on the OPFOR needing to be a BTG and I would see force on force needing to have a full suite of simulation for both the OPFOR and Blue forces. Having the OPFOR at BTG level would give you the ability to run a Bde level force on force every 2-3 years. I don't know if I would try and do a Div level FTX on a routine basis.

I would hope the CAF could do a Bde ex every year against a live OPFOR.

For the CA, we would need Avn involved at minimum for ideally both unit and formation. Especially if the units are the light units. Once we get above unit level though its not just the joint elements, its also the echelons above Bde enablers that start needing to be considered. EW, AD, ISR etc. etc. The CA would need to make a hard decision on where to cap the training otherwise it will keep expanding in size and scope, that was part of the problem with the Ex MAPLE RESOLVE series towards the end. What was supposed to be a BG centred Lvl 6 was being mission crept into the Lvl 7 territory (perhaps even into a small division scope).

Hence my comment that it’s not a CA thing, it’s a CAF thing.

For the unit designated as the experimentation force, I don't care what we call it but the unit needs to have a rapid fielding and prototyping support / reach back capability in my opinion. That capability needs to be not tied to the same procurement timelines that the rest of the force is tied to. It needs to be able to innovate faster and fail and pivot faster.

Agreed

Live fire is fine and is useful and needed but I have never seen a live fire range offer the same challenges and lessons to sub unit , unit and formation commanders and staff as force on force exercises with a thinking OPFOR. Live fire exercises rarely present the same challenges in terms of decision making, judgement, and risk management that the force on force exercises force commanders to deal with.
We need both.

No disagreement on the fact that one needs both, but a well setup live fire should have a lot of unknowns for tactical challenges in it. A lot of troops (and leaders) get lazy in Force on Force due to the fact that still the weapon effects simulators aren’t ideal.

 

[Fabius]

I would hope the CAF could do a Bde ex every year against a live OPFOR.

I am not certain it can. Certainly not in the near term. However it can likely do multiple single unit Bn level force on forces.

Smaller individual footprints for each iteration. Fewer key support trades needed etc.
Smaller OPFOR requirements.

I think the force currently would benefit more from 4-5 Bn force on force exercises each year with the Bdes doing a CAX than a single Bde Force on Force.

Interesting enough, is there value in unit level force on forces for Artillery, Engineer, Air Defence, Logistics etc. What would that look like? I don’t really know the answer to those questions at all. The current answer is we train them in a CAX as part of the Bde, but I wonder if we do need to give them the opportunity to do force on force in the field.

 

[PrairieFella]

I am not certain it can. Certainly not in the near term. However it can likely do multiple single unit Bn level force on forces.

Smaller individual footprints for each iteration. Fewer key support trades needed etc.
Smaller OPFOR requirements.

I think the force currently would benefit more from 4-5 Bn force on force exercises each year with the Bdes doing a CAX than a single Bde Force on Force.

Interesting enough, is there value in unit level force on forces for Artillery, Engineer, Air Defence, Logistics etc. What would that look like? I don’t really know the answer to those questions at all. The current answer is we train them in a CAX as part of the Bde, but I wonder if we do need to give them the opportunity to do force on force in the field.

Do we not do bde exs every year?

 

[KevinB]

I am not certain it can. Certainly not in the near term. However it can likely do multiple single unit Bn level force on forces.

Smaller individual footprints for each iteration. Fewer key support trades needed etc.
Smaller OPFOR requirements.

I think the force currently would benefit more from 4-5 Bn force on force exercises each year with the Bdes doing a CAX than a single Bde Force on Force.

Then send Bde’s to the US, UK etc.

Interesting enough, is there value in unit level force on forces for Artillery, Engineer, Air Defence, Logistics etc. What would that look like? I don’t really know the answer to those questions at all. The current answer is we train them in a CAX as part of the Bde, but I wonder if we do need to give them the opportunity to do force on force in the field.

I’d suggest using CANSOF as OPFOR to impede the CS and CSS elements.

Do we not do bde exs every year?

Used to.

 

[PrairieFella]

Then send Bde’s to the US, UK etc.

I’d suggest using CANSOF as OPFOR to impede the CS and CSS elements.



Used to.

From what I understand, they're still done, just in Latvia. Oak Resolve I believe?

 

[Fabius]

Ex OAK RESOLVE is a BG level exercise. It’s also a multi national BG so even though it’s got a large significant Cdn component it’s still not a Cdn unit. It’s also not a CA exercise but rather a CJOC/Task Force Latvia exercise.

There is another exercise series Ex RESOLUTE WARRIOR and Ex RESOLUTE GUARDIAN that are Bde level. Ex RESOLUTE WARRIOR is a field exercise but not really a force on force with instrumentation like we used to see in Wainwright or like the LiBs see at JRTC or JPMRC.

Ex RESOLUTE GUARDIAN I believe will be a CPX.

However those Exercises are again not CA Bdes. They are a MN Bde with a heavy Cdn compound but it’s still not a Cdn Bde and it’s not a Cdn Army Ex.

How much does that matter that the Latvia based exercises are not Cdn Army? I guess that depends on how much ownership the Cdn Army wants over the collective training that establishes and maintains its professional war fighting proficiency. They do come with some benefits though that can’t be replicated in Canada or by the Cdn Army.

Canadian-led NATO Multinational Brigade Latvia Completes its First Major Field Training Exercise, Supporting NATO Deterrence and Defence Efforts - Canada.ca

Exercise RESOLUTE WARRIOR 2024 was conducted from November 1 to 14, 2024 across Central and Northern Latvia.

www.canada.ca

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’d suggest using CANSOF as OPFOR to impede the CS and CSS elements.

Just run the exercise over a weekend or traditional leave period, like Xmas, and all Reg F components will be 'impeded'

 

[GK .Dundas]

John English was of the opinion that had the prewar Army had been large em to field a brigade. That later the Army wouldn't have had the difficulties that it met as grew first into a Division then a Corps and so forth.

 

[Kirkhill]

I heard a rumour of the possibility of the LIBs being left in place but put under the command of a Light Infantry Regiment.

Next step - draw them into the CANSOF orbit?

Not turn them into special operators. Just make them available to CANSOF.