Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[captloadie]

RCAF guy here. Stupid question: Can we not do an Army of the East vs. and Army of the West Capture the flag style exercise? Does the OPFOR need to be a scripted activity vs. real time action/reaction?

 

[MilEME09]

RCAF guy here. Stupid question: Can we not do an Army of the East vs. and Army of the West Capture the flag style exercise? Does the OPFOR need to be a scripted activity vs. real time action/reaction?

I've seen both types happen, our problem is we general go for scripted, why? because it makes the brigade look good and ready to deploy, no ones willing to let a system fail.

 

[GR66]

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.

What, like Batmen?

 

[Kirkhill]

What, like Batmen?

No, like supporters for small unit operations - the type most likely to engage troops domestically.

 

[PrairieFella]

He's talking about a concept similar to the Ranger Regt, support for SOF.

 

[KevinB]

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?

FFS why? Light Infantry are not SOF.

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

They are available as needed from the CA -- CANSOF has taken LIB troops to theatre for certain roles.

He's talking about a concept similar to the Ranger Regt, support for SOF.

That was the original genesis for CSOR. Pre 9/11 there was discussion about what Canada needed from a second SOF element.
The basics where:
1) JTF-2 is too small to conduct all the Countries SOF missions
2) JTF-2 was focused on the Domestic HR role, with limited (then) overseas deployment mainly for Anti-Terrorist mission sets
3) JTF-2 needed Cordon Support for Operations as well as additional Ground Security for NEO etc missions overseas.
4) It was believed that forming a US Special Forces Group type entity would be too resource intensive (languages etc)

Several COA's where floated all at the time involved taking LIB(s) into the Special Operations.
A) A rotating task where equipment was transferred from BN to BN as the ready status shifted to the different BN
B) Making the LIB's into a Range Reg't type entity (which was discounted due to being too expensive to maintain...)
C) Forming a Special Unit to make into a Ranger like BN to support JTF-2.

Without bemoaning or digging up old wounds, CSOR was created - and eventually ended up or morphed being more like a US SFG than Ranger Reg't.


The problem with SOF is they are expensive - and no one likes to use them like expendable crewman to beam down with Capt Kirk and the rest of the Bridge crew to die gloriously. So you need a well trained Light Infantry soldier to do that role.

Back in the day, the Ranger Reg't was used to do airfield seizures and other SOF support missions - when the Rangers got moved into SOF to support the CAG and other elements in SOCOM - all of a sudden no one wanted to waste the SOF folks, with their more intensive training and equipment to do the rather more casualty likely roles -- so the 82nd Airborne now gets to jump onto concrete airfields and such...


The fact that the CA is so equipment bare shouldn't force a Light Infantry Regiment into CANSOF simply to get kit to conduct the missions they should be undertaking.

 

[Kirkhill]

FFS why? Light Infantry are not SOF.



They are available as needed from the CA -- CANSOF has taken LIB troops to theatre for certain roles.


That was the original genesis for CSOR. Pre 9/11 there was discussion about what Canada needed from a second SOF element.
The basics where:
1) JTF-2 is too small to conduct all the Countries SOF missions
2) JTF-2 was focused on the Domestic HR role, with limited (then) overseas deployment mainly for Anti-Terrorist mission sets
3) JTF-2 needed Cordon Support for Operations as well as additional Ground Security for NEO etc missions overseas.
4) It was believed that forming a US Special Forces Group type entity would be too resource intensive (languages etc)

Several COA's where floated all at the time involved taking LIB(s) into the Special Operations.
A) A rotating task where equipment was transferred from BN to BN as the ready status shifted to the different BN
B) Making the LIB's into a Range Reg't type entity (which was discounted due to being too expensive to maintain...)
C) Forming a Special Unit to make into a Ranger like BN to support JTF-2.

Without bemoaning or digging up old wounds, CSOR was created - and eventually ended up or morphed being more like a US SFG than Ranger Reg't.


The problem with SOF is they are expensive - and no one likes to use them like expendable crewman to beam down with Capt Kirk and the rest of the Bridge crew to die gloriously. So you need a well trained Light Infantry soldier to do that role.

Back in the day, the Ranger Reg't was used to do airfield seizures and other SOF support missions - when the Rangers got moved into SOF to support the CAG and other elements in SOCOM - all of a sudden no one wanted to waste the SOF folks, with their more intensive training and equipment to do the rather more casualty likely roles -- so the 82nd Airborne now gets to jump onto concrete airfields and such...


The fact that the CA is so equipment bare shouldn't force a Light Infantry Regiment into CANSOF simply to get kit to conduct the missions they should be undertaking.

So the SOF required small unit light support and they got that from the Rangers.

The Rangers rolled over and became part of the SOF community and the SOF community reached out to the 82nd to get the support the Rangers provided.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the SOF required small light unit support and they got that from the Paras.

1 Para became part of the SOF community and the SOF community reached out to the rest of the Paras, the Marines, and the regular infantry (Rangers) for small unit light infantry support.

Heavy and Light.

Two gravity holes. One centred around the Armoured Corps. The other centred around the Special Operators.

True in Canada, the UK and the US.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Bloat/mission creep is alive an well I see.

 

[McG]

So the SOF required small unit light support and they got that from the Rangers.

The Rangers rolled over and became part of the SOF community and the SOF community reached out to the 82nd to get the support the Rangers provided.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the SOF required small light unit support and they got that from the Paras.

1 Para became part of the SOF community and the SOF community reached out to the rest of the Paras, the Marines, and the regular infantry (Rangers) for small unit light infantry support.

The question put to you was not “who” but “why”. What is the effect or capability to be gained? Why should/would CAF do what you suggested?

 

[Kirkhill]

The question put to you was not “who” but “why”. What is the effect or capability to be gained? Why should/would CAF do what you suggested?

I don't know why. I only observe that the government has been more friendly to the SOF community, finding more opportunities to use it, while the LIBs are the CAF's red headed step kids that seem perennially in search of a champion.

Moving the battalions from their parent regiments and putting them under a common regimental system seems to me to be a step away from the Heavy Army's influence and thus making them more liable to the gravitational pull of "the other".

 

[KevinB]

I don't know why. I only observe that the government has been more friendly to the SOF community, finding more opportunities to use it,

That is solely the nature of OOTW, and areas of Competition without outright conflict.
SOF are a scalpel as opposed to the BattleAxe that the GPF are.

while the LIBs are the CAF's red headed step kids that seem perennially in search of a champion.

That is a CA issue, and has been since the demise of the CAR.

Moving the battalions from their parent regiments and putting them under a common regimental system seems to me to be a step away from the Heavy Army's influence and thus making them more liable to the gravitational pull of "the other".

I would not call the CA "Heavy" at all - a LAV force isn't a Heavy force no matter what some may try to portray.

I would absolutely not follow any of the UK's wayward orientations. There is still roles for light forces in the conventional military - and Light Infantry are not, and should not be confused with SOF.
The Ranger's have had a very tough transition to SOF and still to this day their Leadership has a tough time realizing that they are no longer Light Infantry, there is a lot of institutional inertia to overcome as they still have an 11series (A or B) MOS.

 

[Kirkhill]

That is solely the nature of OOTW, and areas of Competition without outright conflict.
SOF are a scalpel as opposed to the BattleAxe that the GPF are.

That is a CA issue, and has been since the demise of the CAR.

I would not call the CA "Heavy" at all - a LAV force isn't a Heavy force no matter what some may try to portray.

I would absolutely not follow any of the UK's wayward orientations. There is still roles for light forces in the conventional military - and Light Infantry are not, and should not be confused with SOF.
The Ranger's have had a very tough transition to SOF and still to this day their Leadership has a tough time realizing that they are no longer Light Infantry, there is a lot of institutional inertia to overcome as they still have an 11series (A or B) MOS.

Points taken. I would note that change, both intentional and otherwise, continues.

 

[dapaterson]

I would not call the CA "Heavy" at all - a LAV force isn't a Heavy force no matter what some may try to portray.

If the LAV isn't heavy then why did the Cougar have a cannon?

 

[KevinB]

I'm a firm believer that Light Infantry and Mechanized Infantry should have a separate MOS.
Or at least a mandated conversion course prior to joining a different type of entity. The CAR used to do Airborne Indoc which was envisioned to both fitness check folks posted in, but also give them a feel for what it was to be in a Light Airborne unit.

Down here the Bradley formations have been significantly less effective - and the Light Units have had issues as well since the combining of the MOS's.

If the LAV isn't heavy then why did the Cougar have a cannon?

Lets try to let that deplorable fiasco of the Tankette fade into the past.

 

[PrairieFella]

If the LAV isn't heavy then why did the Cougar have a cannon?

If the Cougar is have because of its cannon, does that make the LAV 6 a super-heavy?

 

[KevinB]

If the Cougar is have because of its cannon, does that make the LAV 6 a super-heavy?

I hate all of you.

 

[PrairieFella]

I hate all of you.

I hate to break it to you Kevin, but that's not a LAV, therefore an inferior IFV. GDLSC wins yet again.

 

[dapaterson]

I hate all of you.

Plot twist: your Dr pays me to raise your blood pressure.

 

[KevinB]

Points taken. I would note that change, both intentional and otherwise, continues.

One of the biggest issues that seems to trip a lot of folks up is that initially SOF specific equipment cascades down to the GPF.
Tier 1 units have a fairly significant budget as they are National Level of Interest entities - a "No Fail" mission set - so there is always the push for the next edge - be it training, equipment whatever.

The Tier 2/3 units tend to get either hand me downs from the National unit - or once the equipment has been developed or acquired in sufficient number to validate (and get the price down) it is then incorporated if needed into their equipment locker.

Generally then the QRF/RDF/Light/Airborne units from the GPF start getting items that had been SOF specific.
1) While not SOF, those units tend to end up supporting SOF missions - or are involved in SOF supported missions (JFE, NEO etc)
2) Items are often Lighter, more capable, increase survivability, decrease visibility to enemies etc.

At some point after that - a lot of equipment becomes standard issue - as the price is down, it is proven, and it's more practical to adopt as general issue.


Now SOF is a catch all, and there are many different types of SOF, and SOF missions, and require a lot of different support and equipment.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One of the biggest issues that seems to trip a lot of folks up is that initially SOF specific equipment cascades down to the GPF.
Tier 1 units have a fairly significant budget as they are National Level of Interest entities - a "No Fail" mission set - so there is always the push for the next edge - be it training, equipment whatever.

The Tier 2/3 units tend to get either hand me downs from the National unit - or once the equipment has been developed or acquired in sufficient number to validate (and get the price down) it is then incorporated if needed into their equipment locker.

Generally then the QRF/RDF/Light/Airborne units from the GPF start getting items that had been SOF specific.
1) While not SOF, those units tend to end up supporting SOF missions - or are involved in SOF supported missions (JFE, NEO etc)
2) Items are often Lighter, more capable, increase survivability, decrease visibility to enemies etc.

At some point after that - a lot of equipment becomes standard issue - as the price is down, it is proven, and it's more practical to adopt as general issue.


Now SOF is a catch all, and there are many different types of SOF, and SOF missions, and require a lot of different support and equipment.

But in Canada we secretly, and sometimes not so secretly, actively disparage our SOF/Paratroopers etc so why should we follow on from what they are doing?