Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[dapaterson]

I have had few problems with TBS staff; lots of problem with CAF and departmental staff not bothering to understand what they need to do, and complaining that their indifferent efforts were not rewarded.

 

[KevinB]

So looking at your election results last night, I hereby move to rename the thread Farce 2025, as the rust out continues.
Unless you can find a way to get glossy selfies of JT displayed prominently on new equipment, that are green and have no cost, to get support from the collaborators.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So looking at your election results last night, I hereby move to rename the thread Farce 2025, as the rust out continues.
Unless you can find a way to get glossy selfies of JT displayed prominently on new equipment, that are green and have no cost, to get support from the collaborators.

Even worse, because it turned out pretty much status quo but now everyone really dislikes each other even more, the lack of decisive actions and deferred leadership on important files will probably accrue exponentially.

 

[CBH99]

So looking at your election results last night, I hereby move to rename the thread Farce 2025, as the rust out continues.
Unless you can find a way to get glossy selfies of JT displayed prominently on new equipment, that are green and have no cost, to get support from the collaborators.

We will just tell him they are green. And since a lot of them are green, dumb dumb won’t know the difference when he shows up for selfies. Boom! Genius!

Tell him that the company that made them had to invest an equal amount into Canada, so they are free. Not only free, but that return investment created thousands of jobs which means more money coming into government.

“Justin, I think such great decisions from you actually DESERVE a selfie…get in there!”

 

[KevinB]

We will just tell him they are green. And since a lot of them are green, dumb dumb won’t know the difference when he shows up for selfies. Boom! Genius!

Tell him that the company that made them had to invest an equal amount into Canada, so they are free. Not only free, but that return investment created thousands of jobs which means more money coming into government.

“Justin, I think such great decisions from you actually DESERVE a selfie…get in there!”

I have a solution based on that.

Have the US DoD offer the Bradley - but a Canadian variant (no changes) and call it the Justin.
When the ATGM rack deploys it can drop a picture of a JT Selfie.

Next Up the Trudeau class SSN - call the first one Pierre - and let JT envision a family dynasty...

 

[OldSolduer]

So looking at your election results last night, I hereby move to rename the thread Farce 2025, as the rust out continues.
Unless you can find a way to get glossy selfies of JT displayed prominently on new equipment, that are green and have no cost, to get support from the collaborators.

IMO the CAF will further erode and rust. To pay for the pandemic, DND budget will be cut. The CAF will be lucky to purchase a rowboat.

 

[KevinB]

IMO the CAF will further erode and rust. To pay for the pandemic, DND budget will be cut. The CAF will be lucky to purchase a rowboat.

What will the fallout be for a CCF cracking up at Sea, or a Hornet dropping out of the Air?
- those rowboats may be useful.
For nothing else you can row across the lakes and come and stay at my house...

 

[OldSolduer]

What will the fallout be for a CCF cracking up at Sea, or a Hornet dropping out of the Air?
- those rowboats may be useful.
For nothing else you can row across the lakes and come and stay at my house...

The Lake it is said never gives up her dead when the gales of November come early....

Rowboats wouldn't be useful

 

[CBH99]

The Lake it is said never gives up her dead when the gales of November come early....

Rowboats wouldn't be useful

I for one am happy ‘The Lake’ doesn’t give up her dead every November. I don’t want a bunch of bodies floating around everywhere, and Halloween is over by then.

I really do enjoy the prairies

I have a solution based on that.

Have the US DoD offer the Bradley - but a Canadian variant (no changes) and call it the Justin.
When the ATGM rack deploys it can drop a picture of a JT Selfie.

Next Up the Trudeau class SSN - call the first one Pierre - and let JT envision a family dynasty...

I think you may be onto something.

Call them “Civilian Protection Vehices” that carry civilians in dangerous areas to safety. They get into the armoured vehicles for their own protection, and driven away from danger.

The gun on top is to protect them as they are whisked away.

And those aren’t ATGM racks silly, they fire small Canadian-built drones that fly ahead to make sure we rescue an equal number of people to ensure nobody is offended, there aren’t any dangers to the local environment.

Have them made in the US instead of Canada? Even better! Jobs are bullshit anyway.



If that doesn’t get us a seat next to Senegal at the UN Security Council, nothing will.

Guys? I think we’re onto something…

 

[ballz]

Not trying to derail the thread with this, even though it clearly belongs in another thread. I will elaborate in the appropriate thread.



Just to touch on this though…

I know the CAF can’t spend more than X number of dollars without the appropriate process from Treasury Board. Does anybody have current info on what that number is?

Could they CAF not use those funds to buy spare parts, simulators, ammunition, forward that money to help fund other projects, etc - if they did it in increments just under that amount?

Or, like suggested, have approval to use those funds to purchase ammunition, spare parts, and various other small but important items if need be?

I understand that most people don't understand why we can't use "surplus" funds, so let me explain....

People think of our budgets as cash, but they are not. The DND does not receive $20 billion in cash at the start of the year, and then physically hand back the $1 billion that is leftover.

Our budgets are simply how much you are allowed to spend within a given time period. The government holds onto as little cash & cash equivalents as possible at any given time. For example, at end of FY19, the government had $49.5 billion in cash and cash equivilants... and that includes all of our accounts receivable (things we've invoiced for but have not received payment for yet... for example, outstanding tax bills).

With $49.5 billion in cash holdings across the entire Federal government on 31 March 2019, it then approved, as part of the budget, spending of $355.6 billion dollars. It doesn't go out and borrow to bring it up to $355.6 billion in cash holdings on 1 April 2019..... it borrows it as required to keep interest costs down. This is basic corporate cashflow management 101, practiced by practically every corporation, which keeps the cost of borrowing as low as possible.... never hold onto more cash than you need.

Obviously revenues matter and cut down on how much you have to borrow.... if your revenues are outpacing your expenditures, then you don't end up borrowing anything.

So bottom line, don't think of the DND's budget as physical cash that is handed back in at the end of the year... it's not.

 

[FJAG]

I for one am happy ‘The Lake’ doesn’t give up her dead every November. I don’t want a bunch of bodies floating around everywhere, and Halloween is over by then.

I really do enjoy the prairies

I loved my time in Manitoba but enjoyed moving to southwest Ontario even more, especially living on Lake Erie.

That thing about boaters floating around everywhere is a thing though.

 

[CBH99]

I understand that most people don't understand why we can't use "surplus" funds, so let me explain....

People think of our budgets as cash, but they are not. The DND does not receive $20 billion in cash at the start of the year, and then physically hand back the $1 billion that is leftover.

Our budgets are simply how much you are allowed to spend within a given time period. The government holds onto as little cash & cash equivalents as possible at any given time. For example, at end of FY19, the government had $49.5 billion in cash and cash equivilants... and that includes all of our accounts receivable (things we've invoiced for but have not received payment for yet... for example, outstanding tax bills).

With $49.5 billion in cash holdings across the entire Federal government on 31 March 2019, it then approved, as part of the budget, spending of $355.6 billion dollars. It doesn't go out and borrow to bring it up to $355.6 billion in cash holdings on 1 April 2019..... it borrows it as required to keep interest costs down. This is basic corporate cashflow management 101, practiced by practically every corporation, which keeps the cost of borrowing as low as possible.... never hold onto more cash than you need.

Obviously revenues matter and cut down on how much you have to borrow.... if your revenues are outpacing your expenditures, then you don't end up borrowing anything.

So bottom line, don't think of the DND's budget as physical cash that is handed back in at the end of the year... it's not.

That was actually incredibly informative, helps me to understand the situation very differently. Thanks for posting that

 

[GR66]

In Volume 19.1 of the Canadian Army Journal, Lt Col Cole F. Peterson lays out his argument for an asymmetrical Brigade structure for Force 2025.
It contains lots of detail and discussion of how his proposal would work and meet the SSE requirements of the Government. The basic force structure can be found on Pg. 54. There are definitely similarities between his proposal and those by various members on this forum.

I would propose a couple of modifications which are intended to achieve the following objectives:

1) Increase the combat power of the "Heavy" Brigade
2) Correct the over abundance of Recce Squadrons in the Army
3) Introduce a Cavalry capability to the Army in addition to the existing Armoured/Infantry structure
4) Improve the ability of the Reserve Infantry to both augment Reg Force Infantry units and to generate units for mobilization.

All of these modifications are interrelated in my proposal.

a) Adjust the structure of the Mechanized Infantry Battalions in the (Heavy) Armoured Brigade Group so that each Battalion has double the number of LAVs than in the existing structure. At a Platoon level here's how the new structure would look in comparison to the existing structure:

- The LAVs would have permanent manning separate from the 10-soldier dismounted section. This would allow the 2 x LAVs per section to each carry 5 dismounts with room to spare in the back for extra attachments (Medics, FOOs, Interpreters, etc., or extra weapons/equipment such as ATGMs, MANPADS, mini-Drones, microwave counter-UAV devices, etc.).

This change could be handled in a number of ways organizationally. The Mech Infantry Section could be increased from 10 to 16 troops to cover the two vehicle crews; the LAVs could be grouped into separate "Carrier" Companies within the Battalion Structure; or you could completely separate the dismounts from the vehicle crews by having two Mechanized Battalions (LAV crews only) and two separate Infantry Battalions in the Armoured Brigade Group.

Doubling up on the number of LAVs for the Armoured Brigade Infantry Battalions would allow you to increase the combat strength of the dismounted infantry by 21% (10 dismounts per section rather than 7) and double your mounted fire support for the Battalion. It would also mean that the Reg Force Light Infantry Battalions as well as Reserve Infantry Regiments could augment/replace the Reg Force Mechanized Infantry dismounted sections without any training delta. All dismounted infantry units (Reg Force Mechanized, Reg Force Light and Reserve Force Light) could all be trained and organized identically for dismounted operations (including a full 7-soldier Weapons Detachment for Mech Infantry Platoons).

b) In order to both make up for the loss of Infantry troops and LAVs to the beefed up Armoured Brigade Mech Infantry Battalions as well as addressing the over abundance of Armoured Recce Squadrons in the Armoured Regiments, the three Mech Infantry Brigades in the (Medium) Mechanized Brigade Group would be converted to 3 x Cavalry Regiments each with 2 x Armoured Recce Squadrons and 2 x Mechanized Infantry Companies (using the traditional LAV Infantry Company structure). Each of the Heavy and Medium Brigades would maintain a single Armoured Recce Squadron as a Brigade-level asset.

The proposed revised force structure would look like this:


All of this can be done without the addition of any new equipment. Just the shifting of existing personnel and equipment between units.

Going forward, the addition of new equipment would be used to evolve the new structure. Man-portable systems would make our dismounted infantry more effective. Vehicle-mounted support weapons (ATGMs, AGLs, LAV-based mortar-systems, etc.) would provide extra intimate fire support for our dismounted Mech Infantry and the Cavalry Regiments could add ATGMs, Loitering Munitions, UAV Launchers, etc. to become "Sense and Strike" Regiments.

For the Reserves we could convert some of the existing Regiments into Carrier Battalions to mirror the Armoured Brigade Carrier Battalions. We could equip these with All-Terrain Tracked Carriers like the BvS10 or Bronco. These vehicles have room for 2 crew and a full 10-soldier dismounted section so we could have deployable Reserve Mechanized Battalions with only 1/2 the total number of vehicles required as the LAV carrier battalions.

If we ever do purchase heavier IFVs or HAPCs for the Reg Force we could fairly easily integrate these into the Armoured Brigade Carrier Battalions. It's just a vehicle swap. The dismounted infantry elements would see no change. The surplus LAVs could then be shifted to the Reserve Carrier Battalions making them more effective.

 

[Dale Denton]

Fantastic and well-articulated proposal GR66.

 

[KevinB]

- The LAVs would have permanent manning separate from the 10-soldier dismounted section. This would allow the 2 x LAVs per section to each carry 5 dismounts with room to spare in the back for extra attachments (Medics, FOOs, Interpreters, etc., or extra weapons/equipment such as ATGMs, MANPADS, mini-Drones, microwave counter-UAV devices, etc.).

I would suggest 4 pers
Historically most soldiers/leaders can only look after 3 additional people in stress environments. It increases with experience of the soldiers under command, but rifle sections are generally not filled with 10+ year troops.
This has been borne out by a lot of study at various levels of training/experience.

Plus when you start adding stuff to the LAV - room becomes a premium, and I would gladly sacrifice a rifleman to make room for other enablers.

4 Also works for a lot of other vehicles - and if you really want - you can push the section size to 12 with 3x 4 man bricks -
Which then admittedly requires a slew of LAV's

 

[FJAG]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate.

The suggested format essentially almost doubles the number of LAVs in a rifle company with a significant supply and maintenance burden. I sometimes marvel at how the Russians manage to have a platoon operate out of three BMPs/BTRs. They do this by reducing the platoon to a total of thirty with ten per vehicle.

In that respect then a Cdn/US platoon already exceeds the combat power of a Russian platoon by 10-15% for manpower and 30% in APCs.

Maybe we should go in a different direction.

I won't advocate for a three-vehicle platoon but do wonder as to whether we need ten or even eight or nine dismounts per section. Maybe we can reduce the actual "section" to a four man brick and maybe take up two more GIB seats with weapon specialists/enablers: GPMG, Javelin, drone operator, CarlG/grenade launcher/mortarman, what have you. A platoon would then have: four three-man crewed LAVs and dismounts of a three-man platoon command element; three four-man "sections"; and four two-man weapon specialist/enabler teams - all for a total of 23 dismounts but with a stronger emphasis on working around the support weapons and LAV support rather than the rifles. The pl comd controls the bricks, the WO the weapons/enablers.

That gives each LAV a total of 8 (for the pl comd veh) or 9 (for each sect carrier) which leaves a little extra room for a ride along or ammo.

IMHO - save the extra LAVs and create another battalion with them.

Same for the medium LAV brigade/battalion.

For light battalions I would stay with a two brick, nine-man section and concentrate the specialist weapons/enablers at the platoon level divided between the pl comds veh and a separate weapons carrier (The extra brick compensates for the lack of the LAV support).

 

[daftandbarmy]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate.

The suggested format essentially almost doubles the number of LAVs in a rifle company with a significant supply and maintenance burden. I sometimes marvel at how the Russians manage to have a platoon operate out of three BMPs/BTRs. They do this by reducing the platoon to a total of thirty with ten per vehicle.

In that respect then a Cdn/US platoon already exceeds the combat power of a Russian platoon by 10-15% for manpower and 30% in APCs.

Maybe we should go in a different direction.

I won't advocate for a three-vehicle platoon but do wonder as to whether we need ten or even eight or nine dismounts per section. Maybe we can reduce the actual "section" to a four man brick and maybe take up two more GIB seats with weapon specialists/enablers: GPMG, Javelin, drone operator, CarlG/grenade launcher/mortarman, what have you. A platoon would then have: four three-man crewed LAVs and dismounts of a three-man platoon command element; three four-man "sections"; and four two-man weapon specialist/enabler teams - all for a total of 23 dismounts but with a stronger emphasis on working around the support weapons and LAV support rather than the rifles. The pl comd controls the bricks, the WO the weapons/enablers.

That gives each LAV a total of 8 (for the pl comd veh) or 9 (for each sect carrier) which leaves a little extra room for a ride along or ammo.

IMHO - save the extra LAVs and create another battalion with them.

Same for the medium LAV brigade/battalion.

For light battalions I would stay with a two brick, nine-man section and concentrate the specialist weapons/enablers at the platoon level divided between the pl comds veh and a separate weapons carrier (The extra brick compensates for the lack of the LAV support).

After one or two decent contacts you'd have no one to run the vehicles because: Infantry Casualty Rates.

 

[Kirkhill]

After one or two decent contacts you'd have no one to run the vehicles because: Infantry Casualty Rates.

Face it. After one or two decent contacts we'd have no infantry at all because: Infantry Casualty Rates.

We don't have a wartime army. And we're not likely to get one. We might get a home defence one and perhaps a diplomatic corps one.

 

[KevinB]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate.

I will too

As soon as you dismount or need to operate in areas that are not suitable for LAV's, then the 'walking rifle' force becomes significantly more important - this is the main reason why I don't like tying Infantry to a vehicle - any vehicle.
I think that anyone can be a GiB - the vehicle crew no so much - I'm not sure that is an Infantry role - but whomever does it, needs to be familiar with Infantry, and not thinking they are a solo Cavalryman/Armored entity as soon as they drop the ramp.

But I think everyone is missing the point when just looking at Infantry Casualty Rates - the bigger issue logistically will be Vehicle Casualty Rates - and what that does for the force. That was the main reason for my thought on over supply of LAV's.
The loss of a LAV in my enormously large LAV Platoon only removes 1/8th of the LAV firepower and 1/8th of the space.

I don't think the LAV is a very survivable vehicle in a Mid-High Intensity Battlefield - better than a 113 sure, but folks will be "lobbing" stuff designed to take out a MBT - and any ATGM will gut a LAV like a fish.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I don't think the LAV is a very survivable vehicle in a Mid-High Intensity Battlefield - better than a 113 sure, but folks will be "lobbing" stuff designed to take out a MBT - and any ATGM will gut a LAV like a fish.

Agreed.

And if vehicles like that have to be deployed in such conflicts then that means the Infantry will have to operate in a dismounted role more frequently to clear, protect, pathfind, assault etc. as the LAV is no Bradley or Marder.

And that means, probably, a higher Infantry casualty rate.

Being an 'emotionally intelligent' kind of guy, I wonder what would happen if we got the spreadsheets out on this one?