Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[ueo]

Admittedly @FJAG and @McG I think I spawned the Corps issues, as I had suggested that a 3.5% GDP DND Budget with a 20% Capital Equipment Acquisition Plan could support a CDN 3 Div Corps.

Great if dealing with internal ops! How do we project it overseas?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Great if dealing with internal ops! How do we project it overseas?

Easy.

On ships. Built in China. In convoys protected by the RCN

 

[KevinB]

Great if dealing with internal ops! How do we project it overseas?

Well I also pointed out that in a 3.5% DND that the RCN and RCAF would expand dramatically.

The Army going from a 2 Div to 3 Div sized force isn’t that significant.

 

[PuckChaser]

Well I also pointed out that in a 3.5% DND that the RCN and RCAF would expand dramatically.

The Army going from a 2 Div to 3 Div sized force isn’t that significant.

If we went that way. The politically expedient way to 3.5% is expensive toys for RCAF and RCN that may or may not have any strategic value. CA kit is relatively cheap in comparison, it's costs are more in the pay/benefits for the human workforce.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If we went that way. The politically expedient way to 3.5% is expensive toys for RCAF and RCN that may or may not have any strategic value. CA kit is relatively cheap in comparison, it's costs are more in the pay/benefits for the human workforce.

Especially if we continue to ignore the need to upgrade our artillery and air defenses to the modern level through buying a fully layered system including, somewhere near the top of the food chain, NASAMS

 

[FJAG]

Admittedly @FJAG and @McG I think I spawned the Corps issues, as I had suggested that a 3.5% GDP DND Budget with a 20% Capital Equipment Acquisition Plan could support a CDN 3 Div Corps.

In a 3.5% scenario I can agree that, even with appropriate resources given to the RCAF and RCN and other national assets, we could probably create a 3 div structure. That said I would still leave it under an army HQ responsible for force generation and the basic jobs that need to be done by a non deployable static headquarters. I would only consider forming a corps headquarters if the GoC creates a task whereby we either need to project more than one division into a theatre or our allies ask us to deploy one division and form a corps HQ for a multinational corps.

I don't believe that you can have one HQ that fulfils both the force generation and the force employment functions.

Similarly, I cannot see taking CJOC or a CJOC-like headquarters out of the mix for the simple reason that we will probably operate in several theatres concurrently and, again, you need your force employer kept separate from your force generators.

I do appreciate that during the GWOT, several US corps and divisions split into forward and rear components with the forward component actively managing the fight but, even there, the army still maintained the force generation side of the force while the combatant commands were the force employers. Not sure if you can do that in LSCO. Yes, there will always be a rear party to a deployed force, but not functioning forward FE and (back at home) rear FG headquarters from the same formation.