Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[MilEME09]

I look forward to seeing it - but not holding breath too hard.

Having seen plan 2040 which will be signed off this fall, if the funding remains steady, we will be back. It will also require significant expansion of bases over the next 8 years.

 

[FJAG]

Having seen plan 2040 which will be signed off this fall, if the funding remains steady, we will be back. It will also require significant expansion of bases over the next 8 years.

Do we have time to 2040?

 

[KevinB]

Do we have time to 2040?

No.
Australia went to 3.5% GDP Defense Budget yesterday. They know they waited too long.

 

[Underway]

Do we have time to 2040?

My take:

For the army? Yes. Ukraine is crippling Russian ability to attack Europeans with a chance of success the short term, and the Europeans will have enough time to rearm to take on Russia by themselves. in a 5 year window they can do it.

For the Airforce? Yes with some gaps. They are quite a long way into their modernization. F-35', P8, MQ9B's are all in the pipeline. They just need to unf*** their training right now. 5 year window they will mostly be ready (helicopter fleets notwithstanding).

For the RCN? No. Naval conflict in Asia is sooner than later. JSS 1&2 will be ready but there won't be a single new combatant ready in the next 5 years barring the subcontractors/LMC/Iriving going to 24hr and three shifts. Navy is going to be on convoy and "plug into allied task group" duty, if not only defense of Canada duty. It will be like WW1.

Industrially? I dunno.

 

[DBNSG]

My take:

For the army? Yes. Ukraine is crippling Russian ability to attack Europeans with a chance of success the short term, and the Europeans will have enough time to rearm to take on Russia by themselves. in a 5 year window they can do it.

For the Airforce? Yes with some gaps. They are quite a long way into their modernization. F-35', P8, MQ9B's are all in the pipeline. They just need to unf*** their training right now. 5 year window they will mostly be ready (helicopter fleets notwithstanding).

For the RCN? No. Naval conflict in Asia is sooner than later. JSS 1&2 will be ready but there won't be a single new combatant ready in the next 5 years barring the subcontractors/LMC/Iriving going to 24hr and three shifts. Navy is going to be on convoy and "plug into allied task group" duty, if not only defense of Canada duty. It will be like WW1.

Industrially? I dunno.

So Canada keeps MV Asterix and the Ramp at Comox has more P-8's than the handful planned for . Canada becomes an AOR and LRMP contributor to any Asian conflict.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do we have time to 2040?

Canada may have time but NORAD doesn't think there is time and NATO certainly doesn't think there is time.

Everybody else is on the ice. Canada isn't even lacing up its skates. It is still shopping for them and wondering if it can make them itself.

Not much of a team player.

 

[Kirkhill]

If I understand the message from gunners correctly the weapon is not the gun it is the thing that is sent through the air: the projectile, the missile.

With ballistic projectiles getting smarter, with smaller calibres being able to change course in flight and self-target, with guns launching rockets and mortars launching prop, jet and rocket powered aircraft, with helicopters being launched from the palm of the same hand that throws a grenade, with aircraft being able to navigate enemy defenses on their own to find an open window after flying thousands of kilometers
...

Where does artillery end and air force begin?

And how closely can you approach the enemy in your vehicle?

 

[Halifax Tar]

So Canada keeps MV Asterix and the Ramp at Comox has more P-8's than the handful planned for . Canada becomes an AOR and LRMP contributor to any Asian conflict.

If that is what Canada sees as it desired contribution, so be it.

 

[Kirkhill]

US Air National Guard.

Down 1x Tactical Air Control Squadron.

Up 2x Cyber Squadrons.

Utah Air Guard base to wind down tactical air control party squadron

Tactical air control party airmen called in airstrikes alongside Army and special ops troops for years, but the Air Force is moving away from that posture.

www.defensenews.com

Everybody's assumptions are changing.

 

[Underway]

If that is what Canada sees as it desired contribution, so be it.

Desired or what we can actually contribute. A fight in the South China Sea really isn't in our geostrategic critical interests categories. Arctic and Europe are. Helping Japan and Korea in the situation where they are pulled into a conflict over Taiwan is in our critical interests I would argue. If they don't go though, someone needs to explain very clearly why Taiwan is a place we should be dying over, because I don't see it.

The other way to help is that we cover off gaps created by the US sending resources. More NORAD, more ship patrols, more aircraft patrols etc... They can go fight their war and we stay here doing more for continental defence.

 

[FJAG]

Where does artillery end and air force begin?

At the Hilton.

 

[WestIsle]

So Canada keeps MV Asterix and the Ramp at Comox has more P-8's than the handful planned for . Canada becomes an AOR and LRMP contributor to any Asian conflict.

Wonder if they are going to have to acquire the land in around Little River Rd there as the base security seems pretty soft and close to the road there.

 

[Kilted]

Responding here instead of the 2% to 3.5% GDP funding thread, because because this thread is all about Army organization where the other should be much broader. I have come up with some of my own ideas on what this structure should look like based on bits of info I've heard related to the army modernization plans, ideas, and intents. Everything appearing in this is a unit or formation, and there are a lot more minor units (company sized) with a major as CO where today we impose Bn HQs and LCol COs over-top of these small organizations. The expeditionary force is going to see growth in rocket artillery and air defence, while the continental force needs to build room for the land component of integrated air and missile defence. Both expeditionary and continental divisions have their associated division support group (DISGP) in the sustainment division as it allows both DISGP to be employed in a regional GS role domestically and for both DISGP to force generate for expeditionary operations. Otherwise, our country is too vast for a single maintenance battalion to be relevant to an expeditionary division spread across the country while a second maintenance battalion tries to be relevant to a continental division spread across the country (and the same applies to S&T & pers svcs). Two regionally focused field support groups supporting both divisions can be more relevant and provide more depth for sustain deployed missions.
View attachment 94585

A lot of the continental and sustainment divisions content is derived from the F2025 structure that I produced a few years ago:


And for where to put the deployable organizations:
View attachment 94586

Given the fact that there are many reserve regiments who compliments much larger than a company, how would the military reduce them in strength? Would they try to create incentives for extra people to leave the military, or would they not allow these units to recruit until they shrunk below company size? I know some units have at least twice the personnel who would be required.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So Canada keeps MV Asterix and the Ramp at Comox has more P-8's than the handful planned for . Canada becomes an AOR and LRMP contributor to any Asian conflict.

Don't forget the traditional contribution of a couple of battalions of (unprepared) Infantry that go down, gloriously, in flames at the start of the conflict but satisfy others that 'we're doing our bit'

 

[McG]

Given the fact that there are many reserve regiments who compliments much larger than a company …

If you look at the reserve company sized mission units in my org proposal, you will find that I have not reduced quantities from current quantities of authorized mission sub-units.

There are very few reserve regiments established with more than a single mission sub-unit, and units cannot grow themselves larger than establishment. Even many regiments that have organized themselves into two companies are not established for the second company (which means both companies could be collapsed into one organization which would still only be company sized or smaller). Of the regiments that are established with two mission sub-units, only a minority again have both mission sub-units in the same geographic location (all of these are big city units) while the majority are units with a satellite location that was assessed to need that level of leadership.

In addition to one or two mission sub-units, reserve regiments are establishes with a rump headquarters & services & recruits sub-unit. These services part of that organization is substantially smaller but over-ranked as compared to a proper sub-unit echelon … so re-organize it into the mission sub-unit. The recruits part of that rump sub-unit inefficiently does work that a lot of units are drowning under. Consolidate DP1 training platoons into a single sub-regional training company, and put recruiting back into the CFRCs (but grow their establishments to do the work).

These rump sub-units are often cannibalized for pers in regiments that artificially create a second mission sub-unit.

 

[dapaterson]

Divest the CFRC footprint, and leverage the Res F infra across the country. Right now the Reg F and P Res are largely two solitudes that desperately need to be bridged.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Divest the CFRC footprint, and leverage the Res F infra across the country. Right now the Reg F and P Res are largely two solitudes that desperately need to be bridged.

Luckily we have a host of Class A Generals and CWOs, with more on the way, reporting to the XX and Ottawa level who are working the issue... right?

Right?