Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[McG]

Any chance of the Regs permitting members to take up permanent residences?

That would be within the permissible of the NDA. However, we should not create IAMD ground units for the purpose of geo-stationary job options.

 

[Kirkhill]

That would be within the permissible of the NDA. However, we should not create IAMD ground units for the purpose of geo-stationary job options.

Are geostationary job options easier to recruit and/or retain?

 

[Lumber]

I was going to start a new thread for a question I had, but I think it will fit here just fine.

Are NATO infantry battalions and/or armoured squadron able easily to "slide into" other nation's or NATO Brigade Combat Teams (or whatever their equivalents are)?

The reason I ask is that, NATO navies can do this. If you look at the two standing NATO maritime groups (SNMG1 and SNMG2), sometimes they are nothing more than a flag ship and a tanker, so not really much of a naval Task Group. However, any warship in NATO could at a moments notice be tasked to join that task group, and all they would have to do is read a copy of all the Task Groups latest OPTASK messages and they'd be more or less ready to fight alongside those other ships. No need for complicated task group work ups (though some level of integration training does make working together "better").

Could army battalions do the same? Could a Canadian infantry battalion that was on route to join the eFP in Latvia be re-tasked to join a BCT in Romania and just "slide right in" and fight effectively?

 

[FJAG]

Could a Canadian infantry battalion that was on route to join the eFP in Latvia be re-tasked to join a BCT in Romania and just "slide right in" and fight effectively?

Basically, yes, but . . . "Slide right in" might be pushing it. Ships are pretty much self contained but battalions rely an awful lot on enablers like engineers, artillery and sustainment which come from outside and which are a harder challenge. Nothing insurmountable but needing some very careful attention.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ships are containerized. They are inherently modules.

We could do a better job of containerizing our battalions. Battlegroups are supposed to be that mechanism.

But just as we are getting to grips with that and were thinking of catching up to the Brigade Combat Team trend (our previous Brigade Group mini-division), the ask is now for an actual division that can slot into the line.

 

[KevinB]

Ships are containerized. They are inherently modules.

We could do a better job of containerizing our battalions. Battlegroups are supposed to be that mechanism.

There is a rub. The size, equipment limitations and geographic positioning of the Canadian Army doesn’t lend itself to the easy of IT and CT requirements for mixed BN’s like it does down here.

But just as we are getting to grips with that and were thinking of catching up to the Brigade Combat Team trend (our previous Brigade Group mini-division), the ask is now for an actual division that can slot into the line.

Forward Deployment should never be done in less than Bde size, as it is realistically the lowest level of a combined force.
Doctrinally the Bde is the lowest level of an organization capable of ‘independent’ operations, but even then requires Divisional and higher levels of support.

The 4 CMBG ‘Pocket Division’ was an example of needing to stuff a lot of enablers into a Brigade to make it capable of semi-independent operation as part of a larger non Canadian Div. Hindsight being 20/20 it wasn’t exactly efficient.

 

[Lumber]

There is a rub. The size, equipment limitations and geographic positioning of the Canadian Army doesn’t lend itself to the easy of IT and CT requirements for mixed BN’s like it does down here.

Forward Deployment should never be done in less than Bde size, as it is realistically the lowest level of a combined force.
Doctrinally the Bde is the lowest level of an organization capable of ‘independent’ operations, but even then requires Divisional and higher levels of support.

The 4 CMBG ‘Pocket Division’ was an example of needing to stuff a lot of enablers into a Brigade to make it capable of semi-independent operation as part of a larger non Canadian Div. Hindsight being 20/20 it wasn’t exactly efficient.

Canada and the RCN love to tout the idea of being able, some day, of deploying a fully constituted Canadian ship-only Task Group. Now, technically you put any number of warships together and it's technically a "Task Group", but what they are really getting at is a Task Group with an AOR, at least one Area AD platform, and several ASW escorts.

With the River Class, it seems like they've decided to put that dream on hold a bit and instead prepare for RCDs to slot into USN and/or battle groups. That's not that we can't build our our TG (with the JSS and RCD, we will have the classes to build a TG) but its clear from the literature I've seen and the discussion I've had that the primary focus will be interoperability with allied TGs, and fielding our own.

Would it make more sense for the CA to stop trying to build it's own deployable BCT (let alone a full Division for that matter) and instead focus on having it's various units able to slot into large allied BCTs/Divisions?

 

[dapaterson]

Oriole and a tug are a TG!

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was going to start a new thread for a question I had, but I think it will fit here just fine.

Are NATO infantry battalions and/or armoured squadron able easily to "slide into" other nation's or NATO Brigade Combat Teams (or whatever their equivalents are)?

The reason I ask is that, NATO navies can do this. If you look at the two standing NATO maritime groups (SNMG1 and SNMG2), sometimes they are nothing more than a flag ship and a tanker, so not really much of a naval Task Group. However, any warship in NATO could at a moments notice be tasked to join that task group, and all they would have to do is read a copy of all the Task Groups latest OPTASK messages and they'd be more or less ready to fight alongside those other ships. No need for complicated task group work ups (though some level of integration training does make working together "better").

Could army battalions do the same? Could a Canadian infantry battalion that was on route to join the eFP in Latvia be re-tasked to join a BCT in Romania and just "slide right in" and fight effectively?

I have worked within a NATO Brigade AMF (L) a few times, as part of an Infantry battalion, and it seemed to work OK...

... as long as the US Marines' MAU was there, with USN support, to make sure that we didn't lose

 

[McG]

Are geostationary job options easier to recruit and/or retain?

Maybe, but you are going full backwards about it. We do not create a new occupation as the foundation of a new capability so that we can have geo-stationary jobs. Geo-stationary jobs may be a tool, but we’ve lost the plot if they are the purpose.

And geo-static jobs are not a magic panacea … especially if you impose that across a whole occupant that is distributed in a bunch of small units scattered about the country where everyone is geo-stationary. You will create little pools of stagnation where top leaders hang-on for years and the tallent below them quits because there is no local prospect for advancement and no mechanism to move to where advancement exists. Also, if nobody has to move ever, your HQ & training centre staffs become people who have never did the job.

And the possibility of broad institutional benefit from geo-stationary employment is insignificant if you tie it exclusively to a pet capability. Not everyone in the CAF wants to shoot at missiles & aircraft (nor do they necessarily want to live in the communities that would host such capabilities). Your fetish for tying geo-stationary to an occupation would still see all the same releases from people who are not looking to OT and/or move to a short list of locations (not to mention releases by people who are willing but don’t have the occupation’s aptitudes).

The CAF has need for IAMD organizations, and the institution probably would benefit from a mechanism that allows a percentage of the organization to opt into geo-stationary employment. But these are two separate things. You are not making a useful proposal by trying to force these two things into a single abomination of a solution.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oriole and a tug are a TG!

What did Oriole do to you?

 

[daftandbarmy]

And geo-static jobs are not a magic panacea … especially if you impose that across a whole occupant that is distributed in a bunch of small units scattered about the country where everyone is geo-stationary. You will create little pools of stagnation where top leaders hang-on for years and the tallent below them quits because there is no local prospect for advancement and no mechanism to move to where advancement exists. Also, if nobody has to move ever, your HQ & training centre staffs become people who have never did the job.

A couple dozen CBG HQs enter the chat

 

[Lumber]

Oriole and a tug are a TG!

I said WARSHIPS lol.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe, but you are going full backwards about it. We do not create a new occupation as the foundation of a new capability so that we can have geo-stationary jobs. Geo-stationary jobs may be a tool, but we’ve lost the plot if they are the purpose.

And geo-static jobs are not a magic panacea … especially if you impose that across a whole occupant that is distributed in a bunch of small units scattered about the country where everyone is geo-stationary. You will create little pools of stagnation where top leaders hang-on for years and the tallent below them quits because there is no local prospect for advancement and no mechanism to move to where advancement exists. Also, if nobody has to move ever, your HQ & training centre staffs become people who have never did the job.

And the possibility of broad institutional benefit from geo-stationary employment is insignificant if you tie it exclusively to a pet capability. Not everyone in the CAF wants to shoot at missiles & aircraft (nor do they necessarily want to live in the communities that would host such capabilities). Your fetish for tying geo-stationary to an occupation would still see all the same releases from people who are not looking to OT and/or move to a short list of locations (not to mention releases by people who are willing but don’t have the occupation’s aptitudes).

The CAF has need for IAMD organizations, and the institution probably would benefit from a mechanism that allows a percentage of the organization to opt into geo-stationary employment. But these are two separate things. You are not making a useful proposal by trying to force these two things into a single abomination of a solution.

My arguments all start from an unpopular premise. The unpoular premise I have been arguing for lo these many decades is that, like charity, defence begins at home.

I don't discount the value of, and even the need for, overseas expeditionary work and inter-allied co-operation but my sense of the universe is that neither the Army nor the Navy really buy into that.

I leave the Air Force out of it because their inter-allied co-operative effort is the defence of Canada. Expeditionary efforts are secondary.

In my world the national army would be fully equipped with jeeps and pickups and over-snow vehicles before it bought tanks. The national navy would be fully equipped with RHIBs and Orcas and Hero sized inshore vessels before buying carrier escorts for the US.

I don't say we shouldn't have the Rivers. I don't say we shouldn't have tanks that we can send to Latvia. We are rich enough that we can afford to buy that chewing gum. But we need to be able to walk as well.

And national defence shares a lot of characteristics with municipal police work. Primarily the need exists where the people are and will endure there as long as the people are there.

That leaves opportunity for local people to contribute to national defence withhout ever having to go on expedition.

 

[Kirkhill]

And for those that shudder when the see Hero and ship in the same sentence I would happily substitute MCDVs and Rasmussens.

 

[KevinB]

Would it make more sense for the CA to stop trying to build it's own deployable BCT (let alone a full Division for that matter) and instead focus on having it's various units able to slot into large allied BCTs/Divisions?

The issue with that is then you really need the same equipment and doctrine.

I suspect the Light Infantry Regiment will slot into 11th Airborne, as it’s ‘missing’ Brigade, and the equipment for that is fairly similar. The same way CAST and AMF(L) worked well.

The Mech side is totally different, as while some European Armies use Leo2’s of similar models to the CA Leo’s, none use the LAV, so all LAV support would need to be stand alone CA. As well tactics due to equipment differences occur. Which make interoperability difficult at lower levels.

This is why I think the CA should realistically adopt a much more American equipment stance - as like it or not any large conflict will require American troops.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I leave the Air Force out of it because their inter-allied co-operative effort is the defence of Canada. Expeditionary efforts are secondary.

Recent history would disagree with you...

 

[FJAG]

This is why I think the CA should realistically adopt a much more American equipment stance - as like it or not any large conflict will require American troops.

One year ago you would have had no argument from me. I've become more equipment agnostic with the predominant view being that I couldn't give a frig where the origin of the equipment initially comes from so long as we have the IP and can manufacture it ourselves. Americans have become unreliable allies.

Maintenance is a big issue and quite frankly I don't care if you're running an M1 or a Leo as whatever organization you link into has a supply/maintenance system that doesn't interlock well with ours. We'll be lucky if the NATO standard ammo is interchangeable enough without having to adapt to it during a crisis moment.

Amongst other things, this is why I feel we need to form the core of a division with a Canadian theatre support structure. A brigade might do, anything smaller definitely won't.

 

[Kirkhill]

Recent history would disagree with you...

In what way?

 

[Kirkhill]

The issue with that is then you really need the same equipment and doctrine.

I suspect the Light Infantry Regiment will slot into 11th Airborne, as it’s ‘missing’ Brigade, and the equipment for that is fairly similar. The same way CAST and AMF(L) worked well.

The Mech side is totally different, as while some European Armies use Leo2’s of similar models to the CA Leo’s, none use the LAV, so all LAV support would need to be stand alone CA. As well tactics due to equipment differences occur. Which make interoperability difficult at lower levels.

This is why I think the CA should realistically adopt a much more American equipment stance - as like it or not any large conflict will require American troops.

The LAV issue is not surprising given the origins of the LAV in the AVGP program which was originally envisaged as a domestic security vehicle and trainer with many folks proclaiming it would never be used outside of Canada. The foreign service vehicle was the M113 as used by the US. The bison, too, was intended for domestic service while the M113 continued in foreign service.