• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Joint Force Arsenal

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,065
Points
1,040
I believe that putting all the active brigades under one command would iron out a lot of the local interpretations of doctrine. And with the regular brigades sorted then those practices could be more easily passed on the geographically local reserve soldiers.
Then you'd be arguing for keeping the symmetrical brigades paradigm rather than concentrating on creating a heavy brigade and a light brigade which operate somewhat differently once you get above the rifle section.

Here's a suggestion for if you want to homogenize the organization, put one each of RCR, PPCLI and R22eR in each brigade.
As to mixing and matching Regs and Reserves...

A Regular Battalion with 3 rifle coys and a CS coy. In other words a battalion able to function as an entity tonight.

To that Battalion add 3 Reserve rifle coy combat teams that are expected to field a 4th rifle coy and CS augmentees tonight and replacements in the near future.

Just make the administrative battalion bigger.
If you take one battalion and make it bigger, it's still one battalion. Shouldn't one of our aims be to take the 15-20,000 reservists we have and create additional units for the Army by making them viable entities?

What exactly is it that you are trying to achieve?

:unsure:
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,832
Points
1,060
I'm trying to achieve a ready force that is expandable.

I don't see a problem with a Major General having under her command 4 Brigadiers each of which is responsible for supplying a separate set of capabilities, some of which may be discrete and some of which may overlap. Exactly the same manner in which the MGen may choose to restructure her troops in the field operationally.

I believe the current idiom is "mission command". One person in charge.

With that well defined skeleton in place then the next step is to raise bodies of troops to fit into that structure. That is best done by troops that will be fighting alongside the reserves.

Once you have well trained companies then the next step is to form your newly raised companies into battalions/regiments/brigades.

And personally I see nothing wrong with a Vandoos battalion in 1CMBG
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,832
Points
1,060
Jointness is the USMC - it is a mini-army with its own mini-airforce backed by a navy with its own airforce. And a Navy that is expanding its onshore operations capabilities with Aegis Ashore, fixed missile launchers for the array of missiles it carries at sea, and now mobile launchers for the same array. All compatible with the fleet's Cooperative Engagement Capability.

Thus it is difficult to stovepipe this discussion

It ranges from Lessons Learned in Ukraine, to USMC future TOETs and TTPs, to AI and autonomy, to LAW ships and how they might be used, to the 5th Gen Air Domain.

If only somebody had thought to unify the Canadian Armed Forces and put them under a common command structure.

 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,597
Points
1,140
Huh, and yet we dumb infanteers had twice the pass rate in JTAC as artillery and air control officers.
To be fair, I’m also sure that Infantry units didn’t send any swinging Dick, like the other two entities do.
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
914
Points
890
To be fair, I’m also sure that Infantry units didn’t send any swinging Dick, like the other two entities do.
We actually have a selection process now, testing at the BPSO, competitive pre course. The whole deal.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
15,158
Points
1,160
Jointness is the USMC - it is a mini-army with its own mini-airforce backed by a navy with its own airforce. And a Navy that is expanding its onshore operations capabilities with Aegis Ashore, fixed missile launchers for the array of missiles it carries at sea, and now mobile launchers for the same array. All compatible with the fleet's Cooperative Engagement Capability.

Thus it is difficult to stovepipe this discussion

It ranges from Lessons Learned in Ukraine, to USMC future TOETs and TTPs, to AI and autonomy, to LAW ships and how they might be used, to the 5th Gen Air Domain.

If only somebody had thought to unify the Canadian Armed Forces and put them under a common command structure.


Now if it could only get along well with the other services... ;)
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
15,158
Points
1,160
I would cheer, but it would wake up the kids:


Northrop Grumman unveils B-21 nuclear bomber for U.S. Air Force​


Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) on Friday rolled out its new B-21 "Raider" jet, the first of a new fleet of long-range stealth nuclear bombers for the United States Air Force.

The B-21 was unveiled during a dramatic ceremony at Northrop's Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, offering members of the public the first look at the new bomber.

The B-21, which carries a similar "flying wing" shape to its predecessor, the B-2, will be able to deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons around the world using long-range and mid-air refueling capabilities.

The aircraft were projected to cost approximately $550 million each in 2010 dollars, or about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars.

The Air Force planned to buy at least 100 of the planes and begin to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.



 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,266
Points
1,210
I would cheer, but it would wake up the kids:


Northrop Grumman unveils B-21 nuclear bomber for U.S. Air Force​


Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) on Friday rolled out its new B-21 "Raider" jet, the first of a new fleet of long-range stealth nuclear bombers for the United States Air Force.

The B-21 was unveiled during a dramatic ceremony at Northrop's Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, offering members of the public the first look at the new bomber.

The B-21, which carries a similar "flying wing" shape to its predecessor, the B-2, will be able to deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons around the world using long-range and mid-air refueling capabilities.

The aircraft were projected to cost approximately $550 million each in 2010 dollars, or about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars.

The Air Force planned to buy at least 100 of the planes and begin to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.



Why??
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
10,025
Points
1,090
This is why I can never be a PAO - I'd have just taken a B52, painted it paisley, added some papier-maché bumps to the fuselage here and there, and claimed that it was the new aircraft.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
311
Points
910
I would cheer, but it would wake up the kids:


Northrop Grumman unveils B-21 nuclear bomber for U.S. Air Force​


Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) on Friday rolled out its new B-21 "Raider" jet, the first of a new fleet of long-range stealth nuclear bombers for the United States Air Force.

The B-21 was unveiled during a dramatic ceremony at Northrop's Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, offering members of the public the first look at the new bomber.

The B-21, which carries a similar "flying wing" shape to its predecessor, the B-2, will be able to deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons around the world using long-range and mid-air refueling capabilities.

The aircraft were projected to cost approximately $550 million each in 2010 dollars, or about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars.

The Air Force planned to buy at least 100 of the planes and begin to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.




Hmmm, may be its just me, but it just looks just like the B-2?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
10,025
Points
1,090
Do You Understand Saints And Sinners GIF by Bounce
 
Top