I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 22,821
- Points
- 1,260
As I understand it that all Army Aviation (Pilot: Rotary Wing, Crew Chief and ground maintenance) go through the applicable course (at what used to be Rucker now Ft Novosel) regardless if you are a Active Regular, ARNG or USAR member.I've never really had a good handle on the ARNG aviation concept (or even more so the air national guard flying F35s). They can't all be ex active force pilots and mechs. But I do see it as a potential cost saving and even retention measure. The ARNG aviation units in Afghanistan seem to have proven their worth. Again, like most trades, there is the benefit of a well-run pre-deployment training phase for any reserve or hybrid unit.
Aviation however requires a fairly stringent adherence to both maintenance, and well the laws of physics and gravity. Some of the ARNG aviation units don't have the most inspiring safety records - and it is hard to isolate exactly why (at least from the outside) unless not as many of the I's where dotted and T's crossed as are being claimed (which would be were my money is at).
- Reaction score
- 8,857
- Points
- 1,160
If Canada is to have a 2 Division Army (2 Small Divisions, 1 lt and 1 hvy) then it should have a Corps.
With the Corps comes Corps troops. All the support necessary to maintain, sustain and operate the Divisions. The LTG would be responsible for managing the Regs, Reserves (including Rangers), Civil Servants, Civilians and Contractors.
With the Corps comes Corps troops. All the support necessary to maintain, sustain and operate the Divisions. The LTG would be responsible for managing the Regs, Reserves (including Rangers), Civil Servants, Civilians and Contractors.
Our closest ally is about to use economic force to get whatever it is they want and will again. Not sure we should tie ourselves to an ally that is receding from the world.
Maybe tie anything domestic to them. Anything continental défense. but anything else look elsewhere or build ourselves.
Diversify.
- Reaction score
- 29,741
- Points
- 1,090
Nah, we're firing all the DEI.
- Reaction score
- 23,920
- Points
- 1,360
多元化是好事
- Reaction score
- 6,763
- Points
- 1,160
We can't build anything ourselves. It comes in years late and not to the specs required. Never mind the consistently rising costs over and above the tendered agreement price. Industry wags our tail and we acquiesce.
The US is a one stop shop. Going to suppliers, all over the globe, for parts and service, is expensive, time consuming and creates massive problems with interoperability. No other country has the surpluses of equipment required to upgun our whole military on an immediate basis.
Diversify = DEI
Diversity = old civil war warship
Sounds about right in the current climate lol
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,626
- Points
- 1,160
A corps has two major roles - command and control of a given force and providing the necessary corps-level CS and CSS elements for the deployed force.
Problematic (or perhaps useful) is the fact that in the CAF, CJOC provides the command and control and supervises the sustainment of any deployed force. The corps really only has value if you plan to deploy both division together albeit the enablers are of use when only one deploys. It is most likely that we won't and that any deployed Canadian bde or div will be attached to a NATO or other allied corps.
In effect then, the Army HQ provides the necessary C&C as a FG for both divisions in peacetime and CJOC provides it as the FE for any deployed army contingent.
That leaves the corps enablers. Two solutions: If specific to one or the other divisions then place them in the appropriate CCSB within the division or else, especially if the enabler could apply to either division, then place them within a specific formation to hold them as the FG (something like Field Army Troops in the UK) to be attached to either a national contingent HQ or a multinational higher formation
.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,430
- Points
- 1,110
For argument's sake, the following tasks and structures could be used to frame equipment and personnel expenditures. I am trying to stay in the realm of the likely, pushing the boundary with possible/dreaming. I will use generic unit indicators such as battalions in place of regiments since those can be confusing. Assume that existing reserve structures get collapsed into full-strength units.
Task 1 - Defence of Canada and North America. This would be a filled by a composite regular and reserve division. The divisional HQ would be static and would execute day-to-day C2 and FG of elements for the role. There would be a regular force light infantry brigade group with three light infantry battalions, a towed artillery battalion (M777), a light engineer unit, and air defence battery plus ISR, C2 and CSS. They would have responsibility for arctic response. There would then be three ARes light brigade groups, each with three light infantry battalions, a towed artillery battalion, light reconnaissance, light engineers, C2 and CSS. Within each Bde, one infantry battalion would have the arctic response remit while the other two would have the territorial battlegroup role for DOMOPs.
Not too much sizzle comes out from this in terms of equipment, but things like sufficient mortars and ATGMs for the infantry battalions, sufficient M777, CSS vehicles and command posts etc. There would also be all the necessary ancillary equipment for those units. All in all, not an insignificant amount of equipment purchase. So if you are in a reserve infantry unit you are in a full-strength section in a full-strength platoon in a full-strength company in a full-strength battalion with all the equipment you would require if placed on active service. What cap-badge you wear could be decided in another thread.
Task 2 - NATO. Canada commits to a mechanized division to NATO. This would be a manouevre division. This would have three mechanized brigades, each of one tank battalion and two mechanized infantry battalions. It would also have an artillery brigade of three SP gun battalions and a long-range rocket battalion. It would have a cavalry battalion that would have a mix of tanks and reconnaissance sub-units. There would be an ISR unit and an air-defence battalion. There would be a divisional service support brigade that would push out service battalions to the brigades and be the link to Corps. There would be an HQ and Signals unit for the Div HQ. For argument's sake, there is an engineer brigade with two combat engineer battalions and a general support unit. This Division would rotate brigades through the eFP task, so half of one brigade is forward at all times with pre-positioned equipment for the rest of the brigade. There could certainly be ARes units assigned to some of these formations.
This generates the following equipment requirements (I am sure there are others):
- two additional battalions of tanks from the one we have with another split between the School and the cavalry unit. So something like 240 tanks
- four battalions worth of SP artillery
- a battalion of AD (the existing GBAD program could be expanded)
- a battalion of long-range rockets (HIMARs equivalent)
- sufficient organic ATGMs for those mechanized battalions (PAX-M)
- sufficient ancillary equipment for all units (night vision, radios etc)
- CP equipment/vehicles for the bn, bde and div HQs
- SP Mortars for the mechanized infantry battalions
- the trucks, refuelers and maintenance vehicles to support all this in the field
It would also be very useful to have a battalion set at a training centre in Canada and a battalion set forward in Europe (Germany?). So plenty of additional LAV 6 and other vehicles.
Task 3 - Indo Pacific and NEO. This line of task would be held by the regular force Light Brigade, with one unit ear-marked for this on a rotational basis. Not too much falls out of this in terms of additional equipment.
Getting all this equipment at once would, of course, be problematic. The idea, though, is to identify requirements couched in likely tasks and then see what can be done. Of course, there is all the operations and maintenance costs to go with this.
Task 1 - Defence of Canada and North America. This would be a filled by a composite regular and reserve division. The divisional HQ would be static and would execute day-to-day C2 and FG of elements for the role. There would be a regular force light infantry brigade group with three light infantry battalions, a towed artillery battalion (M777), a light engineer unit, and air defence battery plus ISR, C2 and CSS. They would have responsibility for arctic response. There would then be three ARes light brigade groups, each with three light infantry battalions, a towed artillery battalion, light reconnaissance, light engineers, C2 and CSS. Within each Bde, one infantry battalion would have the arctic response remit while the other two would have the territorial battlegroup role for DOMOPs.
Not too much sizzle comes out from this in terms of equipment, but things like sufficient mortars and ATGMs for the infantry battalions, sufficient M777, CSS vehicles and command posts etc. There would also be all the necessary ancillary equipment for those units. All in all, not an insignificant amount of equipment purchase. So if you are in a reserve infantry unit you are in a full-strength section in a full-strength platoon in a full-strength company in a full-strength battalion with all the equipment you would require if placed on active service. What cap-badge you wear could be decided in another thread.
Task 2 - NATO. Canada commits to a mechanized division to NATO. This would be a manouevre division. This would have three mechanized brigades, each of one tank battalion and two mechanized infantry battalions. It would also have an artillery brigade of three SP gun battalions and a long-range rocket battalion. It would have a cavalry battalion that would have a mix of tanks and reconnaissance sub-units. There would be an ISR unit and an air-defence battalion. There would be a divisional service support brigade that would push out service battalions to the brigades and be the link to Corps. There would be an HQ and Signals unit for the Div HQ. For argument's sake, there is an engineer brigade with two combat engineer battalions and a general support unit. This Division would rotate brigades through the eFP task, so half of one brigade is forward at all times with pre-positioned equipment for the rest of the brigade. There could certainly be ARes units assigned to some of these formations.
This generates the following equipment requirements (I am sure there are others):
- two additional battalions of tanks from the one we have with another split between the School and the cavalry unit. So something like 240 tanks
- four battalions worth of SP artillery
- a battalion of AD (the existing GBAD program could be expanded)
- a battalion of long-range rockets (HIMARs equivalent)
- sufficient organic ATGMs for those mechanized battalions (PAX-M)
- sufficient ancillary equipment for all units (night vision, radios etc)
- CP equipment/vehicles for the bn, bde and div HQs
- SP Mortars for the mechanized infantry battalions
- the trucks, refuelers and maintenance vehicles to support all this in the field
It would also be very useful to have a battalion set at a training centre in Canada and a battalion set forward in Europe (Germany?). So plenty of additional LAV 6 and other vehicles.
Task 3 - Indo Pacific and NEO. This line of task would be held by the regular force Light Brigade, with one unit ear-marked for this on a rotational basis. Not too much falls out of this in terms of additional equipment.
Getting all this equipment at once would, of course, be problematic. The idea, though, is to identify requirements couched in likely tasks and then see what can be done. Of course, there is all the operations and maintenance costs to go with this.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,234
- Points
- 810
While understanding the desire to stay in the realm of the likely ( I assume you mean in terms of funding and political will etc.) some misc. thoughts for consideration.
What is the rationale for keeping the Army’s contribution to continental defence as light infantry centric?
Is a light infantry force more useful to continental defence than a force shaped around A2AD units with long range air defence and long range anti surface capabilities?
What actual continental defence tasks are better served with light infantry vs an MDTF for example?
What is the continental defence plan and how does Canada plan on defending Canadian territory and how does the Cdn Army contribute effectively to that joint force operation? Is light infantry the correct capability to contribute to that joint fight?
What is the rationale for keeping the Army’s contribution to continental defence as light infantry centric?
Is a light infantry force more useful to continental defence than a force shaped around A2AD units with long range air defence and long range anti surface capabilities?
What actual continental defence tasks are better served with light infantry vs an MDTF for example?
What is the continental defence plan and how does Canada plan on defending Canadian territory and how does the Cdn Army contribute effectively to that joint force operation? Is light infantry the correct capability to contribute to that joint fight?
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,160
The state of everything right now, courtesy of Canadian Army (today on 401 near Guelph)
- Reaction score
- 23,920
- Points
- 1,360
When figurative and literal worlds meet.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 34,825
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 22,821
- Points
- 1,260
USA Army, here hold my beer.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,355
- Points
- 1,110
Reminds me of driving home from Wainwright one year and seeing our RQ ML rolled on its side with the trailer behind still upright...and one of the QM staff looking a lot dazed and confused
Similar threads
- Article
