Medium Cavalry: Critical Capability or Poor Man’s MBT?

[GR66]

I basically agree with everything in that we need a mix of forces. We need primarily one thing for domestic operations and primarily another for expeditionary. Note the use of the word "primarily" here.

I'm not so sure we need a "varied Expeditionary Response Option." Expeditionary operations are essentially discretionary - we choose to go or not to go. That means that we can choose not to be the Jack of all Trades and concentrate on a specific type of expeditionary operational commitment. (I think that "agile force" is a delusional buzzword that we need to jettison) If we choose to make the NATO Baltics commitment a long-term one (and I believe that we should) then we must be structured for that in a serious way for years to come - and to me that means heavy MCO (whatever form that takes for the future). All other expeditionary roles are discretionary.

Should we have other expeditionary forces structured for a lesser tasks - say that old failed-state-scenario? IMHO - No. We should avoid those like the plague.

Should we keep both light and medium forces in Canada? Absolutely. We already have a lot of LAVs and can build more? Why not? They are useful if used and configured properly so keep them and have them available. If push comes to shove and the government chooses a new expeditionary mission then we could deploy light or medium contingents from our domestic force or heavy from our expeditionary force as is appropriate to the situation.

That may not seem like an obvious difference, but structurally it is. It focuses each of the light, medium and heavy forces on specific primary missions. It focuses our expeditionary commitments to a narrow band to prepare for. But, it also leaves some flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances.

Barring a decision to switch from the LAV to a tracked IFV we won't have a Light/Medium/Heavy mix but rather a Light/Wheeled Medium+ mix.

I don't necessarily think that is a terrible thing as it basically matches our new two Division structure with the LAV-equipped expeditionary Division supporting our Brigade-level deployment to Latvia and being available for other expeditionary missions requiring a Medium force. The Defence of Canada Division provides the Light Expeditionary force (the Reg Force Light Regiment should be moved there in my opinion to act as the Rapid Response force).

 

[ArmyRick]

I basically agree with everything in that we need a mix of forces. We need primarily one thing for domestic operations and primarily another for expeditionary. Note the use of the word "primarily" here.

I'm not so sure we need a "varied Expeditionary Response Option." Expeditionary operations are essentially discretionary - we choose to go or not to go. That means that we can choose not to be the Jack of all Trades and concentrate on a specific type of expeditionary operational commitment. (I think that "agile force" is a delusional buzzword that we need to jettison) If we choose to make the NATO Baltics commitment a long-term one (and I believe that we should) then we must be structured for that in a serious way for years to come - and to me that means heavy MCO (whatever form that takes for the future). All other expeditionary roles are discretionary.

Should we have other expeditionary forces structured for a lesser tasks - say that old failed-state-scenario? IMHO - No. We should avoid those like the plague.

Should we keep both light and medium forces in Canada? Absolutely. We already have a lot of LAVs and can build more? Why not? They are useful if used and configured properly so keep them and have them available. If push comes to shove and the government chooses a new expeditionary mission then we could deploy light or medium contingents from our domestic force or heavy from our expeditionary force as is appropriate to the situation.

That may not seem like an obvious difference, but structurally it is. It focuses each of the light, medium and heavy forces on specific primary missions. It focuses our expeditionary commitments to a narrow band to prepare for. But, it also leaves some flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances.

To summarize some of what you said and I agree with. I served 1990-2018 for context.
-We mistakenly believed in the post cold war (post Warsaw pact) era was a "troubled peaceful" era
-We mistook the GWOT as the wars of the future
-We failed to pay attention to the changes in warfare technology occurring right under noses in the last 10-15 years
-If we go expeditionary, we have to select carefully what we get involved in
-On expeditionary, I personally think we will always be a contributor to a larger effort, never or very rarely operating solo.
-We must recognize that Canada is not within some sacred "safe land" that will never be invaded, we must be prepared to defend ourselves
-Being flexible on kit used is a good idea for us

sound about right?

 

[FJAG]

Barring a decision to switch from the LAV to a tracked IFV we won't have a Light/Medium/Heavy mix but rather a Light/Wheeled Medium+ mix.

That's what scares me.

I don't necessarily think that is a terrible thing as it basically matches our new two Division structure with the LAV-equipped expeditionary Division supporting our Brigade-level deployment to Latvia and being available for other expeditionary missions requiring a Medium force.

For starters I see more divisions but lighter ones - around 11,000 each. My view of expeditionary is the Baltics which should be based around a tracked heavy core in order to be able to switch to offensive action.

The Defence of Canada Division provides the Light Expeditionary force (the Reg Force Light Regiment should be moved there in my opinion to act as the Rapid Response force).

I see the defence of Canada based around light (RegF light, ARes light and hybrid light) and medium (hybrid). I see no fixed light expeditionary task but an ability to generated if it becomes inescapable.

To summarize some of what you said and I agree with. I served 1990-2018 for context.
-We mistakenly believed in the post cold war (post Warsaw pact) era was a "troubled peaceful" era

-We mistook the GWOT as the wars of the future

Most, led by Hillyer did. Some fought it tooth and nail.

-We failed to pay attention to the changes in warfare technology occurring right under noses in the last 10-15 years

Not so sure that we failed to pay attention but we certainly failed to act promptly

-If we go expeditionary, we have to select carefully what we get involved in

Absolutely. We have an inkling of MCO based on what we see in Ukraine. What concerns me - nd why I want to stay away from light and middle weight failed state etc scenarios - is that everyone and his dog can now bring cheap, killer weapons to bear. The risk level has gone up dramatically.

-On expeditionary, I personally think we will always be a contributor to a larger effort, never or very rarely operating solo.

By definition, NATO missions are contributory. The issue for me is how much should Canada contribute. IMHO it should be a prepositioned, flyover hybrid division - something like this - within an allied multinational corps:

-We must recognize that Canada is not within some sacred "safe land" that will never be invaded, we must be prepared to defend ourselves

We need to recognize that the possibility is a non-zero one. It's nature and shape is the question. We're a large, resource rich country with a small population in a resource poor world. That creates problems in defining the threats and the proper response to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take action. The trick is to do it effectively and yet economically.

-Being flexible on kit used is a good idea for us

I think we need to cover the full spectrum from light through medium to heavy. What I disagree with is that we can form all singing and dancing "agile" units, brigades and divisions that can do light one day, medium the next and heavy the day after. The concept of having LAV 6.0s that are a medium force but can be turned into heavy by the mere addition of tanks strikes me as the road to getting our own people killed unnecessarily. Kit must be carefully tailored to each role. Weapon locker flexibility doesn't work well outside of the special forces community.

The problem is that the RegF is too small and parochial. It refuses to change the structure of the army in a way that would lessen its preeminence.

sound about right?

 

[PrairieFella]

Barring a decision to switch from the LAV to a tracked IFV we won't have a Light/Medium/Heavy mix but rather a Light/Wheeled Medium+ mix.

I don't necessarily think that is a terrible thing as it basically matches our new two Division structure with the LAV-equipped expeditionary Division supporting our Brigade-level deployment to Latvia and being available for other expeditionary missions requiring a Medium force. The Defence of Canada Division provides the Light Expeditionary force (the Reg Force Light Regiment should be moved there in my opinion to act as the Rapid Response force).

Rumour is there is serious talk to tack an IFV/APC variant on the MCAV competition. That way we can form a true heavy bde per NATO requirements.

 

[MilEME09]

Rumour is there is serious talk to tack an IFV/APC variant on the MCAV competition. That way we can form a true heavy bde per NATO requirements.

from what I read, tracked is the only 100% option, with mixed tracked/wheeled group being partially successful. I don't think we are in the mind set any more of the 70% solution, I think we will go all in on tracked, MCAV is basically the CCV program returned from the grave