Multi Domain Task Force - Canada

[Kirkhill]

Influence

It gets me in the feels.

....

I used the word influence. Influence, like deterrence, ia a matter of emotions and not facts on the ground. It relies on emotions, most notably fear. Its counter is hope.

People change their behaviour when they are fearful. When they perceive they are under threat and their city is at risk of looking like the pictures @GR66 posted then their fear influences their behaviour and the behaviour of their government.

Hope also influences behaviour. Hope can be generated by having friends show up. Hope can also be generated if it is felt that there are the means to reduce the likelihood of thse dire images occuring.

I believe this is a driving force behind the present interest in the IAMD/GBAD/C-RAM/CUAS battle. Governments fear the reactions of fearful populations who want to believe their cities will be spared that devastation.

....

I don't contest the validity of the value of the conventional army on the battlefield and its utility in taking and holding ground.

I don't even contest that fear and influence alone don't win wars. I do contend that influence, fear and hope are key to deterrence and managing the risk of war in the first place.

....

I believe that we can supply influence, hope to our friends and fear to our enemies, through technology, a lot more effectively than through boots on the ground. Boots tat they already have in numbers greater than us and more proximate to their battles. Boots that are readily filled by their citizens in their reserves because they maintain limited numbers of full time soldiers because those soldiers, in peacetime are more useful to society in productive labour.

A nation with a large peacetime army has an unemployment problem. The army as an alternative to welfare.

‘Influence’ can also mean tangibly impacting the adversary’s options through tangible impacts on their capabilities or constraints imposed on their options that aren’t necessarily a game changer, but will still factor into their overall calculus on their military efforts. Sure, ‘fear’ - or perception of the potential tangible impact of an enemy’s capabilities - is part of this… Just don’t think that ‘influence’ solely means psychological. Killing people and breaking their stuff can influence larger ops without achieving outright neutralization.

3000 km influence

Ukraine’s New Drones Hit Russia’s Largest Oil Refinery in Record 3,000 Km Strike Into Siberia

Ukraine’s new long-range drones reportedly struck Russia’s largest refinery for the first time after flying 3,000 kilometers into Omsk.

www.kyivpost.com

“I approved a 40-day influence operation for the Service against the aggressor state aimed at compelling it to end the war,” Zelensky wrote.

Zelensky Orders 40-Day SBU Campaign to Pressure Russia

Ukraine’s security service is stepping up pressure on Russia as its Alpha unit reports leading drone warfare results at the front.

www.kyivpost.com

Ukraine’s SBU Hits Warplanes in Hangars at Crimea’s Saky Air Base

Ukraine’s SBU said it hit fighter aircraft stored in unprotected hangars at Crimean military airbase as part of 40-day “influence operation” campaign.

www.kyivpost.com

 

[Kirkhill]

The postioning of the 1st MDTF as a brigade within the 7th ID loked strange to a bunch of us. Especially as it was originally marketed as a Theater asset. At the same time IndoPacCom/PacCom/Western Hemisphere (hard to keep up) was retaining 3rd MDTF.

I thought that maybe the allocation to 7ID was a peacetime adminstrative move (7ID has history as a holding div). Justifying that was the retention of the 3rd ABCT in 4ID with a pair of SBCTs.

But now I see that 4IDs 3rd ABCT has been converted to an SBCT.

I Corps now has 4 MBCT (1 Abn), 5 SBCT, 4 Avn Bdes, and an assortment of Artillery organizations including traditional battalions, DivArties and an MDTF.

And no Abrams or Bradleys.

U.S. Army’s Iron Brigade exits Abrams era at Fort Carson as Stryker transition aligns division for Pacific operations

The U.S. Army’s 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, has sent the final remaining M1A2 Abrams tank from Fort Carson, Colorado, to Fort Irwin, California.

defence-industry.eu

 

[FJAG]

Under Army 2030, 4 ID and each of 1 ID, 3 ID, and 36 ID were scheduled to become an armoured division with two ABCTs and one SBCT each. That changed last year when 4 ID was changed from III Corps to the Pacific focused I Corps. 3 ABCT was the last heavy brigade in 4 ID going into 2026.

At this time 1 and 3 ID have their two ABCTs each but no other BCT. 36 ID has two ABCTs and will also have two MBCTs.

Initially the US Army fielded 9 SBCTs two of which, 56 and 81 SBCTs were ARNG. 56 SBCT, 36 ID recently converted to MBCT while 81 SBCT, 36 ID, Texas ARNG is still an SBCT. Interestingly, until 2022 81 SBCT had been part of 7 ID. It is scheduled to convert to an MBCT by 2028.

There is one SBCT currently in S Korea with 2 ID, I Corps and which is rotationally manned by personnel from US units.

There are five SBCTs now in I Corps - 3 with 4 ID, 2 with 7 ID (plus of course the prepositioned SBCT with 2 ID in Korea)

That accounts for six of the 9 SBCT sets of equipment. It certainly appears that the SBCTs are all slowly being targeted on the Pacific theatre. It will be interesting to see if any of the additional 3 SBCT sets will be assigned to units aligned with 1 Corps. It also raises the question of whether any additional divisions will be converted to multi-domain commands.

As a complete aside, but somewhat MDF related, one should note that the British army has formed two additional deep recce strike brigades (DRS).

The existing 1st DRS, with 3 (UK) Div has been renamed 3rd DRS.

A new 1st DRS has been formed with 1 (UK) Div. It will throughout this year pick up 4 RA, 103 RA and 105 RA (already in 1 (UK) Div) and has already received 3 RHA, an MLRS regiment, from 3 (UK) Div. Not sure where things stand with 7 Para RHA currently with 16 Air Aslt Bde, 1 (UK) Div. Also not sure what recce units will be cut over to 1st DLRS from the various brigades in 1 (UK) Div. What makes this interesting is that 1 (UK) Div was not really structured to deploy as a div but rather force generate up to brigade groups. Forming a DRS not only provides the UK with the ability for force generate a DRS but also could lead to 1 (UK) Div deploying as a light infantry division.

In addition Headquarters 9th DRS has been formed with the UK-based NATO Allied Rapid Reaction Corps headquarters. It has no assigned Brit arty or recce units but presumably will be allocated artillery resources from various NATO forces.

 

[ytz]

Given the state of the UK, I would suggest that we should stand up a corps level theatre command with enabling formations. We may only commit an actual division to it. But the other divisions can be provided by NATO. We're actually better placed that the Poles, Finns, Baltics, etc. to do this. We could provide Space, deep ISR, EW, etc in a few years.

 

[FJAG]

Given the state of the UK, I would suggest that we should stand up a corps level theatre command with enabling formations. We may only commit an actual division to it. But the other divisions can be provided by NATO. We're actually better placed that the Poles, Finns, Baltics, etc. to do this. We could provide Space, deep ISR, EW, etc in a few years.

I don't have enough experience with NATO multinational corps headquarters to comment directly, but a quick reading tells me there are an adequate numbers of corps headquarters in Europe already (10 or so). Jack Watling did a paper on this several years back after US 5 Corps was stood up again but before Ukraine blew up and his concussions were that these headquarters were not adequately staffed and structured so as to be able to command the divisions assigned to them; that they were not adequately resourced to fight the deep battles that they needed to in order to properly support their divisions; and that they did not train often enough with their allocated divisions to become proficient as teams.

Our forces in Latvia are in MND-N which is run out of Latvia. We're now part of the framework of that division with Latvia and Denmark. MND-N used to be under the command of MNC-NE but that is/has changed. It is or soon will be part of 1 German-Danish Corps (1 GDC) which also has the Estonian Division under command. Estonia pretty much has its own division now and MND-N is now pretty much Latvia which has one full mech brigade plus several territorial bdes. It would, IMHO, be presumptuous for Canada to say, hey, we'll do it when we haven't even run a real full division for decades and are basically committing just 2,500 troops or so to the theatre.

Both Latvia and Estonia are pretty light on heavy mech things (read that as tanks and cavalry). Add to that the Latvian border is long for what is there to cover it. Both Estonia and Latvia have adequate, but not plentiful, light forces for defence. There needs to be a better, more mobile depth force and corps enablers required.

IMHO, Canada would be doing well if it provided NATO with a competent and fully resourced armoured/heavy mech division (let's say 2,300 vehicles and 11,000 personnel tops) for use in Latvia/Estonia under 1 GDC with a properly resourced theatre-level support element (let's say 1,500 vehicles and 5,000 personnel) with another two complete divisions at home (4,500 vehicles and 22,000 people) to replace/rotate/sustain etc for casualties and losses. Add another 15,000 persons to provide the Canadian-based support/sustainment structure to keep the deployed NATO contingent operational. The division and theatre level forces do not need to all be forward deployed or rotational, but can, in large measure, be forward positioned and fly-over.

After we fill that bill I would be looking at saying, okay, we'll take over from the Germans and Dutch and let them concentrate on their homeland while we provide a corps HQ for Latvia and Estonia which would, by then have three divisions - an Estonian one, a Latvian/multinational one and a Canadian one so long as we also add (and/or find others to commit) the corps enabling forces (additional artillery, air defence, EW, engineer, logistics, transport and maintenance units and brigades) needed by whichever corps the Canadian division is assigned to in order to ensure that corps leads and supports our division effectively.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given the state of the UK, I would suggest that we should stand up a corps level theatre command with enabling formations. We may only commit an actual division to it. But the other divisions can be provided by NATO. We're actually better placed that the Poles, Finns, Baltics, etc. to do this. We could provide Space, deep ISR, EW, etc in a few years.

We certainly have deeper pockets than any of them, including the UK. And God knows what will happen when Labour's new benefits champion, Andy Burnham, ends up confronting the banks.

.....


No sooner did I finish typing that than the Telegraph announced this:



John Healey has been made Chancellor as Andy Burnham unveils his Cabinet.

In a surprise move, the former defence secretary will succeed Rachel Reeves in No 11, where he is expected to be tasked with filling a £15bn hole in the military budget.

Mr Healey quit his former post last month over Sir Keir Starmer’s failure to commit to spending 3 per cent of Britain’s GDP on the military by 2035.

The appointment will send shockwaves through Westminster after Shabana Mahmood, who has retained her role as Home Secretary, was widely regarded as the front-runner to succeed Ms Reeves.

Ed Miliband, the former net zero secretary, had also been tipped for the role but was appointed Foreign Secretary by Mr Burnham.

Many Labour MPs and unions became concerned appointing Mr Miliband would spook the bond markets.

Louise Haigh, who was forced to quit as transport secretary after details of her historical fraud conviction emerged, has been brought back into the Cabinet as First Secretary of State.

The position effectively makes her Mr Burnham’s right-hand woman and she will be responsible for enforcing his will across Whitehall.

....

All of this positive.

This is a Blue Labour cabinet.

Strong on defence
Strong on immigration and crime
Strong on conventional energy and the North Sea
Weak on woke.

Starmer captured Labour by appealing, as most do, to the left.
He captured government by not being the defeated government.
He tried to govern from the centre but lacked both stones and political skills.
Perhaps Burnham has better skills.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't have enough experience with NATO multinational corps headquarters to comment directly, but a quick reading tells me there are an adequate numbers of corps headquarters in Europe already (10 or so). Jack Watling did a paper on this several years back after US 5 Corps was stood up again but before Ukraine blew up and his concussions were that these headquarters were not adequately staffed and structured so as to be able to command the divisions assigned to them; that they were not adequately resourced to fight the deep battles that they needed to in order to properly support their divisions; and that they did not train often enough with their allocated divisions to become proficient as teams.

Our forces in Latvia are in MND-N which is run out of Latvia. We're now part of the framework of that division with Latvia and Denmark. MND-N used to be under the command of MNC-NE but that is/has changed. It is or soon will be part of 1 German-Danish Corps (1 GDC) which also has the Estonian Division under command. Estonia pretty much has its own division now and MND-N is now pretty much Latvia which has one full mech brigade plus several territorial bdes. It would, IMHO, be presumptuous for Canada to say, hey, we'll do it when we haven't even run a real full division for decades and are basically committing just 2,500 troops or so to the theatre.

Both Latvia and Estonia are pretty light on heavy mech things (read that as tanks and cavalry). Add to that the Latvian border is long for what is there to cover it. Both Estonia and Latvia have adequate, but not plentiful, light forces for defence. There needs to be a better, more mobile depth force and corps enablers required.

IMHO, Canada would be doing well if it provided NATO with a competent and fully resourced armoured/heavy mech division (let's say 2,300 vehicles and 11,000 personnel tops) for use in Latvia/Estonia under 1 GDC with a properly resourced theatre-level support element (let's say 1,500 vehicles and 5,000 personnel) with another two complete divisions at home (4,500 vehicles and 22,000 people) to replace/rotate/sustain etc for casualties and losses. Add another 15,000 persons to provide the Canadian-based support/sustainment structure to keep the deployed NATO contingent operational. The division and theatre level forces do not need to all be forward deployed or rotational, but can, in large measure, be forward positioned and fly-over.

After we fill that bill I would be looking at saying, okay, we'll take over from the Germans and Dutch and let them concentrate on their homeland while we provide a corps HQ for Latvia and Estonia which would, by then have three divisions - an Estonian one, a Latvian/multinational one and a Canadian one so long as we also add (and/or find others to commit) the corps enabling forces (additional artillery, air defence, EW, engineer, logistics, transport and maintenance units and brigades) needed by whichever corps the Canadian division is assigned to in order to ensure that corps leads and supports our division effectively.

It is 1 German Netherlands Corps (1GNC) out of Muenster (Munster with the umlaut) that will command NATO elements in Latvia and Estonia, not the German-Danish Corps, which does not exist to my knowledge. There are German and Danish staff in MNC-NE. That being said, I agree that NATO has plenty of Corps HQs. It could use some additional Corps/Div Troops to go with those, and perhaps Canada could/should source some of that.

In the meantime we are building a Manoeuvre Division in Canada while being the framework nation of the Multi-National Brigade Latvia and there is plenty to do with both those activities in terms of capability development, never mind the Defence of Canada Division.

 

[FJAG]

It is 1 German Netherlands Corps (1GNC) out of Muenster (Munster with the umlaut) that will command NATO elements in Latvia and Estonia, not the German-Danish Corps, which does not exist to my knowledge. There are German and Danish staff in MNC-NE. That being said, I agree that NATO has plenty of Corps HQs. It could use some additional Corps/Div Troops to go with those, and perhaps Canada could/should source some of that.

In the meantime we are building a Manoeuvre Division in Canada while being the framework nation of the Multi-National Brigade Latvia and there is plenty to do with both those activities in terms of capability development, never mind the Defence of Canada Division.

Damn. I knew that and yet my fingers typed "Danish." Maybe its because the Danes and Dutch are so similar.