Multi Domain Task Force - Canada

[FJAG]

That's an interesting structure. Graphically it looks like this in Wikipedia.

There are a few comments I have:

1. The SBCT structures are relatively unchanged since SBCTs haven't gone through a major Transformation in Contact review (That was IBCTs --> MBCTs and currently ABCTs). 1 SBCT has lost its engineer battalion and 2 SBCT have gained an MFRC but that seems to be it.

2. Note that there is no divisional sustainment brigade. Each of the four brigades retain their organic brigade support battalions (BSB) in roughly the same way that three of them retain their own artillery. It makes you wonder if a fires bde and a sustainment brigade will consolidate those in the future and, eventually, a sustainment brigade formed with the addition of a maintenance and logistics battalions and consolidation of the BSBs.

3. IMHO, 1 MDTF should become a fires brigade by retaining all of its own assets and having the two M777 battalions and their respective forward support companies moved over. The current issue may be the limited range of the M777 supporting the mobile Strykers. IMHO the US Army's stalled plan to buy wheeled SPs like Archer or MGS Boxer needs to move forward. Maybe now that GDLS has shown off the GDLS 10x10 MGS Grizzley, it will make sense to the US to buy a few hundred of those for their remaining Stryker brigades. That would provide sufficient mobility for the CS battalions to join the rocket battalion in a proper fires brigade, which function can easily be added in 1 MDTF.

(Not to toot my own horn but you'll have seen structures similar to this one in my own previous napkin forces like this one for an expeditionary armoured division - Note the size of ~11,340 personnel and the absence of the aviation brigade which I consider a corps asset. Note also the inclusion of the 2nd Pan-Domain Regiment (2 PD) - in my 2 Fires Brigade (2 FB). 2 PD is a beefed up version of 7 ID's 1 MDEB.)

 

[Kirkhill]

That's an interesting structure. Graphically it looks like this in Wikipedia.

There are a few comments I have:

1. The SBCT structures are relatively unchanged since SBCTs haven't gone through a major Transformation in Contact review (That was IBCTs --> MBCTs and currently ABCTs). 1 SBCT has lost its engineer battalion and 2 SBCT have gained an MFRC but that seems to be it.

2. Note that there is no divisional sustainment brigade. Each of the four brigades retain their organic brigade support battalions (BSB) in roughly the same way that three of them retain their own artillery. It makes you wonder if a fires bde and a sustainment brigade will consolidate those in the future and, eventually, a sustainment brigade formed with the addition of a maintenance and logistics battalions and consolidation of the BSBs.

3. IMHO, 1 MDTF should become a fires brigade by retaining all of its own assets and having the two M777 battalions and their respective forward support companies moved over. The current issue may be the limited range of the M777 supporting the mobile Strykers. IMHO the US Army's stalled plan to buy wheeled SPs like Archer or MGS Boxer needs to move forward. Maybe now that GDLS has shown off the GDLS 10x10 MGS Grizzley, it will make sense to the US to buy a few hundred of those for their remaining Stryker brigades. That would provide sufficient mobility for the CS battalions to join the rocket battalion in a proper fires brigade, which function can easily be added in 1 MDTF.

(Not to toot my own horn but you'll have seen structures similar to this one in my own previous napkin forces like this one for an expeditionary armoured division - Note the size of ~11,340 personnel and the absence of the aviation brigade which I consider a corps asset. Note also the inclusion of the 2nd Pan-Domain Regiment (2 PD) - in my 2 Fires Brigade (2 FB). 2 PD is a beefed up version of 7 ID's 1 MDEB.)

View attachment 100894

I am starting to think that one of the reasons the "cavalry" debate is so fraught is that given all the ISR assets being pushed downwards to the infantry battalions it appears as if the infantry is taking over thee recce and shield roles of the cavalry.

Concurrently long range precision fires are squeezing the airforce and army aviation.

The net result is that more formations are starting to look like the British Recce Strike Brigade.

7ID MDC-Pac = 7 Recce Strike Div.

 

[Kirkhill]

It is interesting to look at this alignment in conjunction with the sister divs in I Corps.

All of them, 4, 7, 11 and 25 are based on two triangular infantry brigades with no cavalry and a developing MFRC.

4 and 7 are based on Strykers and 11 and 25 are based on ISVs.

11 retains a parachute qualified brigade as one of its two MBCTs.

4 has an ABCT attached. The only one available to I Corps.

So I Corps 4 divs command 4 Stryker Brigades, 4 ISV based MBCTs with one of them airborne qualified and a single Bradley-Abrams ABCT.

All divisions retain a Combat Aviation Brigade or similar.

All have integral sustainment brigades.

The Arty picture seems to be developing.

11 and 7 have not formed a DivArty complex but 7 has the MDTF and retained arty battalions in the brigades with 18 M777s each.

4 and 25 have DivArties with 4 holding 36 M777s for its two Stryker Brigades and 18 M109s for its ABCT. 4 has no HIMARS or MRLS but I Corps also has 17 Field Artillery Brigade with two rocket battalions. I am guessing that the ABCT and the FAB would likely be paired in the main effort. Recce Strike.

Meanwhile 25 Divarty now comprises 16 M119, 12 M777s and 16 HIMARS. It also has an Int and EW Battalion which seems to be moving into MDEB terrain and the Div GOC is looking for long range UAVs like Gray Eagle so that he can fully exploit his LRPF HIMARS.

The only thing missing is an IFPC GBAD battalion for 25 ID

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the 7ID MDC-Pac discussion.

Army’s Newest Unit Aims To “Overwhelm” Adversary With Drones In Pacific Fight

The new 7th Infantry Division Multi-Domain Command – Pacific will meld drone warfare with the maneuver capabilities of Stryker brigades.

www.twz.com

 

[FJAG]

I am starting to think that one of the reasons the "cavalry" debate is so fraught is that given all the ISR assets being pushed downwards to the infantry battalions it appears as if the infantry is taking over thee recce and shield roles of the cavalry.

Concurrently long range precision fires are squeezing the airforce and army aviation.

The net result is that more formations are starting to look like the British Recce Strike Brigade.

7ID MDC-Pac = 7 Recce Strike Div.

I used to poo-poo the Brit's recce strike brigade. I'm still pretty sure I don't want to merge recce and artillery in one brigade. I see the value of recce/strike and the distinction of a deep and close battle within the division construct as artillery does both and recce doesn't (to that extent).

In my own mind I've added a single regiment to be the ground based deep role in my division. Here represented by the SherF signified by a tracked unit doing both recce and anti-armour functions (through a variety of means). I've got my own idea of what such a unit should have besides recce and anti-armour equipment (including its own FOOs, AD, engineers and infantry) but am not settled on the whole thing including its actual size and whether it should be able to function on more than two axes and what its doctrine for offensive operations should be.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I used to poo-poo the Brit's recce strike brigade. I'm still pretty sure I don't want to merge recce and artillery in one brigade. I see the value of recce/strike and the distinction of a deep and close battle within the division construct as artillery does both and recce doesn't (to that extent).

In my own mind I've added a single regiment to be the ground based deep role in my division. Here represented by the SherF signified by a tracked unit doing both recce and anti-armour functions (through a variety of means). I've got my own idea of what such a unit should have besides recce and anti-armour equipment (including its own FOOs, AD, engineers and infantry) but am not settled on the whole thing including its actual size and whether it should be able to function on more than two axes and what its doctrine for offensive operations should be.

Whoever they are, as they're likely to be surrounded, they should probably receive training in escape and evasion skills

 

[FJAG]

It is interesting to look at this alignment in conjunction with the sister divs in I Corps.

Here's another interesting similarity. None of them have a protection brigade as was set out in the 2022 projections for the Army 2030 force structure. Too bad Canada hasn't caught up. IMHO, protection brigades are superfluous. Their assets should be: part of other divisional brigades (eg AD as part of fires); be simply stand alone divisional troops (e.g. engineers and MPs); or part of theatre/corps troops (e.g. CBRN)

 

[ytz]

IMHO, 1 MDTF should become a fires brigade by retaining all of its own assets and having the two M777 battalions and their respective forward support companies moved over. The current issue may be the limited range of the M777 supporting the mobile Strykers. IMHO the US Army's stalled plan to buy wheeled SPs like Archer or MGS Boxer needs to move forward. Maybe now that GDLS has shown off the GDLS 10x10 MGS Grizzley, it will make sense to the US to buy a few hundred of those for their remaining Stryker brigades. That would provide sufficient mobility for the CS battalions to join the rocket battalion in a proper fires brigade, which function can easily be added in 1 MDTF.

I think you might be missing the point of the MDTF here. It's a rear echelon formation that does everything from air defence, to long range strike, to SIGINT, to EW, to Space Based ISR to offensive cyber. I have questions about how much of this is complementary and/or should be in the same brigade. But at minimum, I think treating it like a Fires brigade belies its purpose and the optionality it was supposed to create.

Also the reason the SBCTs still have their BSBs is part of this. Optionality. Allows them to be detached and deployed separately. Or even in theater, allows that brigade to manoeuvre more independently. You can, it course, ask if that's a good idea.

For us, the CA is getting a new Joint ISR Regiment. The Space Wing can now deploy Space Support Teams (SSTs). And the CA has 21 EWR. Throw in a Cyber Team, the upcoming HIMARS regiment and some air defence, and this would be a crude MDTF.

 

[ytz]

I used to poo-poo the Brit's recce strike brigade. I'm still pretty sure I don't want to merge recce and artillery in one brigade. I see the value of recce/strike and the distinction of a deep and close battle within the division construct as artillery does both and recce doesn't (to that extent).

To some extent. The concept of recce has to change in the age of drones and space based ISR.

The American MDTF aims to sense deep and attack deep, often through non-Kinetic means (Cyber, EW). All the Kinetic effects start 70 km out and go further. They're not really focused on MLRS. More PrSM, Dark Eagle and Tomahawks. They are really meant to fight at 300+ km.

The British concept is different. They really are a tactical level formation. The limits of their fires are 300 km with PrSM. They don't have deep sense and non-kinetic capabilities integral to them. They are spotters for tube and HIMARS.

I don't think either is correct. The MDTF seems weird subordinate to a Division. Seems like a theatre level formation. Flip side, I'd be weary in this day and age of a division not being able to sense deep, or employ EW and Cyber by itself.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The MDTF is an awkward attempt to embrace MDO, without understanding the underlying doctrinal concepts