PM's New Bde of Peacekeepers (5,000 new soldiers), could it be a SOC Light Force?

[Lance Wiebe]

Good points.

That's why I included the " ???" symbol.

Just enough information to confuse people.

 

[McG]

Use this time to group the light battalions into a brigade and spend the 5,000 PYs to beef-up all the brigades.

A "peacekeeping" brigade must be able to function through the whole spectrum of conflict or it will not be effective in even its intended role.  Our Generals know this.

 

[scm77]

Hopefully "peacekeeping brigade" is just a warm and fuzzy name so it doesn't scare the public.

 

[Kirkhill]

What does the panel think about reconfiguring the existing infantry and armoured units into 4 brigades rather than three?  We have been using 3 Inf Bns + 1 Armd Regt since 4 CMBG closed its doors but effectively 2+1 is one way we used to do business (4CMBG and SSF).  It is the way a number of our allies are doing business now if you look at deployment patterns of late and it is the way the new UAs are configured in the States.  UA heavy = 2 Armd TFs + 1 Recce Unit, UA light = 2 Lt Bns + 1 Recce. 

Suppose as has been suggested here by others, notably Jungle and McG that the numbers are used to fill out existing units and support elements and that a fourth light brigade of 3 bns (1 or more para qualified) be stood up.  Would that result in four useable brigades?  What kind of shortfalls would there be?

It seems to me that most people have argued from the stand point of requiring 3 Inf + 1 Armd in every brigade, necessitating finding not jst round-out bodies to fill existing units but finding another 4 units plus supporting arms. Yet many of our allies seem to be comfortable with a basic 2+1 structure onto which atts can be grafted based on mission requirement.

 

[Acorn]

I agree - we could use the new bodies to fill out existing units and take some CSS back from ASD. Not sure we need a full 5000 to fill out the existing reg bde units, but I'm sure the Navy would also be happy to get another ship's company (about 200-300) out of the deal.

In any case, I also agree that we don't necessarily need "square" bdes, so we could form a fourth bde from existing units, though we still have a shortage of guns and tanks.

We also lack the infarstructure for a new bde garrison though, unless it it co-located with an existing bde.

We should, with decent funding, be able to field (even with mostly existing equipment):
one "heavy" bde - 1 tank regt (real tanks), 2 mech bn in tracked IFV/APC, 1 SP arty regt.
two "med" bdes - 1 Direct fire support regt (the new wheeled gun system), 2 mech bn in LAV III, 1 arty regt (towed guns - 2 btty 105, 1 btty 155)
one "light bde - 3 light inf bn, lt arty regt

All of the infantry bns would have their integral combat support returned - pioneers, mortars and anti-tank.

An Army aviation regt would be desirable as well, though the necessary equipment would need to be bought from the ground up - the Griffon just doesn't cut it.

Acorn

 

[winchable]

the Canadian Forces will have to mothball the navy's destroyers

:'(

 

[Kirkhill]

You don't hev tae greet just yet Che(start crying for you uneducated folks that can't speak good Scots), Uncle Bill is promising you more money as well..maybe..if his government lasts that long..if the budget passes...anyway.  Its a more positive sign than I have seen in the last 12-20 years.

Just thought about Gagetown, could it support Brigade as it is?  Install the Brigade now and refurbish the quarters and facilities over time?  Or are there not enough useable accomodations left out there?

 

[Inch]

We're talking about 5000 troops here, with their families that's in the range of 15,000-20,000 people.  Where the hell would you put them all?  There was an assessment done out east here to look at the feasibility of moving all pers from Shearwater to Greenwood. When they started crunching numbers they realized that Greenwood could not support another 1000 personnel plus their families.  Not just the base but the town too, there weren't enough houses, schools, churches, etc. IMO, short of building a new base or investing billions in an existing base and associated support facilities, the most cost effective and realistic way would be to spread those troops out across the country with improvements to existing infrastructure. I can't fathom any other way of doing it without spending billions of dollars that we don't have and probably won't get.

Just my $0.02

Cheers

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You don't think Edmonton could handle 5000 troops (assuming they all went into the combat arms or field trades) and their families?   Also if a new Brigade is formed as apposed to filling in the gaps where would the leadership come from?   You can buy more stoves, you can't buy more leadership.

 

[Inch]

How many pers are in Edmonton at present? 5000? You'd be doubling the base, I don't think anywhere could handle that.  I doubt the real estate market could handle it and if they can't then the PMQ's probably can't.  Not to mention schools for 5000-10,000 more kids, that's a lot of kids man. I just don't think they've thought this through, and it certainly won't and can't happen in the near future, this is something that's going to take years to implement.  Adding 5000 troops plus the replacements for the normal attrition and the baby boomers that are retiring, and there's a lot of them, will all take time to train.  As you mentioned, the leadership will take time to groom too.  It's going to be challenging times ahead.

Cheers

 

[PPCLI Guy]

What does the panel think about reconfiguring the existing infantry and armoured units into 4 brigades rather than three?  

<heretic mode on>  Why do we need Brigades at all?  We should be organised to refelect the missions and tasks that have been assigned to us by the government.  Until we have a new White Paper, that means 2 x BG on ops indefinitely.  There was mention of the Main Contingency Force (MCF), but for the first time ever, that was dropped from the SORD this year as a task.  So until we have a Defence Review, we should not be adding or subtracting capabilities...  <heretic mode off>

Of course, it is the government of the day that suggested an additional 5000 troops, without the benefit of a Defence Review...

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't is kind of nice they might be starting?

PPCLI Guy,

Let's assume that we form 12 fully functional battle groups positioned in three locations in Canada.  What do we call 4 collocated battle groups being jointly, trained and administered if not a brigade?

I see where you are coming from from an operational stand-point but doesn't the brigade still work for administration?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Okay - I'll buy the administrative aspect - but only if we have to stay in the linear and hierarchical box.  As to training - the BTE is the means by which we train Bde HQs (and NOT Bdes) - and it is a composite formation, with units from at least two different brigades.  We have an assymetrical Army with only one Direct Fire unit.  What is the value (and by that I mean value that is defensible to the government and the tax payer) in grouping the units in the Brigades along tactical lines?

 

[Kirkhill]

Short answer? I don't know.

I can see advantages to grouping in super-bases for administration and now that it is done I don't think I like the idea of spending the money all over again to spread the battle groups out.   Having said that, just because I don't like a thing doesn't mean I couldn't accept it being done for one or two units.    I wasn't impressed with all of the moves that went on and I believe that local foot print is important.

I guess I stand by my first answer.   I don't know. ???

 

[pbi]

Damn! Go away for a bit and look what happens!! Ditto all concerns expressed. Who the hell briefed this idea to the MND?

This is great in terms of  broad intent (ie: more people/kit/$$$) but how the hell is this going to be made to happen? I know that everybody on this thread can think of a list of "But What About...?" questions a mile long. I'd love to see the Course of Action development PowerPoint on this one!!

What the hell is going on here? Is this a trick to get us to "reject" a "gift" so they can turn around and say" Ungrateful sods. We tried, but look at the reaction we got. No more for you!" >


OK-"heck"...I meant "heck.....Sorry.

Cheers.

 

[Goober]

Martin eyes 8,000 new troops

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

NEW YORK -- Prime Minister Paul Martin will follow through on an election promise next month to hire 8,000 more soldiers, senior government officials say. The Liberal minority government will lay out its plan to hire 5,000 soldiers to man a new peacekeeping brigade and 3,000 reservists in next month's throne speech, a federal official said yesterday.

"That will be on top of the current commitment" to boost the size of the reserves to 18,500 by 2005, another official said.

The reserves now stand at about 15,500, not including those working full-time in positions with the regular Forces, due to a bogged-down recruiting system.

The Forces has about 52,000 soldiers.

Conservative MP Gordon O'Connor criticized the creation of the peacekeeping brigade, calling for the Liberals to fill empty positions across Canada with the 5,000 new soldiers who are pegged for the Forces.

O'Connor said the decision to train those soldiers solely for peacekeeping missions means they won't be able to perform any other jobs.

"They've got to be combat trained," he said. "When you have military forces, you've got to be able to do more than one thing."

O'Connor said the Liberals will have to boost the cash-strapped military's budget by at least $400 million annually to pay the 5,000 full-time soldiers, and by more than $1 billion for their equipment.

Recent reports warn that without a budget hike, the Canadian Forces will have to mothball the navy's destroyers and half of their fighter jets to pay for the new hires.

Canadian Defence Association spokesman Peter Forsberg also criticized the Liberals for limiting the new brigade to a peacekeeping role.

"We cannot imagine where nor when this 5,000 peacekeeping brigade will be deployed," Forsberg said.

???
<a href=http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/23/pf-640206.html>LINK HERE</a>

Its good to see the NHLers are keeping busy during the labour dispute.

I think the name "Peacekeeping Brigade" is just a media friendly name. Well, hopefully anyway. I will be interested to see where all these troops go though. Do any of you guys think a new base would be opened to house these soldiers?

 

[pbi]

Do any of you guys think a new base would be opened to house these soldiers?

See-this is what I mean by "But What About..." questions. When we built the new 1 PPCLI building, it cost well over 20,000,000 dollars in 1996/97 dollars. For one building. What will it cost to build (or even to lease) a full brigade-size base? And etc, etc, etc.


Don't misunderstand me: I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but the idea is so unrealistic as to be ludicrous. I have not the faintest idea what the total cost would be, even for a "light" Bde,since pers and infrastructure costs are pretty well the same no matter what. And just what, pray tell, is a "Peacekeeping Brigade?". More to the point, just what is "Peacekeeping"? Cheers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What do we call 4 collocated battle groups being jointly, trained and administered if not a brigade?

Lodger units.

 

[Garbageman]

I think the name "Peacekeeping Brigade" is just a media friendly name. Well, hopefully anyway. I will be interested to see where all these troops go though. Do any of you guys think a new base would be opened to house these soldiers?

Chilliwack?  The Liberals certainly could use the extra votes in B.C. anyway.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Did I miss where it said how long it will take for this to happen?