Preserving Army Fleets

[FJAG]

This has been tried before, with limited success.

The only way to make it work, IMHO, is to nuke the unneeded regiments leaving only a handful of 'winners'.

The political fallout would be unsustainable though...

I really do get the point of why US Army units are numbered (have a nickname) and are displayed on the standard Army uniform by a small enameled badge pinned on the chest or velcro'd on a shoulder. It makes postings so easy and parades so much more "uniform". OTOH they give out medals and other doodads by the gross to make them more colourful.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

This has been tried before, with limited success.

The only way to make it work, IMHO, is to nuke the unneeded regiments leaving only a handful of 'winners'.

The political fallout would be unsustainable though...

I think the Regimental Association Mafias are more militant than anyone at DND on this regard.

The British Army has reformed and amalgamated hundreds of regiments over the last 300 years, with some of those regiments having histories that pre-date the Restoration. How is it prudent to retain a Platoon+ "Regiment" with all the overhead and budget required, simply because that unit fought at The Gully or Ancre Heights decades ago? Why is it always the RA or the local Legion that yells louder than the unit members; who would rather the tools and funding to make some history themselves?

Tradition is valuable, but not at the expense of efficiency. In some cases, much like our P Res, it's taking advice from the dead at the expense of the living.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If units could be successful in the 50s and 60s with remote coys and platoons everywhere. In the modern age of technology we should be just fine.

Has anyone compared a typical year "then" to a typical year "now" in terms of requirements that have been added or removed? I'd be surprised if everything hasn't become more complex, which, if time to learn and practice hasn't increased, means aspirations must be dialed down.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Has anyone compared a typical year "then" to a typical year "now" in terms of requirements that have been added or removed? I'd be surprised if everything hasn't become more complex, which, if time to learn and practice hasn't increased, means aspirations must be dialed down.

My guess is that the current training system is more effective than 'the olden days', with the result that we have a regular supply of excellent Junior Officers and NCOs upon whose shoulders the majority of unit training rests.

Given the right lead time, and support and guidance, you can still run some pretty good weekend/ Gun Camp type training with the resources we have now.

Where Bde and Unit senior leadership lacks interest/ skill in running good training, there's not much you can do to address that.

If it was up to me I'd fire the ba&tards, but day dreaming only goes so far

 

[MilEME09]

Has anyone compared a typical year "then" to a typical year "now" in terms of requirements that have been added or removed? I'd be surprised if everything hasn't become more complex, which, if time to learn and practice hasn't increased, means aspirations must be dialed down.

I meant more in terms of command and control over large geographic areas for a single command structure.

 

[GR66]

It's long, long overdue.

The reason there is so much resistance to that is that every time there is a consolidation, it comes accompanied by a personnel reduction as well.

Back in Toronto, I joined the 7th Toronto Regiment RCA which had just been consolidated from 29th Fd Regt, 42 Medium Regt and 1 Locating Regiment. The three units combined could pretty much fill the parade square at University Armoury but it was demolished in 1963, the land handed over to the City to build a new law complex and the units distributed across the city. The combined regiment was moved to an old three story warehouse on Richmond Street for a few years while they finished building Moss Park Armoury.

Guess what. By the time we moved into Moss Park we could barely field a hundred folks. (a hundred and fifty with the band which was enormous )

When one amalgamates/consolidates three units one needs to aggregate the authorized positions and provide the core resources to actually house and train that amalgamated unit and not look at the amalgamation as a force reduction and infrastructure reduction opportunity. This is why Reserves 2000 and all those honorary colonels fight so hard to retain units. (plus there's the CO/RSM multiple majors and CSM rice bowl thing too)

Amalgamation is an absolute necessity. No question. The current system is archaic and not fit for purpose.

I'm a big fan of hybrid units where one CO and his command team is responsible for some 600 folks, both RegF and ResF, like 4 AD was. I frankly don't care if there is a QOR reserve company in greens, a 48 Highlanders reserve company in kilts and an RCR regular company in scarlet tunics on parade and if each company resides at different armouries day-to-day. Hell, the battalion can have one honourary colonel and three honourary lieutenant-colonels (one for each company) as long as it gets proper training, proper equipment and a role.

I can't help but think that amalgamation and focus of the new units would be helped if there was a specific plan behind the amalgamations beyond a crunching of numbers. For example, the STAR system could be taken a step further than it is currently. Instead of The Toronto Scottish Regiment having a Mission Task of generating a Direct Fire Support Platoon they would specifically become the Direct Fire Support Platoon of Q Company, 3 RCR.

As a mission-tasked sub-sub unit they may have an authorized strength of 2 x DFS Platoons, a Recruit Platoon and a HQ/Admin Platoon. You'd know how many personnel the unit would need and exactly where it fits into the Reg Force ORBAT. If it's assessed that the Tor Scots don't have the strength to fulfill that role by themselves then perhaps they need to be amalgamated with the Royal Regiment of Canada to create a viable unit. Chain of command for the Mission Tasked Reserve units would run through their parent Battalion/Regiment.

Of course there may remain a need for Reserve forces that are not directly mission-tasked to support the Reg Force. These could be amalgamated into Territorial Battalions with units amalgamated as required to generate viable Companies. The required support equipment for these Territorial Battalions could be centralized with support of the Reserve Service Battalions and possibly designated Transport Companies.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Simple arithmetic comparison: how long would it take for Canada's Res F to provide a division of people trained to adequately function as a division, and how long would it take "industry" to tool up to provide the kit. If the former time is longer than the latter, kit stockpiles are not needed for "mobilization".

I asked a similar question over three decades ago. At the time posted to NDHQ, among my responsibilities was equipping medical facilities. With the 1987 Defence White Paper there were numerous projects on the books for expansion both overseas and in Canada. Among the several of which I was involved was one that proposed to acquire the equipment that would be needed to expand CF hospitals in the event of mobilization. It wasn't a major dollar amount, just a few million, but like many (most?) projects that sprung forth from the White Paper not a lot of staff work had been completed. In the case of this particular project, we were informed that due to slippage in a couple of other projects, the funding was available to quickly move it forward. My director at the time was pleased because completion would have been a measure of success. Once I got into the staffing, one of the things that got my attention was "mobilization" and what timeline did we have to follow to expand existing medical facilities. The war plans were not readily available in the Surg Gen branch, but I did get access. Since they were classified back then, I won't provide any details. However, after contacting "industry" (there were only a limited number of Canadian manufacturers), it was glaringly obvious that expansion could be accomplished without having to warehouse equipment that (in retrospect) could have sat there for decades before being disposed of, unused. My director was not happy with my recommendation that the project be shelved.

 

[FJAG]

Tradition is valuable, but not at the expense of efficiency. In some cases, much like our P Res, it's taking advice from the dead at the expense of the living

Agreed. The system should first be designed to create efficient soldiers and units. Tradition is great but not at the expense of efficiency. Maybe that's why six of the battalions in the regular force should get new names and weaken their mafias.

Has anyone compared a typical year "then" to a typical year "now" in terms of requirements that have been added or removed? I'd be surprised if everything hasn't become more complex, which, if time to learn and practice hasn't increased, means aspirations must be dialed down.

Yes. My memory is that good. It's not greatly different. There was less training then but there was less to master.

There will always be a tension as between the needs of the CAF, the soldier, his family and his civilian employer. One needs to very carefully balance those needs in what I call a covenant (partly established in legislation and regulations) to allow for a balanced life.

Where we fall down now is we do not train reservists adequately up front. If we instituted a training system that trains reservist up to RegF standards to the DP1 and 2 levels while they are young students with lots of time in the summers and a need for cash we'd solve a large part of the problem. Adding in good senior NCOs and trained officers from the RegF would provide the stability needed, good examples and mentoring, and the ability to deal with administration and the logistics of running a unit.

Let's face it, notwithstanding the fact that various above brigade level headquarters bleed the units dry of officers and Senior NCMs, we have more enough to staff the 30 or so ResF units and three or four brigade headquarters that would remain under amalgamation. The existing RegF staff from 10 brigade headquarters and the RSS staff from some 135 ResF units would do that even before you cut back on a few div HQs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

while they are young students with lots of time in the summers

We should stop relying on post-secondary students so that schedules can be organized around what would suit the other 75% or so of the potential recruiting pool.

 

[MilEME09]

We should stop relying on post-secondary students so that schedules can be organized around what would suit the other 75% or so of the potential recruiting pool.

I've made this point many times that, while i get it summer works best for the student demographic. It doesn't for anyone else, Summer is the busiest in the civi world too. So why can't we run a serial or two in the winter for various trades courses? this would cater to shift workers, and those already established in their careers that can more easily take time off Oct - Mar

 

[FJAG]

I've made this point many times that, while i get it summer works best for the student demographic. It doesn't for anyone else, Summer is the busiest in the civi world too. So why can't we run a serial or two in the winter for various trades courses? this would cater to shift workers, and those already established in their careers that can more easily take time off Oct - Mar

No reason why we shouldn't. I just want to bulk up on the most available materiel while it has time and needs cash. Once they're trained and get jobs and families we should lay off the demands and simply focus on maintaining skills and advancing collective training.

I'm very bullish on trades, especially maintainers, and think we should exploit the hell out of putting people through community colleges with tuitions in winter, paid military trade conversion training in the summers, and maybe a year of Class B wrench bending to get experience and a resume in exchange for a few years of obligatory reserve service.

 

[Underway]

I asked a similar question over three decades ago. At the time posted to NDHQ, among my responsibilities was equipping medical facilities. With the 1987 Defence White Paper there were numerous projects on the books for expansion both overseas and in Canada. Among the several of which I was involved was one that proposed to acquire the equipment that would be needed to expand CF hospitals in the event of mobilization. It wasn't a major dollar amount, just a few million, but like many (most?) projects that sprung forth from the White Paper not a lot of staff work had been completed. In the case of this particular project, we were informed that due to slippage in a couple of other projects, the funding was available to quickly move it forward. My director at the time was pleased because completion would have been a measure of success. Once I got into the staffing, one of the things that got my attention was "mobilization" and what timeline did we have to follow to expand existing medical facilities. The war plans were not readily available in the Surg Gen branch, but I did get access. Since they were classified back then, I won't provide any details. However, after contacting "industry" (there were only a limited number of Canadian manufacturers), it was glaringly obvious that expansion could be accomplished without having to warehouse equipment that (in retrospect) could have sat there for decades before being disposed of, unused. My director was not happy with my recommendation that the project be shelved.

Now ask the same question of industry but tell them they can only source North American resources/supply lines to get it done. Wasn't really an issue in 1987 as globalization was truly starting to ramp up. But today with COVID we've seen what can happen with only a few shocks.

I suspect the answer would be the same, but the timeline for the industry would be stretched further out. Secure supply lines are again becoming something to think about on a grand scale.

 

[KevinB]

So Kev,

Just to be clear. You and Uncle Sam are happy with Canada freeloading on the domestic front. Have I got that right?

It is simply reality - when you look at the Geographic footprint of the Americas, the best defense if a robust Navy and Air Force supported by a Missile Defense Screen.

Just in case I haven't -

A single ACSV with parts, costs $5,500,000. And I am willing to bet that the CP versions of which the CAF seems so fond cost considerably more than that. It also requires annual maintenance and repairs resulting from training accidents AND it requires a climate controlled warehouse.

Subtract one ACSV from the production order and build the Reserves 5x 50,000 square foot warehouses. Sacrifice 4 ACSVs and every Regional Brigade Service Battalion could have its own 50,000 square foot warehouse for storing stuff that might come in handy.

Different pots of money - but I would agree that one needs significant Regional Storage and spares.

And old kit doesn't need spares. If it breaks it breaks.

Everything needs spares, or why have it.

In the mean time it has bought some time to build newer gear more appropriate to the new era or it will be replaced by newer gear that gets handed down in turn. And it has lived out its life usefully.

And that is the alternative to my silly buggers solution of disbanding 2 CMBG to find money for storing kit against the day that Just In Time fails.

The issue I see isn't solely an equipment issue for the PRes. It's organizational, and training/support.

 

[KevinB]

We should stop relying on post-secondary students so that schedules can be organized around what would suit the other 75% or so of the potential recruiting pool.

I would separate the PRes.
The High School and University crowd will give you 6 ish years of Summer Employment - the HS Summer break being shorter - but you can do a lot with 6 summers of employment.
Realistically there is a significant drop in Reserve retention after education and they join the "Real" world.

Having an "Active" Primary Reserve which can be guaranteed employment for 2,4,6,12 months, take Regular Force Courses, and transfer seamlessly into the Regular Army, that has 2 weekend/month, and a 2 month summer "activation" phase each year.

Then an "InActive" Secondary Reserve, where it is 1 weekend a month, 1 ( +more optional for courses etc) week during summer, once primary trade training has been completed.

 

[Underway]

It is simply reality - when you look at the Geographic footprint of the Americas, the best defense if a robust Navy and Air Force supported by a Missile Defense Screen.

I agree.

The US shifted rapidly to have a bigger Navy after they finished killing all the First Nations (internal "threat"). Mahan's On Sea Power was written in order to convince the US to invest more in the Navy and it worked. This was because it showed that the US didn't need a Royal Navy defeating investment, it just needed enough to deny sea control to the Royal Navy within continental limits.

Canada's defence goals are in order of priority: Defence of Canada, Defence of North America, Contribute Internationally OR Strong at Home, Secure in North America, Engaged with the World. Oh, wait those are exactly the same things and have been stable since the 1950s.

If we were to invest the way our national defence strategy has stated since post WW2 then we should be investing in resources that are optimized for all three but weighted to Canada and North American defence. Classic COA analysis. The best COA's based on most likely threats would put things like NORAD, BMD, airforce and navy primacy above the army. The army primacy comes when the Contribute Internationally actually tie into threatening Canada itself (keep the fight there so it doesn't come here sort of thinking).

Now to not derail the thread let's tie that back into preserving fleets.

If the army isn't the primary resource hog for the CAF, then there is no reason to preserve fleets. It would be far better to have GDLS constantly build/upgrade with new LAVs. Just keep replacing old LAV with new ones in the fleet and then divesting the older ones as necessary. I would rather the money that would go into inspection, care and feeding of a bunch of "classic cars" go into new/upgraded LAV's than hanging onto war stock like we are the US or Soviets.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I brought this up in the F-35 thread, but I think this applies to the CA as well.

Essentially, we buy a luxury car for top money and expect it to last and be top of the line for 30-40 years. A 1982 Lincoln Continental, even if well maintained, is no longer a luxury car. Heck, even an iPhone from 15 Years ago is archaic by 2022 standards. Technology now shifts at a rate of 5-10 years, depending on the industry. We do very poorly at life cycling to keep up with technology.

In 30-40 years time, we might not have diesel to fuel vehicles, as well as the various armaments and sensors associated with platforms will be vastly different than what we currently have on the shelf. Additionally, the spare parts and tooling for the platforms are usually depleted and not sustained because, well, the vendor and manufacturers move on and its no longer profitable to keep LSVW parts in production.

What needs to happen is changing our lifecycle management for platforms. We need to buy "good enough" kit, in solid numbers to support both Reg F and P Res, and have a plan to replace at least a third of the fleet in 5-10 years time. Over a 30 year period, you have replaced the entire fleet, gradually, with minimal impacts form inflation and defense industry gouging.

To continually swapping a full fleet every 40 years, when we're done and broken with the kit leaves us vulnerable to these capability gaps recurring every time.

 

[Spencer100]

Warehouse costs about $20 per square foot to build - steel structure upper end.
Bison is 21x8.5 ft or 178 sq ft
178 x $20 = $3560 per vehicle
Assume a 70% loading efficiency and you are looking at about $5000 per vehicle.
Assume 199 Bisons still available and you are now looking at a modest 50,000 sq ft (5000 m2) warehouse costing just about $1,000,000. Co-locate with a reserve service battalion at something like the Roper Street Armouries in Edmonton and you have minimal cost supervision and training. You could put all the existing Bisons under cover for 20 years for less than the cost of one new ACSV from GDLSCda.

A similar facility would house all the Coyotes.

Etc.

You missed a zero on the warehouse cost to build. It's in the 200.00 per foot now. I just got quotes.

 

[Underway]

What needs to happen is changing our lifecycle management for platforms. We need to buy "good enough" kit, in solid numbers to support both Reg F and P Res, and have a plan to replace at least a third of the fleet in 5-10 years time. Over a 30 year period, you have replaced the entire fleet, gradually, with minimal impacts form inflation and defense industry gouging.

The NSPS plan, where you just have a continuous build and never do a midlife refit.

And now that looks like what they are doing for GDLS for the LAV fleet. Upgrade to LAV 6 complete. Now do the ACSV program. Then there will be something new concocted for the SHORAD issue and on and on. Gotta keep the money flowing into London. Swing ridings there.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of the lessons of this current war is that AFV's and trucks are very expendable, so you will need a good supply of them. The war stock of AFV's does not need instantly mobile, you could have semi stripped hulls outside, properly preserved, with the engines, weapons, FCS, stored away in a smaller warehouse. If you combine this with a NSPS like AFV manufacturing ability, then as you renew the fleet and mothball the older generation, excess old mothballed AFV's are disposed of, either put together for sale or sold to another country as is. In fact create agreements to sell older stuff to friendly nations, so they become stable customers and you have a system to renew, store and dispose of AFV's. This also gives a cushion when the government of the day decides to "gift" your combat capability as well. So you can do the same with artillery, ATGM's, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

You missed a zero on the warehouse cost to build. It's in the 200.00 per foot now. I just got quotes.

Wow! 4 years difference.

Price of steel?

So the cost of a 50,000 sq ft (5000 m2) insulated shed for storing 200 Bisons is now 2x new ACSVs or about $10,000,000?

How Much Does a 10000 Sq Ft Steel Building Warehouse Cost?

Constructing a 10000 sq ft steel building warehouse requires detailed planning to determine and justify the high cost of the investment. Learn more.

www.alliedbuildings.com