What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?

[Edward Campbell]

Details of hulls and cruising speeds aside, its good to see that there's some unity of thought on the idea that we can't just configure the Army in a vacuum-we need to think about a joint force "package" that can project/protect/employ/sustain/recover itself in a expeditionary way. We cannot afford to have Army, Navy, Air Force (nor supporting organizations such as Comms, MP, Med) focused on their own little rice bowls and losing sight of the big picture. I hope that some of the thinking we see in these posts will be reflected in the results of the Def/ForPol review and the resulting force structure. Cheers.

Agreed.

I think we need to recognize some strategic imperatives:

First: we must have sufficient internal security and home defence forces.   These will likely be 'reserve' forces - not in the sense of a regular/permanent force vs. reserve/militia force but rather in the sense of expeditionary (ready) vs. reserve (resting/rebuilding) components;

Second: there is no 'conventional' direct threat to Canada but we must maintain the surveillance, detection/identification and interception capabilities, including quick reaction, light (almost certainly air mobile if not airborne) land forces.   Forces which have intercepted an intruder must be powerful enough to see the intruder off - a couple of Mounties ferried about in a Griffon is not the right answer;

Third: the threats to our peace and prosperity are best countered by taking preventive military actions - e.g. to rescue failing states.   We need sufficient expeditionary forces to -

"¢ Conduct, unilaterally, large unit/small formation low intensity operations anywhere in the world and on fairly short notice,

"¢ Participate, as members of a coalition of the willing, in mid-to-high intensity operations anywhere in the world after a brief period of preparation/mobilization;

"¢ Participate, as members of an alliance, in all levels of operations - including general war, far from home, after a period of mobilization.

We probably need some light (amphibious and air mobile/airborne) army forces - maybe several battle groups' worth, organized into joint task forces at the heart of our permanent expeditionary force.   These forces will be best able to handle low intensity, unilateral operations and to 'lead' the way into mid-intensity operations.   We should, also, have a 'medium' (motorized/mechanized) formation (brigade+/-) within another joint task force which can participate, fully, in mid-intensity operations and 'lead' the way into higher intensity missions.   These must be backed up by adequate reserves (who are available for internal security in their copious free time between deployments).  

Consider, just for the sake of argument:

"¢ 10 to 15 battalions of infantry - four light units (two amphibious and two airborne) at high states of readiness and three more in a mechanized/motorized formation - in an up to strength albeit not too 'ready' state;

"¢ A half dozen 'cavalry' units - some with Strykers or even light tanks, some with recce/surveillance/target acquisition systems and some with attack helicopters.   Some units will be full regiments, others independent squadrons or composite units;

"¢ An artillery brigade;

"¢ Combat support and combat service support units - including army aviation and electronic (information) warfare units;

"¢ A few VSTOL fighter/bomber squadrons;

"¢ An air transport wing (maybe four heavy lift strategic transports - like the C-17s, possibly leased, 30+ modern medium tactical transports plus some heavy lift helicopters - not unlike the ones we sold to the Dutch several years back); and

"¢ A couple of Navy task groups built around a 30,000+/- ton strategic transport/landing platform.

That would require a massive increase in the defence spending - maybe (remember, please, I've been retired for a long, long time) a 100% increase (to 2% of GDP) over a fairly short period - say five years, and then sustainment for protracted periods.

 

[Inch]

I think all this thinking and planning is a healthy thing -- I just hope people high up in the Canadian government and CFHQ are doing the same thing.

One thing that strikes me is the unconscious mind-set I see -- that Canada is unlikely to ever be attacked from the outside.   Peggy mentioned possible threats to Vancouver Island and she was pooh-poohed.   After all, leaving aside the US, who could invade Canada?  

Well, how about a commandeered ro-ro carrier?   Filled with maybe 5,000 bloodthirsty terrorists.   How long would it take an armed mob to disembark from the ship, take over local transport and secure the entire island?  

Mind you, I'm not talking about an enemy intent on conquering Vancouver or any other part of Canada.   I'm talking about terrorists intent on killing all the infidels they can find and probably holding large numbers of civilians hostage.   The horrible possibilites are endless.

So, tell me.   If Canadian authorities had four hours notice of the approach of this ship, what forces are in position to assault into Vancouver and stop them?   Remember, they'll have the ship laden with anti-air missile defenses and probably some anti-ship missiles.   Such things are not hard to come by.   And a ro-ro ship would be difficult to sink.

General, you have four hours.   How do you stop the terrorists?

Time starts -- now.

PS: I'm not comparing Canada and the US here.   I'm not sure we're geared up adequately for this threat either.

You're gonna have to think up a harder question than that. If people would actually listen to someone that knows what's going on, they'd be told that a couple Nuke subs could stop any seaborne threat without being detected.  It really is a simple solution. If we're worried about an assault from sea, I would highly doubt that the infidels have a good anti-sub capability, even if they have a few SSKs (keeping in mind that SSKs aren't designed for overseas ops, they're more of a domestic operator).  So you head over with your 2-3 Nuke subs at a high rate of speed (Nukes can do about 30+ knots) and you launch a few torps, it only takes one hit to sink most ships and buh-bye terrorists.

In reality, with Sat images and the wealth of intel out there, we'd know quite a while in advance, they don't just show up without warning. We watch out to 200nm, even if the badguys are doing 20kts, it'll take them 10 hrs to reach shore. That's tons of time to launch an Aurora and confirm the ship's location without getting in range of the AA defences, then they tell the Frigates and missiles away. I apologise for the vagueness of my answer, but due to OPSEC, I can't tell you the details on how we'd do it, but we could.  I still think a sub would be way more effective, but given the equipment we've got, we could probably handle it long before they got to shore.

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yeah that pretty much sums it up Inch.

 

[a_majoor]

So while its a nice idea its not feasible or practical. If it was don't you think navies the world over would have already done it? They don't for a reason. I am not trying to put you down in anyway but I do have a lot of experience with ships.

Just getting back to Naval support for the expeditionary force, here is an interesting link for an already existing, made in Canada solution:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc4.htm   the catamaran ships built for BC Ferries! They are actually bigger than the HMAS Jervis Bay or similar ships the American Army and Navy are experimenting with, so launching a large part of a Brigade Battle Group should be possible.Maybe I am missing something, but most of what I have read regarding the INCAT catamaran ships at least implies they can cross the ocean at 30kts. Even if they cross the ocean at 18 kts, the ability to make high speed dashes would probably provide some extra protection to the convoy and the battle group as they prepare to deploy near the hostile shore.

Although there are lots of possible objections to converting a civillian ship for military use, these are available now. We don't need to wait a decade or more for the Joint Support Ship, and the experience gained through the use of these ships by both the Navy and Army communities will make the next generation of purpose built ships even better.

 

[Inch]

It doesn't make a lick of difference if the tanker can go faster than the ships that are escorting it, because it will never leave it's escort. Tankers are high value assets and they're continuously protected by the other ships in the Task Group. As was stated already, warships don't do 30kts in the open ocean, it really eats the gas. If you needed stuff in theater yesterday, Strategic airlift is how you get it there, not sea lift. So, despite popular belief that heavy sea lift is the answer, you better have the warships to defend your high value assets. You think losing a man or two is bad? How about an entire battlegroup and their equipment on an unescorted tanker? There's a reason each US nuke carrier sails with tons of other ships, it's high value and nothing gets close to it without permission. Period.

Cheers

 

[hugh19]

OK as to the RO RO  4 harpoons would leave it a burning hulk. No need to sink it and plus added benefit of BBQed terrorists. Ever seen burnt sailors??? Not pretty imagine a burning tank with 250 people on it and no where to go.

As for the ferries, the INCAT ferries have a wave piercing bow designed for the open ocean. The BC ferries would have been designed for coastal work. Much different construction required. Plus no amphib capability either so it would have to dock at a already secured jetty not often going to happen. Plus what would the ships do when not carrying troops? Not much use navalwise. Unless u want a true amphib ship.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Not to mention the CF18s that are forward deplyed in Comox. I am not sure if we have the airlaunched harpoons but thats an option as are CRV7 rocket pods and laser guided bombs.

 

[R031button]

Now I may be just a newbie ass Private (Recruit), but bear with me on this.

What Canada needs is a force that is large enough for us to mount a sustainable 5-6 op and not drain our forces too much. This being said, we NEED more, twice if not three times, then what we have. We also have a 9 billion dollar budget surplus, and no reason no to expect another one.Taking both these points into consideration, I propose this. We add 2 billion dollars to the budget each year for 6 years. In addition we cut much of the bureaucracy found at DND HQ, and then cut down on the number of reserve regiments(but all get there later). The result would be a "light Corps" commanded by a Lt. General, and organized as such. It would be made up of 3 divisions, commanded by Maj. Generals, containing 3 brigades, a battalion of artillery and a full CER. Two of it's Brigades, commanded by Brigadiers, would be mechanized; made up of two Infantry Regiments and an Armoured Regiment, commanded by Cols. The Infantry Regiments would consist of a LAV3 Battalion, a DFS company (replacing the Combat Support company) of LAV3 based DFS systems, a battery of 6 LAV3 120mm Mortars, an engineering platoon in LAV 3 variants, a Support and maintenance coy,and a Recce platoon mounted in LAV3's. All of this would correspond to approximately 1,200-1,500 troops. The armoured variant would be much the same; only based on a battalion of 3 Squadrons of 15 tanks(purchased off of our NATO allies) or the LAV3 DFS, it would be supported by: an Infantry Sqdn, a battery of 120mm mortars, an armoured engineering trp, an armoured Recce Sqn of Coyotes, and a maintenance and support Sqn(containing an armoured recovery trp). This formation would also be of about 1,200-1,500, brining the full Brigade up to between 4,000 and 5,000 soldiers.The their brigade would be an air mobile one, made up of two battalions of infantry, one Para and the other Airmobile. These would be supported by an Canadian Aviation Regiment, made up of enough transport planes to drop on battalion, and enough large helicopters (Chinooks preferably) to move the remaining battalion, as well as a small number of Recce/attack helicopters to provide the light battalions with DFS support. These light Brigades would be of about 3,000 soldiers, and on a higher level of readiness then the other Brigades. The airforce would also be reorganized, into four Tactical Wings, each consiting of Fighter, Transport, and Helicopter Squadrons, plus the required maitenance resources. Also, two SAR Wings would be built up to provide SAR for Central and Western Canada. The Navy would also have two SAR wings(one per coast), attached to one of two coastal defense fleets. These fleets would be built around MCDVs, OSPVs, UAVs and CPFs, as well as Martime Helicopter Squadrons. The would be responsible for the security of Canada's coast lines against Drug trafficking, illegal immigrations, smuggling, etc. This would replace/merge with the coast guard (providing men and money). In addition to these fleets would be the Navy's 4 expeditionary fleets(2 to a coast), designed around the concept of moving, deploying and supporting a full Regiment in a Theater of operations. These would be built around a JSS, Destroyers and Frigates, as well as a Martime Helicopter squadron. One fleet, Wing and Brigade would be designated rapid reaction for as long as four months at a time, before rotating.

 

[jrhume]

So a ro-ro carrier or something like that is no threat, eh?  Satellites can look inside a ship and tell when one is loaded with terrorists?  Somehow, I don't think you understand how chaotic worldwide shipping can be.

And, of course, there'll be a nuke sub handy to sink the thing.  Or a plane loaded with Harpoons.  P-3s carry a couple, when on maratime patrols.  Does Canada have routine maratime patrols out?  I don't need an answer that involves operational security.

I believe something like this scenario is a definite threat -- not just to Canada, but to the US and other targets around the world. 

But, I'm probably just being an alarmist. 

  Jim

 

[Inch]

These would be supported by an Canadian Aviation Regiment, made up of enough transport planes to drop on battalion, and enough large helicopters (Chinooks preferably) to move the remaining battalion, as well as a small number of Recce/attack helicopters to provide the light battalions with DFS support. These light Brigades would be of about 3,000 soldiers, and on a higher level of readiness then the other Brigades. The airforce would also be reorganized, into four Tactical Wings, each consiting of Fighter, Transport, and Helicopter Squadrons, plus the required maitenance resources. Also, two SAR Wings would be built up to provide SAR for Central and Western Canada. The Navy would also have two SAR wings(one per coast), attached to one of two coastal defense fleets.  One fleet, Wing and Brigade would be designated rapid reaction for as long as four months at a time, before rotating.

R031, the army part looks good to me, but I'm an airforce guy and I see some holes in your airforce theory.

If you've only got 4 wings and 9 Brigades, you're over rotating the airforce wings by having 1 of each on a constant rapid reaction stance. You'd be further ahead and waste less resources if you went with Sqn size units. We also tend to be always on a higher readiness, just the nature of the job.  You may need a couple strat airlift sqns to move a brigade overseas, but you're not going to need more than one to sustain it. Also, unless you're doing air mobility operations on a regular basis, having more than a Sqn of TacHel in theater is just a waste.

From an organizational standpoint, I think we've got the Air Force nailed down as is, we could use a few more sqns here and there, but for the most part we've got it.  A Wing in the air force is simply a name for the operational units on a particular base, ie CFB Moose Jaw is the infrastructure that supports 15 Wing, which consists of 2 CFFTS, 431 AD Sqn and 15 Air Traffic Control Sqn. There are a couple exceptions, but no more than that. We have multiple different Sqns/Units at any Wing, with 2 exceptions, those being 12 Wing (MH) & 1 Wing (TacHel).  

12 Wing based in Shearwater controls all MH sqns (the 2 operational sqns, the training sqn and the air maintenance sqn), since we only send one helo per ship in most cases, they're sent as detachments. In this manner, we're quite flexible as to how many ships we can support if we had more men and aircraft. Not all ships are at sea at the same time, so the airdets rotate to the ones that are going to sea.

1 Wing is the TacHel Wing, the sqns are spread across the country at all the major army bases where they're needed. This keeps all tactics and procedures common across the Wing and enables augmenting as required with no difficulty in integrating. If you wanted to add a TacHel sqn for each battalion or brigade, you could simply add a second or third sqn to the base of choice, all the while maintaining the command and control through 1 Wing HQ.

As for the fighters, they do a lot more than close air support (CAS), stuff like Combat Air Patrols (CAPs), Air superiority, interception of hostile and civil aircraft, as well as precision bombing. CAS is just a small piece of the puzzle and in that respect, I think the existing organization is fine too.  Anytime CAS is needed, they send a detachment of jets to wherever they're needed. An entire Sqn of 15 jets isn't necessary. At present we have four Tac Fighter Sqns, two at 4 Wing Cold Lake and two at 3 Wing Bagotville.

4 SAR Wings is definitely overkill, at present we have 4 SAR Sqns, which seem to do the domestic SAR role quite well. They're based in Comox, Trenton, Greenwood and Gander. If you're talking about Combat SAR, then you're opening a whole new ball of wax, at present only the Americans posses that capability, not even the British. We also have 3 Combat Support Sqns (CSS) flying Griffons, their primary role is base rescue for the fighter bases: Cold Lake, Bagotville, and Goose Bay (all foreign fighters, we don't have any Sqns at Goose other than 444 CSS).

Transport and Maritime Patrol Sqns are pretty much the same as SAR, there's multiple Sqns across the country at different Wings.

Since you'd only have 1 or 2 Brigades, or at most 3, overseas at any one time, WW3 aside, it'd be far easier to rotate the Sqns required instead of having a dedicated Wing of multiple Sqns, some of which wouldn't be used, rotated with the Brigades.

I think you've got a good grasp on the Army side, but I think you need a little more exposure to the Air Force and Navy before you start suggesting  how they should be organised. They don't work the same way the Army does.

Cheers

 

[Inch]

So a ro-ro carrier or something like that is no threat, eh?   Satellites can look inside a ship and tell when one is loaded with terrorists?   Somehow, I don't think you understand how chaotic worldwide shipping can be.

And, of course, there'll be a nuke sub handy to sink the thing.   Or a plane loaded with Harpoons.   P-3s carry a couple, when on maratime patrols.   Does Canada have routine maratime patrols out?   I don't need an answer that involves operational security.

I believe something like this scenario is a definite threat -- not just to Canada, but to the US and other targets around the world.  

But, I'm probably just being an alarmist.  

  Jim

Jim, you replied while I was typing my novel. I never said a sat could look inside a ship, but if it's hijacked or stolen, by the time it gets here, someone is going to know. Most companies don't just sweep the loss of a multi million dollar ship under the rug. It's amazing what Intelligence can know and find out. Plus, a ship that size has to port somewhere.  The nuke sub was a theoretical thing, a "what if we had them" kinda thing. Auroras do patrol quite often, they don't carry Harpoons that I know of, but they don't need to. They're connected to the Frigates with a data link and can target for the ship to fire her weapons. From what I've found on the internet, ro-ro's do about 20 kts, our Frigates can go faster than that so catching it isn't a problem.

Anyway, I'm having some serious doubts that this could be a problem, 20 kts isn't a "oh my god! The terrorists are coming!" kind of thing.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

With respect to Old Guy's scenario, I've always thought that a Container ship declaring an emergency and hauling into Prince Rupert would make for an interesting scenario.  Vessel hauls into the harbor with a compliant and authorized Captain on board.  Containers burst open, 1000 nasty looking individuals with adequate training hit the dock.  Commandeer available vehicles and scatter.  In about 10 hours a goodly number of them are amonst the pipelines, refineries and tarsands of Alberta.  The rest of them who knows where.

On the other hand they could come in at Vancouver airport wearing suits and cause a lot less fuss.

 

[pbi]

With respect to Old Guy's scenario, I've always thought that a Container ship declaring an emergency and hauling into Prince Rupert would make for an interesting scenario. Vessel hauls into the harbor with a compliant and authorized Captain on board. Containers burst open, 1000 nasty looking individuals with adequate training hit the dock. Commandeer available vehicles and scatter. In about 10 hours a goodly number of them are amonst the pipelines, refineries and tarsands of Alberta. The rest of them who knows where.

On the other hand they could come in at Vancouver airport wearing suits and cause a lot less fuss.

Kirkhill: your second option is a lot more effective. If you're familiar with the Prince Rupert area, you know that it would be pretty difficult for terrorists to "scatter"-there's only one highway running into PR, through quite rugged country.As well, these folks might not "blend in" very well, if you know what I mean. Once warned of the event (it's hard to imagine that they could completely shut down ALL comms in a community the size of PR) it would be a relatively simple matter to block the roads. Even if we couldn't get the IRU up there in time, the local fellas with their pickups and shotguns would no doubt be more than happy to shoot at a few persons of that particular persuasion. In fact, if I was a terr I'd be more worried about the locals in northern BC than about the security forces! Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

the local fellas with their pickups and shotguns

Hey I'd be worried about them with hockey sticks, much less guns. ;D

 

[Acorn]

People need to analize intent a bit more before putting forward scenarios of 1000+ terrorists hitting Wreck Beach. Part of the int fuction is to provide commanders with the most likely and most dangerous enemy courses of action. If int were to flood commanders with "most funky" scenarios decisions would never be made.

That being said, regarding the terrorist takover of a ship and attack in Vancouver, the CF has a number of options.

First: there are CF-188s on alert in Comox. They could react and attack any maritime target in a fairly quick time period.

Second: one gets to Vancouver via waterways that connect to Esquimalt. Given sufficient warning the navy could have a frigate or destroyer shadowing or attacking a suspect vessel in fairly short order.

Finally: the effect of torpedoes is overrated in modern warfare. Do not assume that any civvy ship is an easy target for a sub or surface ship. modern maritime construction has come a long way from WWII, especially tankers (to give an example - a WWII German type VII sub could probably expend its whole torpedo load into a modern ship without sinking it).

And finally, Army response would be last resort, and 1k+ terrorists hitting the beach in False Creek would be a disaster - the militia is the only close response of the CF, and I seriously doubt they could mount a credible response in a reasonable amount of time.

A more realistic threat is a terrorist takeover of a ship filled with toxic chemicals or explosives and detonating it in Vancouver harbour. Not much the Army could do to prevent that, so we'd be more likely to be used in post-attack relief.

Acorn

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Finally: the effect of torpedoes is overrated in modern warfare. Do not assume that any civvy ship is an easy target for a sub or surface ship. modern maritime construction has come a long way from WWII, especially tankers (to give an example - a WWII German type VII sub could probably expend its whole torpedo load into a modern ship without sinking it).

The effect of torpedoes is certainly not over rated!. If anything they have gotten more deadly. Ask any carrier CO and he will tell you that torpedoes are still thier main concern, neither anti ship missiles nor cruise missiles. Ships are certainly more survivable then they were in the past but a Mk 48 will certainly break a super tanker in two just the same. Even a Victoria class sub would not have to expend its entire war load.
Any sailor worth his salt fears the fish.

 

[Inch]

Ex-D, maybe this will help.

To add a bit.... Missiles (ie harpoon, etc), don't tend to sink ships, they'll do massive damage but not anywhere near what a torpedo will do. I've seen a video of two harpoon missiles fired at an old destroyer and all they did was punch two holes in the side of the ship. They exploded inside and did a lot of damage but the ship was left afloat. The only visible damage from the outside was the two holes that resembled bullet holes.

I posted this link in another thread. It's a single Mk48 torpedo fired at a decommissioned Australian Destroyer by a submerged sub, the sub was 12 miles away and out of sight. Now tell us again how much of a threat modern torpedoes are, keeping in mind that modern torpedoes have a bit better sonar than their WW2 counterparts. Now in the following pictures, take notice of the second picture, the puff of black smoke is from the concussion wave forcing the smoke out of the stack.

http://www.ssbn622.homestead.com/Sinkex.html

Cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Two modern comparisons come to mind as well:
The 2 exocets fired at the USS Stark by the Iraqi Air Force. The Stark albeit with casualties and heavy damage survived.

The General Belgrano, a WW2 vintage USN cruiser (Brooklyn class I believe), is engaged during the Falklands Islands war by HMS Conqueror and is sunk. Most WW2 cruisers were built with a thick anti torpedo belt which would act almost like a double hull in modern day comparisons.

 

[a_majoor]

There is really a need for "two armies", the expeditionary force to project power abroad, and a "Home guard" type of force to deal with the Tom Clancey scenarios.

The reserve could be the basis for the home guard, since they don't have to be on high alert all the time, and because they are geographically dispersed, it is impossible to take them out with a single event. In fact, it might even be prefferable to relocate reserve units which are in major urban centres and potential target zones to get them out of the "LNG tanker exploding in the harbour" range.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree with you a_majoor.   There should be two armies.   The Militia should perhaps be organized around concentric rings.   A permanent full-time cadre (regulars essentially by so as not to create an argument) responsible for adm and trg as well as providing an emergency response group (platoon for example) perhaps with CT, EOD and Hazmat/CBRN skills.   The next ring could be B and C class reservists, essentially employed full time in their local area and reporting to the armoury for their stand-by shift.   Next ring would be A Class organized like a volunteer fire department with pagers and anticipating a fan-out call,   and finally supplementaries that undergo regular but infrequent refresher trg   (current schedule perhaps? fewer weekends but 6x 4 day weekends a year?   just thinking...)?

Training would require dedicated time slots.   eg 1-3 months for new entries?   2- 4 weeks for Rank and Trades Qualification courses?    Plus training that could be done in the armouries while members are available.

This way the community is not deprived of the earning power of the Militiaman who is no longer filling their primary role in society (whether that be courier, lawyer, CEO or doctor).   Their duties can be scheduled within the needs of the community and they will still be able to do their day job. Just like a volunteer fireman.   They would be fully available to serve in their Militia role when the economy of the community shuts down due to some major disaster or threat of disaster, be they natural or man-made.

And of course their would be nothing to prevent the Militiaman volunteering to make him/herself available for training and deployment with the expeditionary force.  

For home guard duties I perceive the primary tasks as being Field and National Communications, Tactical Transport (for when the roads don't work), EOD and possibly CBRN type Hazmat, Engineering duties, and security which would require infantry and wheeled patrol capabilities primarily equipped with small arms and some heavier, man-portable direct fire weapons.  Other duties would include the ability to rapidly supply shelter with water, power, sanitation and meals. 

I don't think that there should be much emphasis on the medical side beyond providing for the needs of the units themselves.  The provincial and national medical systems should be organized to provide that type of care in a national emergency. Likewise for engineering, their is lots of civilian capability available to rebuild infrastructure rapidly. It just needs to be organized.

One other role I would emphasize for the Militia could be the provision of fire batteries for the Artillery.   It seems to me that the need for FOOs/MFCs in current expeditionary ops is greater than the need for Gunners per se.   Perhaps the observation and command elements should form the core of the expeditionary arty regiments with only one or two fire batteries per regiment but each regiment could have a larger number of Militia fire batteries attached for call up in the event of higher intensity conflicts.   The duties of such Militia units could be complementary to their internal security duties.   The Brit Arty and the USMC Arty I believe are routinely used on peace support missions without their guns.