I still think my idea of a 4 year rotational cycle makes sense.
Inf units cycle on an offset 2 year cycle
The LdSH and Minor units and HQ are fixed in theatre. LdSH cycles troops and Minor units take individual postings on offset 4 year periods.
We used to rotate units into and out of 4 CIBG/CMBG and then settled into an individual posting routine. (Anyone else remember 4 Mech Cdo?).
For the artillery, individual postings worked well because of the "one regiment thing". You would expect to lose some people every summer but had some come back as well (although many frequently skipped off on career courses on coming back).
The good thing was you never had to go through a three or four year cycle of anything. You had an annual training plan that allowed you to quickly integrate posted-in people, new ones from the schools (like junior officers coming every September and senior captains and WOs/ MWOs and battery commanders coming from the IG course and instructor tours at the school). Basically you started with about 15-20% new, but fully individually trained, folks in September and finished with a highly trained unit by the next spring.
I'm personally of the view that 6 month and even 1 year rotations, with a 2 to 3 year managed readiness cycle, is the high road to ruining an army. I'm not sure that a 4 year rotational cycle is any better as it uproots a regiment (and its families) every 4 years and frequently transfers them to a new home station than the one they left from.
I think an achievable but effective model would be a Canadian-led Brigade in Latvia roughly comprising the following:
I won't go into the details of your thoughts as I think we're close on the generalities and the details are points for honest debate.
I agree that the only way to maintain a sustainable presence in Latvia at the brigade level is with a combination of leadership and logistics components that are posted there (accompanied) for a period of three to four years and a flyover component. Whether or not the brigade is multinational or full Canadian is immaterial to me. Multi-national reduces the Canadian manpower and equipment requirements but complicates the command and control and logistics enormously. Its a saw off which is the more important to you. Regardless of format, you need a fully formed brigade that can work adequately within the multi-national divisional structure (and that too has serious shortcomings for C&C, logistics and divisional level capabilities).
My own preference is for a brigade based on a 70/30 and 30/70 structure. In effect, for a 100% Canadian brigade group, the brigade HQ, Svc Bn and theatre logistics command are 70/30 with the 70 % being posted -in multi-year and the 30% being flyover augmentees. The armoured regiment, infantry battalions and artillery regiment and engineer squadron (yup - I'm going back to squadrons) would be 30/70 constituted of a robust posted-in headquarters and one subunit with the remaining 70% of the headquarters and remaining subunits being fly-over. The key here is that the flyover units would not do rotational predeployment training. They merely do a normal training year at home in Canada and once or twice a year are flown over to exercise at the combined arms/joint level and to show the flag.
Implicit in this is that the RCAF have a standing plan and commitment to flyover roughly 2,000 folks by way of their own or chartered flights. Exercising this plan should be considered their part of an operations and training NATO commitment.
That would essentially have roughly 7-800 people in units and another 7-800 in support functions posted OUTCAN for 3 to 4 year cycles and have roughly 1/2+ of our armour and artillery and 1/3 of our LAVs deployed OUTCAN which leaves a tight but adequate training fleet for Canada as well as a cushion on LAVs for other operational deployments. Wear and tear on equipment would be better spread out as there would be considerable maintenance time available for much of the deployed fleet.
If the brigade becomes mutli-national then the predeployed equipment and flyover component could either be adjusted downward or form a fourth manoeuvre battalion (possibly even a light one).
The options are endless but basically revolve around a part of the force being posted long term and the other part conducting normal unit training in Canada but, for some sub-units, conducting their annual combined arms exercises overseas rather than at home.