Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Brad Sallows]

And yet the demise of the Ram was in substantial part because of the ability of the US to mass produce Shermans.

 

[FJAG]

PzH 2000 were to be chosen as a much-belated SPG replacement.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll wait for the production runs of the M1299.

 

[quadrapiper]

There is a lesson hidden somewhere in the tale of the Ram tank.

Like: When you're a major industrialized nation and you're in war, and your major allies can't spare any tanks, you need to be able to build your own.

Exactly that. Wonder, too, if Germany would be keen on the notion of a plant somewhere that's not Germany, as a bonus.

Why not leverage the SW Ontario automotive triangle and build on the existing facilities in London linked to the facilities in Lima Ohio. I'm with @WestIsle - cut the ties with European manufacturers. Build our own with ties into the US industry. If we buy and build American we tie into the largest weapons R&D and manufacturing industrial complex in the world. If we can manufacture parts and assemble our own gear here and stream parts into the US and foreign users then we might just might be able to sustain a defence industry here.

Linking to the US that firmly would seem to leave you at the mercy of decisions made to get Representative or Senator Bloggins donations and votes. At least the European manufacturers aren't operating in a feedback loop driven by one country's trough.

 

[quadrapiper]

Thanks but no thanks. I'll wait for the production runs of the M1299.

For the sake of the range?

 

[FJAG]

... Linking to the US that firmly would seem to leave you at the mercy of decisions made to get Representative or Senator Bloggins donations and votes. At least the European manufacturers aren't operating in a feedback loop driven by one country's trough.

This would be worse than the crap fest we have now? How?

Our aviation industry has worked for decades with such arrangements ever since the Arrow was dropped.

For the sake of the range?

That too. Also for volume of production and a North American maintenance base.

 

[KevinB]

Exactly that. Wonder, too, if Germany would be keen on the notion of a plant somewhere that's not Germany, as a bonus.

Linking to the US that firmly would seem to leave you at the mercy of decisions made to get Representative or Senator Bloggins donations and votes. At least the European manufacturers aren't operating in a feedback loop driven by one country's trough.

You already are and you don't know it.

I do not see a cost effective manner of acquisition for the CA and RCAF that doesn't come out of the US, and there is the NSS for the RCN.

 

[Kirkhill]

You already are and you don't know it.

I do not see a cost effective manner of acquisition for the CA and RCAF that doesn't come out of the US, and there is the NSS for the RCN.

I was just reading an article on food processing in Canada.

In the 15 years prior to 2021 Canada built 20 "national scale" plants.
In the same time period the US built 4000.

The US plants buy 100% of Canadian raw materials.
They supply 9% of their output to meet 100% of our needs.

 

[KevinB]

I was just reading an article on food processing in Canada.

In the 15 years prior to 2021 Canada built 20 "national scale" plants.
In the same time period the US built 4000.

The US plants buy 100% of Canadian raw materials.
They supply 9% of their output to meet 100% of our needs.

We are still the Arsenal of Democracy...

10k plus M1 Abrams tanks produced.
3,500 of which are in war stock (well were - we broke out V Corps German storage recently...)

 

[GR66]

The big question to my mind regarding tanks is if Canada decides to permanently station additional forces in Europe beyond our eFP Latvia commitment or not.

The main theater where we would be likely NEED to use tanks is Europe and after this Ukraine fiasco I can't imagine Russia any time in the near future conducting any attack against NATO which isn't a surprise attack (to avoid NATO reinforcing prior to the invasion).

So to my mind, if the government makes the decision to pre-deploy forces in Europe (either manned or pre-positioned) then tanks make sense. If not, then since we don't have the capability to rapidly move heavy forces into Europe then we should focus on light forces that we can quickly move to theatre in response to an attack.

As has been mentioned on these forums a million times or more previously (by numerous people), what we really need is proper Foreign Policy and Defence White Papers to define what the government wants the CF to do. Without that force design is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle without a picture to follow.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile the US Army budge 2022-23

Army’s proposed budget calls for fewer soldiers but more money​

BY
JOHN VANDIVER
• STARS AND STRIPES • MARCH 28, 2022

The Army’s budget request for 2023 calls for fewer soldiers in uniform even as the service seeks $3 billion more in annual funding, according to budget documents released Monday.

The $177.5 billion spending proposal, up from last year’s $174.7 billion, reverses multiple years of budget cutbacks for the Army, which is during a weapons modernization push that has been challenged by budget constraints.

But while spending is going up, the number of soldiers slated to serve in the Army would fall if the budget request becomes law. The Army’s end strength would be reduced from 1,010,500 to 998,500, making a force of 473,000 active-duty soldiers, 336,000 National Guard troops and 189,500 in the Reserve.

KH Edit (US Population of 329 million to our 38 million - a factor of 8.6

(998,500/8.6 = 116,000 Canadian Army
(473,000/8.6 = 55,000 Canadian Regs
(336,000/8.6 = 39,000 Canadian Militia and Rangers
(189,500/8.6 = 22,000 Canadian Reserves (ex-service personnel liable for recall)

Pentagon officials said one reason for the Army seeking a smaller active force is a tough recruiting environment in which the military is struggling to compete for recruits given historically low unemployment rates.

“This is not a budget driven decision. It is about maintaining the high quality of our talent,” Undersecretary of the Army Gabe Camarillo said.

He said the Army will build the active force back up as the recruiting environment improves. Other military branches also have faced difficulties in recruiting new members given increased competition in the civilian sector.

One of the drivers of growth is the Army’s operation budget, which calls for $58.3 billion, up from $55.3 billion in 2022. That will support increased flying hours for aviators and 22 combat training center rotations, up from 20 last year and other initiatives.

KH Edit (More Training)

There also is a $3.2 billion increase for military personnel, adding up to $69.1 billion overall. This is connected to a pay increase for troops.

The Army said it also is upping funds to support “climate resilience,” expanding nontactical electric vehicles and training in extreme weather conditions.

KH Edit (Arctic training - new meaning to "it ain't training if it ain't raining" and "infantry sunshine")


The Army said it will be able to “maintain momentum” with its modernization push, prioritizing things such as advances in long-range precision fires, missile defense and next-generation combat vehicles. The Army also wants funding for a prototype of a long-range hypersonic missile system with the aim of fielding the first battery in the 2023 fiscal year.

The Army also wants to spend more on missile procurement, $21.3 billion, including more investments in aircraft and munitions, while scaling back on new investments in Abrams tanks and Stryker combat vehicles.

Overseas, the Army is requesting $14.6 billion for operations, more than $4 billion of which supports the European Deterrence Initiative focused on deterring Russian aggression.

Army’s proposed budget calls for fewer soldiers but more money

The $177.5 billion spending proposal, up from last year’s $174.7 billion, reverses multiple years of budget cutbacks for the Army, which is during a weapons modernization push that has been challenged by budget constraints.

www.stripes.com

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile the US Army budge 2022-23

Army’s proposed budget calls for fewer soldiers but more money

The $177.5 billion spending proposal, up from last year’s $174.7 billion, reverses multiple years of budget cutbacks for the Army, which is during a weapons modernization push that has been challenged by budget constraints.

www.stripes.com

12k personnel cut for Big Army -- maybe the CA could ask nicely for the equipment that was there for those guys

 

[Kirkhill]

Following from my belief that our Prime Minister's team is adopting their cues from Germany these days - Force 2025 it'll be.

I wonder what the world will look like in three years? The F35 decision, the AOPSs, the JSSs and the CSCs, together with an early decision on the North Warning System will buy time until the next election. The F35 will start delivery just in time for the photo ops.

Germany military to quicken push for combat readiness, defmin says​

Author of the article:

Reuters

Publishing date:
Mar 29, 2022 • 3 hours ago • 1 minute read • Join the conversation

Article content​

BERLIN — Germany will build up its military quicker than planned by bringing a division to combat-readiness two years ahead of schedule, Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Tuesday, detailing Berlin’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Germany will reach NATO’s planning targets faster than promised,” she said, according to the draft text of a speech she was due to deliver at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.

“We will have the planned division of the army combat-ready in 2025, two years ahead of time.”

While Germany does not have a single combat-ready army division at the moment, it had 12 such divisions in the 1980s during the Cold War.

According to its original schedule, Berlin was aiming for one combat-ready division in 2027 and a total of three combat-ready divisions in 2032.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in a major policy shift for the country after decades of attrition, pledged to inject 100 billion euros ($111.15 billion) into the Bundeswehr after the start of the war in Ukraine.

The money is earmarked for ramping up the German military’s readiness, mainly by buying weapons and equipment that troops have so far lacked.

Since Scholz’s landmark speech on Feb. 27, three days after the invasion, Berlin has announced the purchase of F-35 fighter jets from the United States and said it is aiming to buy a missile defense system. Scholz also said Germany would sharply raise defense spending to more than 2% of its economic output. ($1 = 0.8997 euros) (Reporting by Sabine Siebold, Editing by Miranda Murray, William Maclean)

Germany military to quicken push for combat readiness, defmin says

BERLIN — Germany will build up its military quicker than planned by bringing a division to combat-readiness two years ahead of schedule, Defence Minister Christine …

financialpost.com

 

[KevinB]

Following from my belief that our Prime Minister's team is adopting their cues from Germany these days - Force 2025 it'll be.

I wonder what the world will look like in three years? The F35 decision, the AOPSs, the JSSs and the CSCs, together with an early decision on the North Warning System will buy time until the next election. The F35 will start delivery just in time for the photo ops.

Germany military to quicken push for combat readiness, defmin says

BERLIN — Germany will build up its military quicker than planned by bringing a division to combat-readiness two years ahead of schedule, Defence Minister Christine …

financialpost.com

He can’t get more Leopards those are being used domestically.

I’m waiting for the Abrams shift

 

[Kirkhill]

He can’t get more Leopards those are being used domestically.

I’m waiting for the Abrams shift

These ones? The ones that the US Army is scaling back on?

The Army also wants to spend more on missile procurement, $21.3 billion, including more investments in aircraft and munitions, while scaling back on new investments in Abrams tanks and Stryker combat vehicles.

Army’s proposed budget calls for fewer soldiers but more money

The $177.5 billion spending proposal, up from last year’s $174.7 billion, reverses multiple years of budget cutbacks for the Army, which is during a weapons modernization push that has been challenged by budget constraints.

www.stripes.com

Can you get me a deal on an Edsel?

 

[KevinB]

These ones? The ones that the US Army is scaling back on?

Army’s proposed budget calls for fewer soldiers but more money

The $177.5 billion spending proposal, up from last year’s $174.7 billion, reverses multiple years of budget cutbacks for the Army, which is during a weapons modernization push that has been challenged by budget constraints.

www.stripes.com

Can you get me a deal on an Edsel?

When you have an extra 3,500 in war stock and others are still buying the platform, why would we need a lot more? We used to buy them just to keep the line open for a rainy day.

We are in process of divesting an ABCT and SBCT worth of folks, and unlike Canada we have equipment in War Stock and equipment for National Guard/Reserves

 

[FJAG]

When you have an extra 3,500 in war stock and others are still buying the platform, why would we need a lot more? We used to buy them just to keep the line open for a rainy day.

Or to keep Senator Mike Turner's (R-Ohio - where Lima is) voters happy.

Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want

The Army lost again in the annual debate with Congress on building more tanks.

www.military.com

We are in process of divesting an ABCT and SBCT worth of folks, and unlike Canada we have equipment in War Stock and equipment for National Guard/Reserves

Sigh - if I were king.

 

[Fabius]

Seems like F2025 has experienced a still birth. Non rumor rumor is that F2025 is now dead and the Army is going to develop a new plan. No disbandment of the Light Battalions is apparently going to be part of the new plan.
Glad to see our planning and follow through continues to be world class.

At this point I would like to just see a plan seen through to its end.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Seems like F2025 has experienced a still birth. Non rumor rumor is that F2025 is now dead and the Army is going to develop a new plan. No disbandment of the Light Battalions is apparently going to be part of the new plan.
Glad to see our planning and follow through continues to be world class.

At this point I would like to just see a plan seen through to its end.

On the contrary, I am glad to see it's being rewritten.

The final part of any mission analysis is "Has the situation changed? If yes, start over."

Our strategic vision for the CA most definitely should change if the geopolitical conditions have changed.

 

[Fabius]

Yes, but the start point of F2025 was that the CA was not structured properly for the expected threat and major large scale combat. Even the Russian invasion of Ukraine has not changed that, if anything its reinforced that. I would accept an acceleration of F2025 timelines as being a relevant change etc.
Throwing the entire thing out though indicates to me that our planning was seriously deficient if that is indeed what we are doing.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Yes, but the start point of F2025 was that the CA was not structured properly for the expected threat and major large scale combat. Even the Russian invasion of Ukraine has not changed that, if anything its reinforced that. I would accept an acceleration of F2025 timelines as being a relevant change etc.
Throwing the entire thing out though indicates to me that our planning was seriously deficient if that is indeed what we are doing.

We were working on the assumption we had time to implement change. That in and of itself is a significant factor to consider if the plan is still viable.