Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

For Res F, all of the vehicles more complicated than a pickup truck should go to the Res F Svc Bns which have proper maintenance facilities. Might produce a recruitment bump for keeners who want to drive and maintain the beasts. Armoured units can either go on doing Rat Patrol recce, or voluntarily offer to-role if they want to drive and maintain the beasts.

I would suggest that perhaps especially for the city based Res units - that one try to make maintenance heavy entities colocated with the maintenance units.
For the remoter units - the need to have larger integral Maintenance subunits - with Reg Force Maintainer personnel as well.

 

[markppcli]

I think it's a viable option.
That being said, the easier one (while keeping precious symmetry intact) would be to go to the American's and get everything needed to fill in the gaps to set up the armoured Regiments as US pattern Armoured Cavalry Squadrons, the 6 LAV battalions as Stryker battalions with ATGM platoons, dissolve the LIB's to make sure it's fully manned and stand up one LIB quick reaction force.

So force 2025 lol, minus the support vehicles (some of those roles will be filled by ACSV).

I’m generally strongly opposed to the idea of “carrier” units as opposed to organic attachment. That’s simply from having spent some time in NZ and seeing the difficulties QAMR and 1 RNZIR have conducting integrated operations even though they are next door to each other. The problem is really our lack of strategic lift capability but that’s its own problem outside of our general structure.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So force 2025 lol, minus the support vehicles (some of those roles will be filled by ACSV).

If Force 2025 enabled/directed the Army to do that (complete with Brads in the RCAC, mortar carriers etc) and they weren't already well on the way to implementing it....

Colour me frustrated.

 

[FJAG]

Dropping the reality bomb. For you ORBAT wizards, what would you do to re-org the Canadian Army AS IT IS TODAY.

The If we got this, if we got that, is a very moot point.

Should we even try to hold onto the Brigade or ditch it for battle groups permenantly standing? Ideas? Assume no new kit, because this government and its bureaucrats simply do NOT take defence seriously

Essentially, my 30/70 70/30 structure above is designed to work with today's Army's people and equipment. The two exceptions are HIMARS and AD (albeit it's in project form). The structure is premised on equipment sharing amongst high and low readiness units for training purposes which does limit the size of the total force that can be deployed at any given time to what we can do today. But, the way it is organized, there is an ability to deploy almost twice as many bn(-) organizations (ie a bn HQ and a company(+) sized element like we currently do in Latvia).

 

[PuckChaser]

Resurrection of the Comm Squads would also be a useful idea if we are going to fund those additional 60,000 Reservists.

You can't resurrect something that still exists. The Comm Res PYs rolled into the PRes, I think almost all units stayed as is. They reorg'd under Bde Sigs Regts (largest unit in Bde) and the smaller units are now Sqns underneath. RegF is still roughly 3300 Sigs NCM trades, rapidly dropping through 70% PML.

Tons of Sigs PYs in Reg and Res, just no bodies to fill them.

 

[Kirkhill]

You can't resurrect something that still exists. The Comm Res PYs rolled into the PRes, I think almost all units stayed as is. They reorg'd under Bde Sigs Regts (largest unit in Bde) and the smaller units are now Sqns underneath. RegF is still roughly 3300 Sigs NCM trades, rapidly dropping through 70% PML.

Tons of Sigs PYs in Reg and Res, just no bodies to fill them.

Thanks for the education. I thought the positions had all been re-roled from strategic to tactical comms.

 

[markppcli]

If Force 2025 enabled/directed the Army to do that (complete with Brads in the RCAC, mortar carriers etc) and they weren't already well on the way to implementing it....

Colour me frustrated.

IFVs shouldn’t be manned by armoured folks. It has follow on complications and even the Americans crew their IFVs with infantrymen. Frankly the Bradley or LAV is a minimal difference, outside of ATGM capability that is.

 

[FJAG]

IFVs shouldn’t be manned by armoured folks. It has follow on complications and even the Americans crew their IFVs with infantrymen. Frankly the Bradley or LAV is a minimal difference, outside of ATGM capability that is.

I'm not sure how that helps. Just because the vehicle is mechanical and "armoured" doesn't mean it will be better served by an RCAC guy.

Operating the vehicle is something taught on a course to anyone. Operating that vehicle in a specific tactical environment is where experience comes into play. I'd rather have my IFVs operated by folks who have spent time in and know how a infantry platoon/company operates. I can't see having guys whose career stream bounces around between brigade recce and mech infantry and tanks provide added value.

$.02

 

[IKnowNothing]

IFVs shouldn’t be manned by armoured folks. It has follow on complications and even the Americans crew their IFVs with infantrymen. Frankly the Bradley or LAV is a minimal difference, outside of ATGM capability that is.

The post you initially quoted and subsequently claimed was covered in F2025 said to set up the armoured regiments like US ABCT Cavalry squadrons, thats entails scout and javelin teams in M3's

 

[markppcli]

The post you initially quoted and subsequently claimed was covered in F2025 said to set up the armoured regiments like US ABCT Cavalry squadrons, thats entails scout and javelin teams in M3's

No I meant the bottom bit about adjustments and cutting light Bns to fill PYs.

I'm not sure how that helps. Just because the vehicle is mechanical and "armoured" doesn't mean it will be better served by an RCAC guy.

Operating the vehicle is something taught on a course to anyone. Operating that vehicle in a specific tactical environment is where experience comes into play. I'd rather have my IFVs operated by folks who have spent time in and know how a infantry platoon/company operates. I can't see having guys whose career stream bounces around between brigade recce and mech infantry and tanks provide added value.

$.02

I totally agree and I like having redundancy in crew within my section.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm not sure how that helps. Just because the vehicle is mechanical and "armoured" doesn't mean it will be better served by an RCAC guy.

Operating the vehicle is something taught on a course to anyone. Operating that vehicle in a specific tactical environment is where experience comes into play. I'd rather have my IFVs operated by folks who have spent time in and know how a infantry platoon/company operates. I can't see having guys whose career stream bounces around between brigade recce and mech infantry and tanks provide added value.

$.02

Outsider opinion (assuming symmetry non-negotiable): Shortest route to a credible force is to take what we have, overlay the closest possible "out of the box" proven combat viable structure, gap analysis, fill gaps. The narrower the gaps the simpler to fill. Beats the hell out of spending years thinking and assessing how to make a uniquely Canadian force structure.

Armoured Regiment -> ABCT Cav squadron requires 14x M3 Bradleys, 8xMortar Carriers, mix of LRSS and TAPV replace Humvees
LAV Battalion -> Up gunned SBCT Battalion requires 4 M1134, 10x Mortar Carriers, LAV 6 inplace of Stryker ISC

Not counting spares and training, 42 M3 Bradleys, 84 Mortar Carriers, 24 LAV ATGM, and a bunch of Javelin CLU's.

Result is 3 Bde's that while admittedly short a Btn are heavier armed and armoured than their US template. Not an ABCT, but an SBCT+, with a Cavalry squadron that has a role in the heavy fight, and can perform all levels of security tasks in a peer fight.

 

[ArmyRick]

As it is now? Without many of the tools of modern war fighting? That’s not a war fighting force, so you don’t need to think about war. And would be more infantry heavy than today. You do need to be to able to rotate battle groups for COIN/low-intensity conflict. So 3 LAV-equipped battalions and 3 light battalions. Possibly another 3 40/60 (deliberately under strength) battalions with a Bn HQ and a single rifle company, specifically to rotate into Latvia for the tripwire/sacrificial lamb role — as we don’t want to give them the tools to fight in the NATO role, they are strictly symbolic.

The other arms? Just enough to provide a toolbox from which to augment rotational battle groups. One tank regiment, one recce regiment. Two arty regiments - one with towed tube artillery, one with STA. One large combat engineer regiment — two if the infantry battalions lack their own pioneers. If you don’t want to deploy brigades on expeditionary operations, you can probably get away with a single deployable brigade headquarters, optimized for domestic operations (Oka, October Crisis…) that can act as a HICON to exercise the battalions but doesn’t administer them in garrison.

This is the model for a constabulary force, not a war fighting force. Because a war fighting force requires kit we currently don’t hold in the inventory (ATGM, SHORAD, SPA…)

Brutal reality, I am convinced this government will NOT invest didley in the kit needed to be a grown up army.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We can have credible mechanized infantry battalions/battle groups with the acquisition of Javelin or an equivalent - no need for reorganization. Mortars would be useful as well - I believe that we still have them (not SP but hey) and that would take some organizational work assuming we also wanted to have those battalions/BGs as part of a Bde with artillery.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would suggest that perhaps especially for the city based Res units - that one try to make maintenance heavy entities colocated with the maintenance units.
For the remoter units - the need to have larger integral Maintenance subunits - with Reg Force Maintainer personnel as well.

In general, IF we want to have a credible, effective reserve, and that's a Big IF, then it needs to be properly supported, and that means it needs good Reg Force Maint and Log and Adm people there, in the Res units, as organic support, and they need access to tools, test equipment and space parts and money and so on.

That implies that the CF needs more Maint, Log and Adm people, period. That implies that Canada needs a major shift in Army thinking. That implies that we need a new, younger, smarter general staff.

 

[GR66]

We can have credible mechanized infantry battalions/battle groups with the acquisition of Javelin or an equivalent - no need for reorganization. Mortars would be useful as well - I believe that we still have them (not SP but hey) and that would take some organizational work assuming we also wanted to have those battalions/BGs as part of a Bde with artillery.

I would say that significant mortar support in the Battalions is a key capability that we should focus on. The prevalence of man-portable ATGMs on the battlefield means that any mounted force will need the internal ability to have high volumes of suppressive indirect fire to protect against dispersed dismounted infantry in complex terrain. A turreted 120mm mortar on the LAV chassis should be a fairly straight forward acquisition.

As far as Force 2025 ORBATs go I think the focus really should be on making our three existing Brigade Groups sustainable. I don't think we have the depth of vehicles, equipment, weapon systems, transport or maintenance support to even consider fielding additional Brigades in sustained combat. We should instead as a first step ensure that we can field one full Brigade Group and use the other two Brigades and the Reserves to keep it up to strength once deployed. Additional growth can come after that first step is successful.

I think the initial premise of 1 x Heavy(ish), 1 x Medium and 1 x Light Brigade is still a solid first step. Tank Regiment and 3 x LAV Battalions in 1 Brigade, Armoured Recce Regiment and 3 x LAV Battalions in 5 Brigade and Light Armoured Recce and 3 x Light Battalions in 2 Brigade.

If we were to go to a 14-tank Squadron then we could have 3 x Squadrons in LdSH and enough tanks left over to pre-position 2 x 14-tank Squadrons plus a LAV Company in Latvia. This could be our fly-over Armoured Battalion to work with the eFP Latvia Mechanized Battalion as part of a Canadian led Brigade Group. Fly over the personnel for the Armoured Battalion at the first sign of a Russian build-up as an additional deterrent force. If conflict looks imminent then we fly over a Light Battalion to round out the Brigade. In a defensive battle against a Russian attack a Light Battalion could be effective like the Ukrainians are while the Armoured Battalion and eFP Mech Battalion could provide the mobile elements for local counter attacks.

 

[FJAG]

I would say that significant mortar support in the Battalions is a key capability that we should focus on. The prevalence of man-portable ATGMs on the battlefield means that any mounted force will need the internal ability to have high volumes of suppressive indirect fire to protect against dispersed dismounted infantry in complex terrain. A turreted 120mm mortar on the LAV chassis should be a fairly straight forward acquisition.

Couldn't agree more. Even if a turreted 120 is a bit down the road a dismounted 81 is better than nothing in the interim and will allow the training with integral fire support.

As far as Force 2025 ORBATs go I think the focus really should be on making our three existing Brigade Groups sustainable. I don't think we have the depth of vehicles, equipment, weapon systems, transport or maintenance support to even consider fielding additional Brigades in sustained combat. We should instead as a first step ensure that we can field one full Brigade Group and use the other two Brigades and the Reserves to keep it up to strength once deployed. Additional growth can come after that first step is successful.

That sounds suspiciously like MRS and whole fleet management. I don't disagree that we might have trouble sustaining a full brigade in sustained combat and will have to dig into the other brigades and reserves to do that. I just think that we should be structured as equipped and organized brigades to start with.

I'm with @TangoTwoBravo in that our infantry battalions are pretty much there.

I think the initial premise of 1 x Heavy(ish), 1 x Medium and 1 x Light Brigade is still a solid first step. Tank Regiment and 3 x LAV Battalions in 1 Brigade, Armoured Recce Regiment and 3 x LAV Battalions in 5 Brigade and Light Armoured Recce and 3 x Light Battalions in 2 Brigade.

Building on the above, the heavy brigade really doesn't need three infantry battalions if it has a full armoured regiment. It already has three manoeuvre battalions to work with. That leaves the armoured regiments recce squadron and a light infantry battalion as the core around which a cavalry regiment can be built.

That leaves four battalions worth of LAVs which can be used to build that three-battalion medium brigade with it's organic armoured recce regiment converting to cavalry. As you suggest, with the third brigade light you now have one battalion of LAVs unallocated and capable of other tasks.

If we were to go to a 14-tank Squadron then we could have 3 x Squadrons in LdSH and enough tanks left over to pre-position 2 x 14-tank Squadrons plus a LAV Company in Latvia. This could be our fly-over Armoured Battalion to work with the eFP Latvia Mechanized Battalion as part of a Canadian led Brigade Group. Fly over the personnel for the Armoured Battalion at the first sign of a Russian build-up as an additional deterrent force. If conflict looks imminent then we fly over a Light Battalion to round out the Brigade. In a defensive battle against a Russian attack a Light Battalion could be effective like the Ukrainians are while the Armoured Battalion and eFP Mech Battalion could provide the mobile elements for local counter attacks.

Okay. Here's a suggestion.

The current eFP battalion led by Canada already has a fair amount of armour in it. To create a full ABCT you would only need to add one armoured battalion and one LAV battalion (plus cavalry, artillery, engineers and CSS).

I've mentioned before that I do not know how the eFP bn fits into any Latvian brigade structures or how Latvians M109s are allocated but for arguments sake if we say that the eFP battalion is assigned to a flyover Canadian brigade then one could preposition an armoured regiment with three squadrons, one additional mech bn of LAVs (remember I said there was a spare one) plus the cavalry regiment and all the requisite CS and CSS gear.

That leaves two tank squadrons in Canada which is sufficient for shared training for the three squadrons (who could also do flyover training).

The tanks and the LAV battalion are actually the easiest part to predeploy. It's the rest of the establishment for a brigade that would put pressure on Canada.

 

[markppcli]

Couldn't agree more. Even if a turreted 120 is a bit down the road a dismounted 81 is better than nothing in the interim and will allow the training with integral fire support.

That sounds suspiciously like MRS and whole fleet management. I don't disagree that we might have trouble sustaining a full brigade in sustained combat and will have to dig into the other brigades and reserves to do that. I just think that we should be structured as equipped and organized brigades to start with.

I'm with @TangoTwoBravo in that our infantry battalions are pretty much there.

Building on the above, the heavy brigade really doesn't need three infantry battalions if it has a full armoured regiment. It already has three manoeuvre battalions to work with. That leaves the armoured regiments recce squadron and a light infantry battalion as the core around which a cavalry regiment can be built.

That leaves four battalions worth of LAVs which can be used to build that three-battalion medium brigade with it's organic armoured recce regiment converting to cavalry. As you suggest, with the third brigade light you now have one battalion of LAVs unallocated and capable of other tasks.

Okay. Here's a suggestion.

The current eFP battalion led by Canada already has a fair amount of armour in it. To create a full ABCT you would only need to add one armoured battalion and one LAV battalion (plus cavalry, artillery, engineers and CSS).

I've mentioned before that I do not know how the eFP bn fits into any Latvian brigade structures or how Latvians M109s are allocated but for arguments sake if we say that the eFP battalion is assigned to a flyover Canadian brigade then one could preposition an armoured regiment with three squadrons, one additional mech bn of LAVs (remember I said there was a spare one) plus the cavalry regiment and all the requisite CS and CSS gear.

That leaves two tank squadrons in Canada which is sufficient for shared training for the three squadrons (who could also do flyover training).

The tanks and the LAV battalion are actually the easiest part to predeploy. It's the rest of the establishment for a brigade that would put pressure on Canada.

eFP actually falls under the Latvian Bde. I assume Estonia and Lithuania have similar arrangements.

 

[KevinB]

The tanks and the LAV battalion are actually the easiest part to predeploy. It's the rest of the establishment for a brigade that would put pressure on Canada.

Seeing as you actually have Tanks and Lav's -- yes

 

[CBH99]

Brutal reality, I am convinced this government will NOT invest didley in the kit needed to be a grown up army.

That reinforces my thoughts that once a white paper of sorts is made official - and the government has laid out what it wants to be able to do, how much it is willing to spend, and how they want it to get done… they really need to step aside and let the force equip itself.

Oversight needed to ensure accountability? Yes.

Thick layers of red tape? No.


It seems the government forgets that the military is the physical aspect of its foreign policy, and when they cheap out on kit, they are only cheaping out on their own credibility.

They need to invest more effort into getting out of the f**king way.

 

[WLSC]

White paper… If I’m not mistaken, the only one that was followed was the one on drastic downsizing ans unification. As much I believe in what we do, as much I believe GC just don’t care.