Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[FJAG]

Well, it is a service paper, which are the smallest of the different sorts papers that CFC publishes each year. It has to stay more focused on a single aspect of a problem, as opposed to the analysis that goes into the course project papers.

Yeah. I felt a bit overly critical but it's such an important issue ...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Another opportunity to plug for renaming the Res F formations as "districts" as an encouragement for function to follow form.

 

[FJAG]

Another opportunity to plug for renaming the Res F formations as "districts" as an encouragement for function to follow form.

Not in my view.

We need to do everything we can to integrate the ResF into a Total Force. Creating different entities simply highlights the status quo of a second class organization.

Renaming them "districts" is a simple solution that produces nothing of value. Even if they are just reformed into two or three light brigades and a CS and CSS brigade with light scales of equipment, you are ahead of the game. Consolidating them into fewer brigade and unit headquarters but with fully-authorized numbers would be a good start.

I agree that function should follow form. But that can cut in two directions. One builds up our defence capabilities; the other merely perpetuates a broken system.

 

[GR66]

Here are some new thoughts drawing on comparisons to allied structures: https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/24/192/Tremaine.pdf

Other than eliminating some HQs (a good thing) I'm not sure what benefit there is of moving Reserve units from a Reg Force Division to an all Reserve Division.

Unless there is a fundamental change to the way our Reserves are organized, trained and equipped they will remain "units" that are incapable of being deployed as combat capable units. Imaginary Battalions in a Reserve Division are just as pretend as those same imaginary Battalions in a Reg Force Division.

 

[McG]

Other than eliminating some HQs (a good thing) I'm not sure what benefit there is of moving Reserve units from a Reg Force Division to an all Reserve Division.

Fixing the unit structures is not incompatible with streamline formation HQ. The author had to keep the scope focused, but you could take the idea to the next step by figuring out how you streamline the structure below the proposed consolidated PRes Bde HQs.

 

[FJAG]

Other than eliminating some HQs (a good thing) I'm not sure what benefit there is of moving Reserve units from a Reg Force Division to an all Reserve Division.

Unless there is a fundamental change to the way our Reserves are organized, trained and equipped they will remain "units" that are incapable of being deployed as combat capable units. Imaginary Battalions in a Reserve Division are just as pretend as those same imaginary Battalions in a Reg Force Division.

Exactly. We need, at most, one divisional headquarters capable of deploying a forward element while leaving a rear at home. I can't see any reason why the majority of the staff functions needed to run the "field force" can't be done by the staff of one divisional headquarters (if it learns to not over centralize).

When we mentioned "districts" above, a G9 cell in a division with small regional LO cells in provinces would do.

IMHO our problem is that we have allowed administrative processes to grow unchecked and thus needed to add more and more staff and more and more staff levels. We need to curtail the processes and staff layers in order to shrink the headquarters.

but you could take the idea to the next step by figuring out how you streamline the structure below the proposed consolidated PRes Bde HQs.

Absolutely. I'm still hanging in with the 30/70 70/30 concept as the most viable.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not in my view.

We need to do everything we can to integrate the ResF into a Total Force. Creating different entities simply highlights the status quo of a second class organization.

Renaming them "districts" is a simple solution that produces nothing of value. Even if they are just reformed into two or three light brigades and a CS and CSS brigade with light scales of equipment, you are ahead of the game. Consolidating them into fewer brigade and unit headquarters but with fully-authorized numbers would be a good start.

I agree that function should follow form. But that can cut in two directions. One builds up our defence capabilities; the other merely perpetuates a broken system.

As usual I will voice my disagreement.

I would prefer that the Regional body of troops be first and foremost a Regional body of troops - with a common command structure and trained to known standards, if not a common standard.

To pretend that an amorphous body of bodies, no matter how willing, is a Division, or a Brigade, or even a Territorial Battalion Group is ludicrous. The best that will happen is that a poor cousin of a regular capability will be created.

On the other hand to give a Regional commander with the responsibility to manage and train the volunteers within her district the opportunity to raise a TBG or two from the standard platoons or companies in her Region seems to make more sense. Those platoons and companies (batteries, squadrons) can then be attached to the inventory of troops available to the Regular Forces or to the TBGs.

Organizing from the Parade Strength and not from the Tactical Formation. Parade Strength reflects Inventory, and can be organized to reflect trained Inventory. Tactical Formations should be Ad Hoc Formations - tailored to the needs of the moment. The advantage of a regular force should be that they are practiced in many contingencies.

 

[FJAG]

As usual I will voice my disagreement.

It's too bad that you live so far away. We should really sit down over a beer (or ten) some time.

 

[Good2Golf]

Organizing from the Parade Strength and not from the Tactical Formation. Parade Strength reflects Inventory, and can be organized to reflect trained Inventory. Tactical Formations should be Ad Hoc Formations - tailored to the needs of the moment. The advantage of a regular force should be that they are practiced in many contingencies.

I think you are grossly overvaluing the sea the net was cast into, and equally grossly undervaluing the knowledge of how to fish…which includes how to work with other fishers.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you are grossly overvaluing the sea the net was cast into, and equally grossly undervaluing the knowledge of how to fish…which includes how to work with other fishers.

But for there to be good fishers and bad fishers first of all there must be fish. We can sort the good fish from the bad fish and we can make better fishers out of poor fishers but we can't do either if we don't have fish to start with.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's too bad that you live so far away. We should really sit down over a beer (or ten) some time.

It's our version of The Song That Never Ends.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Calling whatever hodgepodge of units happen to be available in a region a "brigade" just encourages people to pursue aims beyond their capabilities.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Huh???

It's he exactly the same size as the current rifle platoon. It's just exchanging a rifle section for a weapons section. The company would have 8 rifle sections and 4 weapons sections, not the platoon.

In my defence, your Honour, I was mainly looking for an excuse to use a 'Full Metal Jacket' meme

 

[Kirkhill]

In my defence, your Honour, I was mainly looking for an excuse to use a 'Full Metal Jacket' meme

Mountie - he has never seen a "full" platoon in his career.

He's either been carried by a short-staffed bunch of wiry, chain-smoking supermen or else a similarly short-staffed bunch of Canadian militiamen.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Mountie - he has never seen a "full" platoon in his career.

He's either been carried by a short-staffed bunch of wiry, chain-smoking supermen or else a similarly short-staffed bunch of Canadian militiamen.

You're not wrong... half the complement with all the support weapons and ammo

 

[McG]

Stumbled across my old Army Reserve Force structure proposal. A little less adventurous that the Force 2025 plan but, at the same time, it's a nice start point for building new total force units.

Did some thinking about how to smash together F2025 ideas with my old PRes structures. I think that RFL2 sub-units in Reg F units is just a way of hiding the rust & holes, but RFL2 in PRes formations could be a path to greater PRes capability. So this is probably a bit backward from how most staffs are approaching the problem, but here is my take on a potential 2 Div structure:

 

[KevinB]

Did some thinking about how to smash together F2025 ideas with my old PRes structures. I think that RFL2 sub-units in Reg F units is just a way of hiding the rust & holes, but RFL2 in PRes formations could be a path to greater PRes capability. So this is probably a bit backward from how most staffs are approaching the problem, but here is my take on a potential 2 Div structure:
View attachment 70762

I don’t see that a method hiding rust and or holes in one system won’t do it in the other.

IMHO there needs to be an effective way to cut out rust and holes - and that needs to be firmly in place before any structural changes.

I also don’t see the need/want for a 2nd DIV

Canada can’t field 2Div, so why bother with a DIV HQ and DIV assets for a second DIV, when the CA doesn’t even have enough for 1 DIV?

I don’t buy the ‘mobilization’ argument either - as it’s better to organically grow than make believe that a 2nd DIV that never doesn’t anything will have any useful skills.

I’d argue that making 6 Bde (including the CSB) under 1 DIV would be a better way of providing for the future.

1 Heavy
2 Med
2 Light
1 CSB

 

[FJAG]

I don’t see that a method hiding rust and or holes in one system won’t do it in the other.

IMHO there needs to be an effective way to cut out rust and holes - and that needs to be firmly in place before any structural changes.

I also don’t see the need/want for a 2nd DIV

Canada can’t field 2Div, so why bother with a DIV HQ and DIV assets for a second DIV, when the CA doesn’t even have enough for 1 DIV?

I don’t buy the ‘mobilization’ argument either - as it’s better to organically grow than make believe that a 2nd DIV that never doesn’t anything will have any useful skills.

I’d argue that making 6 Bde (including the CSB) under 1 DIV would be a better way of providing for the future.

1 Heavy
2 Med
2 Light
1 CSB

Agreed right up to the brigade numbers.

As between the RegF and ResF there are enough authorized personnel at present to grow five manoeuvre brigades and three support brigades.

If one uses just the equipment we have as a 'come as you are affair' then the manoeuvre brigades could be:

1 heavy,
1 medium,
1 mixed medium and light and
2 light.

If one plans to build it to what ought to be based on reasonably predictable defence tasks (Europe, peacekeeping, quick reaction) then it ought to be:

1 each RegF and ResF heavy,
1 each RegF and ResF medium and
1 RegF light.

In either case the three support brigades should be hybrid RegF/ResF:

1 artillery,
1 manoeuvre enhancement and
1 sustainment.

$.02

 

[McG]

I don’t see that a method hiding rust and or holes in one system won’t do it in the other.

In one case (RFL2 in Reg F units) the system hides deficiencies in full time capability with Class A positions. This hides rust & holes as we declare capabilities based on a number of hollow battalions.

In the other case (RFL2 in PRes formations), full time positions increase the planning, training, and CSS capacities of part time organizations. This actually strengthens the PRes.

 

[KevinB]

In one case (RFL2 in Reg F units) the system hides deficiencies in full time capability with Class A positions. This hides rust & holes as we declare capabilities based on a number of hollow battalions.

In the other case (RFL2 in PRes formations), full time positions increase the planning, training, and CSS capacities of part time organizations. This actually strengthens the PRes.

Okay I see that outlook - but realistically the outcome is the same.
There are still the same number of bodies.

If the Res system was more like down here - those numbers wouldn’t be hollow.
The system needs to be fixed for any meaningful change to occur.

Agreed right up to the brigade numbers.

As between the RegF and ResF there are enough authorized personnel at present to grow five manoeuvre brigades and three support brigades.

If one uses just the equipment we have as a 'come as you are affair' then the manoeuvre brigades could be:

1 heavy,
1 medium,
1 mixed medium and light and
2 light.

If one plans to build it to what ought to be based on reasonably predictable defence tasks (Europe, peacekeeping, quick reaction) then it ought to be:

1 each RegF and ResF heavy,
1 each RegF and ResF medium and
1 RegF light.

In either case the three support brigades should be hybrid RegF/ResF:

1 artillery,
1 manoeuvre enhancement and
1 sustainment.

$.02

I figured Heavy is fully tracked - I don’t consider the current LAV, M777 and some Leo’s heavy.

I do think you could field 2 medium Bde with a wheeled SPA and some other missing enablers.

A heavy Bde needs a blank slate and to be created from scratch - either retaining and augmenting the existing Leo2 or adopting a new MBT, a heavy IFV, a tracked SPA and all the other necessities.

I’m not sure you need two heavy Bde, and not sure Canada can afford the bill