Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

The 2% pledge is just that - a pledge.

Canada absolutely meets direct funding obligations for NATO programs. Canada contributes roughly 6% of the NATO direct funding budget - that amount is based on Gross National Income (we are allocated a share to pay based on GNI - adjustments are made). The US contributes 16% of the overall budget while Denmark contributes 1%.

NATO membership is also voluntary. The benefits accrued can vary and are likely unequal. European members are quite happy to have their trans-Atlantic allies contribute to their collective security. Our contributions of forces to NATO certainly increase European collective security - NATO gains nothing by losing Canada.

Don't get me wrong - happy to get more funding. Happy to have the full suite of brigade combat, command support, combat support and combat service support. Larger war stocks are great, but I am not sure we need stockpiles of equipment that need to be maintained beyond our means.

Canada has the means though.
Just not the will.

 

[Skysix]

The 2% pledge is just that - a pledge.

Canada absolutely meets direct funding obligations for NATO programs. Canada contributes roughly 6% of the NATO direct funding budget - that amount is based on Gross National Income (we are allocated a share to pay based on GNI - adjustments are made). The US contributes 16% of the overall budget while Denmark contributes 1%.

NATO membership is also voluntary. The benefits accrued can vary and are likely unequal. European members are quite happy to have their trans-Atlantic allies contribute to their collective security. Our contributions of forces to NATO certainly increase European collective security - NATO gains nothing by losing Canada.

Don't get me wrong - happy to get more funding. Happy to have the full suite of brigade combat, command support, combat support and combat service support. Larger war stocks are great, but I am not sure we need stockpiles of equipment that need to be maintained beyond our means.

Ummmm. Prove me wrong, but there is also a 2% GDP "pledge" of actual funding of the Canadian Forces. The 6% you refer to, and seem far more informed on than most, is general funding of NATO as an organisation. Totally different concept and comittment.

 

[FJAG]

Ummmm. Prove me wrong, but there is also a 2% GDP "pledge" of actual funding of the Canadian Forces. The 6% you refer to, and seem far more informed on than most, is general funding of NATO as an organisation. Totally different concept and comittment.

The wording of the 2014 Wales Declaration re GDP is as follows:

4.We will therefore strengthen the military capabilities the Alliance needs. After two decades of intensive operations, Allies now have the most experienced, capable and interoperable forces in NATO's history. We will continue to invest in modern and deployable armed forces that can operate effectively together and at a high level of readiness to fulfil NATO's tasks, in full accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act.

5. We recognise that these steps will take the necessary effort and funding. In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed.

Note that "defence budget" does not mean spending on just the CAF. It's considerably broader including many other defence related matters.

You should also note that allies committed themselves to spend 20% of their defence budgets on equipment.

Note that these goals are to be met within a decade which technically means prior to 2024 there is no actual guideline.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Ummmm. Prove me wrong, but there is also a 2% GDP "pledge" of actual funding of the Canadian Forces. The 6% you refer to, and seem far more informed on than most, is general funding of NATO as an organisation. Totally different concept and comittment.

That’s what my post said. I even said pledge.

A previous poster said we were not paying our dues. We do indeed pay our dues - our agreed upon share of NATO direct funding.

 

[Gorgo]

Given the recent moves by the government to honour No. 2 Construction Battalion CEF with it being linked in perpetuation to 4 Engineer Support Regiment, wouldn't it be a smart idea to have a somewhat like-named unit formed under 5th Division/6 Canadian Combat Support Brigade as a reserve-only mirror to 4 ESR recruiting from the area. Say call it 2 Engineer Support Regiment?

Or have it be a direct element of the Canadian Joint Support Group as a reserve-only element of 1 Engineer Support Unit in Kingston? Call this one 2 Engineer Support Unit and have it be a joint Army/Air Force formation which could augment 14 CES and 4 ESR?

Just my 2

 

[KevinB]

That’s what my post said. I even said pledge.

A previous poster said we were not paying our dues. We do indeed pay our dues - our agreed upon share of NATO direct funding.

Semantics…

Besides not honoring a pledge isn’t exactly better than not paying dues.

 

[McG]

Given the recent moves by the government to honour No. 2 Construction Battalion CEF with it being linked in perpetuation to 4 Engineer Support Regiment, wouldn't it be a smart idea to have a somewhat like-named unit formed under 5th Division/6 Canadian Combat Support Brigade as a reserve-only mirror to 4 ESR recruiting from the area. Say call it 2 Engineer Support Regiment?

Or have it be a direct element of the Canadian Joint Support Group as a reserve-only element of 1 Engineer Support Unit in Kingston? Call this one 2 Engineer Support Unit and have it be a joint Army/Air Force formation which could augment 14 CES and 4 ESR?

Just my 2

The start point to initiate any consideration of creating any new unit, formation, or command should always be a military requirement and not nostalgia or a heritage moment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Once upon a time it would have been said we welched on our word and scotched the deal.

 

[Underway]

The start point to initiate any consideration of creating any new unit, formation, or command should always be a military requirement and not nostalgia or a heritage moment.

Instead of using nostalgia or heritage to keep existing units going well past their usefulness for military requirements. That's SOP.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re: the Budget/2% debate. I offer Stoltenberg.

I agree with every word.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/w1i3p8

 

[Infanteer]

The start point to initiate any consideration of creating any new unit, formation, or command should always be a military requirement and not nostalgia or a heritage moment.

The Halifax Rifles have entered the chat.

 

[Skysix]

That’s what my post said. I even said pledge.

A previous poster said we were not paying our dues. We do indeed pay our dues - our agreed upon share of NATO direct funding.

I still unclear on how paying 6% of NATO's operating budget relates to the 'pledge' to spend 2% of GDP on our OWN defense (of which 20% should be hardware etc)

I don't think the intent, or understanding by other NATO members, was that the 80% of our 2% 'pledge' could be given to NATO for its administration and operation and simultaneously serve double duty as part of our own internal defense expenditures.

So not sure what that 6% figure really is 6% of, or why it matters in the context of what Canada spends on our OWN defense hardware research and acquisition / operations and maintenance / wages and benefits etc. when we are nowhere near the 2% of GDP target of defense related spending. Feels like smoke and mirrors.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The Halifax Rifles have entered the chat.

There are so many Reserve Regiments, Battalions, Companies, Platoons, Sections that need to be consolidated and reorganized for operational and administrative reasons.

They're dancing the last waltz really, but somehow no one wants to be the person to pull the trigger.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are so many Reserve Regiments, Battalions, Companies, Platoons, Sections that need to be consolidated and reorganized for operational and administrative reasons.

They're dancing the last waltz really, but somehow no one wants to be the person to pull the trigger.

And, over the past couple of decades the Reserves have added dozens of LCol/Col/GOFO positions to the roster, largely trading on the reputation built by noteworthy contributions made to operations in FRY & AG by (mainly) thousands of NCMs.

As a result any type of consolidation/ rationalization will become even more difficult, if not impossible, to manage.

 

[FJAG]

Instead of using nostalgia or heritage to keep existing units going well past their usefulness for military requirements. That's SOP.

Funny point that. While I don't for a minute consider my Napkin Army to be an official military requirement, in virtually every one that I have created in order to firm up logical roles for the reserves to properly round out the Canadian Army, I have consolidated 36 and 37 Combat Engineer Regiments in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a single Engineer Support Regiment for the following reasons:

1) Each of the three RegF brigade groups already have a CER and the ResF CERs near them make the logical choice for their support and training;

2) The sole RegF Army engineers unit in the Maritimes is 4 ESR yet 36 and 37 are CERs. It would make much more sense to have ResF ESR elements in the Maritimes to support and train with their RegF counterparts in 4 ESR.

3) ESRs are useful elements in general and providing 4 ESR with more depth by way of the ResF would be useful.

I'll admit that I called my Napkin Forse Maritime ResF ESR 3 ESR primarily because the number is vacant (1, 2 and 5 CERs and 4 ESR) but there really is no reason why there couldn't be a 2 CER and a 2 ESR. But that's beside the point, the real issue being as to whether a ResF ESR is a good idea from the military requirements point of view. Personally, the answer is Yup and the CAF would probably think so too if it ever put some serious thought into improving the ResF.

Over to you @TangoTwoBravo.

 

[McG]

in virtually every one that I have created in order to firm up logical roles for the reserves to properly round out the Canadian Army, I have consolidated 36 and 37 Combat Engineer Regiments in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a single Engineer Support Regiment for the following reasons:

…

the real issue being as to whether a ResF ESR is a good idea from the military requirements point of view.

What do you envision a PRes ESR doing? There already is a PRes construction engineering unit primarily in Nova Scotia. It’s RCAF, but I don’t know that the region can support two such units on top of each other (especially considering how nearly impossible it is to train PRes construction tradespersons). Maybe the squadron in Fredericton could take-over an EROC suite, but the vehicle maintenance would still fall back to being a 4 ESR problem.

 

[Kirkhill]

What do you envision a PRes ESR doing? There already is a PRes construction engineering unit primarily in Nova Scotia. It’s RCAF, but I don’t know that the region can support two such units on top of each other (especially considering how nearly impossible it is to train PRes construction tradespersons). Maybe the squadron in Fredericton could take-over an EROC suite, but the vehicle maintenance would still fall back to being a 4 ESR problem.

Maybe the key is not to train tradespeople but to engage tradespeople and train them how to be soldiers. Bring those skilled bodies into the ranks.

 

[dapaterson]

"Hey, you! Want to work more hours and not get overtime?"

 

[McG]

Maybe the key is not to train tradespeople but to engage tradespeople and train them how to be soldiers. Bring those skilled bodies into the ranks.

Reserve infantry achieves that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Reserve infantry achieves that.

That's true.

But how do we dig those civvy skills out from the ranks of the infantry and organize them into useable teams?