Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

<24Hr NTM Ready Units are always resource intensive.
Sub 12hr NTM entities are extremely resource intensive.

Generally for a sub 12hr readiness entity you need 3 of those units rotating, and only for a certain period, I can’t think of any Military that has conventional forces on a sub 24hr global response readiness regularly these days, that’s mostly limited to SOF Tier 1 SMU’s.

For certain situations you can ramp conventional units up, understanding it’s a limited period that you can do that without deployment.
For most conventional units at less than 6hrs you basically have folks recalled and sitting on their gear at an airhead.

There needs to be everything needed for deployment ready to go.
Under 6hrs most of the kit, ammunition food, POL etc needs to be loaded on the AC.


At a 24-48hr NTM you still need dedicated Aircraft, and dedicated support on earlier recall to get everything needed for deployment ready.

Depending on the mission, you will need spare AC on standby as well, or on MTM to divert to the priority task.

Right now there is no way Canada could deliver a homogenous Para Coy inside 24hrs, the only way that would be possible is to make a Light Regiment collocated at a base with an airhead.

Since the C17 are in Trenton, it’s relatively easy for units in Ottawa or Petawawa to relocate to Trenton (though not ideal). Edmonton or Valcatraz based units would need the plane to come to them (and because the airports in Edmonton is ‘conveniently’ located a hours drive from the base it makes things ever less ideal).

Down here every base has an airfield.
Airborne and SOF entities even have nosedocks that allow for secure storage of all the war fighting materials and short term personnel barracks.


For Canada to attempt to get into to any sort of conventional rapid reaction force (even in support of SOF) a lot of infrastructure would need to be developed.

 

[GR66]

<24Hr NTM Ready Units are always resource intensive.
Sub 12hr NTM entities are extremely resource intensive.

Generally for a sub 12hr readiness entity you need 3 of those units rotating, and only for a certain period, I can’t think of any Military that has conventional forces on a sub 24hr global response readiness regularly these days, that’s mostly limited to SOF Tier 1 SMU’s.

For certain situations you can ramp conventional units up, understanding it’s a limited period that you can do that without deployment.
For most conventional units at less than 6hrs you basically have folks recalled and sitting on their gear at an airhead.

There needs to be everything needed for deployment ready to go.
Under 6hrs most of the kit, ammunition food, POL etc needs to be loaded on the AC.


At a 24-48hr NTM you still need dedicated Aircraft, and dedicated support on earlier recall to get everything needed for deployment ready.

Depending on the mission, you will need spare AC on standby as well, or on MTM to divert to the priority task.

Right now there is no way Canada could deliver a homogenous Para Coy inside 24hrs, the only way that would be possible is to make a Light Regiment collocated at a base with an airhead.

Since the C17 are in Trenton, it’s relatively easy for units in Ottawa or Petawawa to relocate to Trenton (though not ideal). Edmonton or Valcatraz based units would need the plane to come to them (and because the airports in Edmonton is ‘conveniently’ located a hours drive from the base it makes things ever less ideal).

Down here every base has an airfield.
Airborne and SOF entities even have nosedocks that allow for secure storage of all the war fighting materials and short term personnel barracks.


For Canada to attempt to get into to any sort of conventional rapid reaction force (even in support of SOF) a lot of infrastructure would need to be developed.

Points all well taken, but I don't believe anyone was considering making the Light Battalions any type of "ready to deploy" force.

The justification suggested numerous times on this site for a Light Brigade however has been it's ability to "rapidly" deploy in a crisis (i.e. more quickly than a LAV-based unit). While certainly not a 96hr NTM type capability, I'm assuming that a Light force would need to be able to deploy at least substantially more quickly than a LAV-based force in order to make that separate capability worthwhile. For example, if you can move a LAV Battalion to theatre in 90 days, is having a Light Battalion that still takes 60 days to deploy to theatre worth the expense of having an asymmetric force?

Yes, because some of our assets are held in small numbers and need to be grouped for a larger critical mass when not deployed. Specifically engineer, artillery, and logistics assets. Our actual “rapid reaction” capability is a SOC from CSOR let’s be honest.

Would that still be an issue if all units are co-located? For example if 1,2 & 3 RCR, RCD, 2 RCHA, 2 CER and 2 Svs are all co-located in Petawawa the units could be organized under their parent units administratively but the sub-units could be habitually be operationally organized in permanent Battle Group structures.

Just curious if such a structure might enhance readiness for a force that supposedly as one of its main advantages is its ability to deploy more rapidly than our mechanized forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

and all your examples prove the point. Closed circuits. A to b with not in between.

10 years

Computer Driven Autos Still Years Away Despite Massive Investment

There’s no realistic chance that full-on self-driving will be available before 2030, and then only in a tiny number of top-of-the-range sedans and SUVs, according to consultancy Accenture.

www.forbes.com

Self-Driving Cars Could Be Decades Away, No Matter What Elon Musk Said

Experts aren’t sure when, if ever, we’ll have truly autonomous vehicles that can drive anywhere without help. First, AI will need to get a lot smarter.

www.wsj.com

And within closed circuits I could cover base defences, FOBs, and vital points. Not to mention any position that doesn't have the luxury of manoeuvring.

Today.

 

[Kirkhill]

Looks a lot like the Bakhmut area.

 

[KevinB]

Points all well taken, but I don't believe anyone was considering making the Light Battalions any type of "ready to deploy" force.

IMHO they should be.
Maybe not 24hrs, but 72hrs should be an easy goal.

The justification suggested numerous times on this site for a Light Brigade however has been its ability to "rapidly" deploy in a crisis (i.e. more quickly than a LAV-based unit). While certainly not a 96hr NTM type capability, I'm assuming that a Light force would need to be able to deploy at least substantially more quickly than a LAV-based force in order to make that separate capability worthwhile. For example, if you can move a LAV Battalion to theatre in 90 days, is having a Light Battalion that still takes 60 days to deploy to theatre worth the expense of having an asymmetric force?

I’m of the opinion that Light Forces should be a lot more than 3x faster to arrive in theatre ‘ready in all respects’.

Honestly let’s use the 90day for a LAV Btl Gp
The CAF should be able to deliver a LIBG well inside 30 days, and frankly under 7 days.
I think the CAF could actually deliver a Light Bde inside 30days with what it has now if it was a NLI mission.

Would that still be an issue if all units are co-located? For example if 1,2 & 3 RCR, RCD, 2 RCHA, 2 CER and 2 Svs are all co-located in Petawawa the units could be organized under their parent units administratively but the sub-units could be habitually be operationally organized in permanent Battle Group structures.

I really wish people would remember why the Bde is generally considered the smallest maneuver unit to be able to deploy.

Just curious if such a structure might enhance readiness for a force that supposedly as one of its main advantages is its ability to deploy more rapidly than our mechanized forces.

Remember the CAR/CABG was a basically Bde sized formation originally. When the Commando’s decreased from BN- size to Coy+ and went from 2 to 3, I think a lot of potential was lost.

Right now Canada has no integral ability to move a Mech unit, there are not enough C17 (5) to make it any sort of reasonable number of vehicles. Nor no RCN transport infrastructure in terms of RO-RO or even other cargo vessels to do that.

29 Herc’s of which really only the 17J Herc’s could be used (and I’m sure some of those are dedicated already for CANSOF).

If one says 10 J Herc’s are available that’s basically either an Airborne Bn or if not jumping a Light BN and some support In the first landing, with any support for that requiring either Allied AC , some C-17’s or being a week later if round tripping the Herc’s from Flight 1.

IMHO without prepositioning Mech Equipment, Canada is at least 90-120 days out with a Mech response.

Regardless of that - the CA needs a lot of additional equipment for both Mech and Light Forces to be a credible formation for a near peer conflict.

 

[GR66]

IMHO they should be.
Maybe not 24hrs, but 72hrs should be an easy goal.


I’m of the opinion that Light Forces should be a lot more than 3x faster to arrive in theatre ‘ready in all respects’.

Honestly let’s use the 90day for a LAV Btl Gp
The CAF should be able to deliver a LIBG well inside 30 days, and frankly under 7 days.
I think the CAF could actually deliver a Light Bde inside 30days with what it has now if it was a NLI mission.

I really wish people would remember why the Bde is generally considered the smallest maneuver unit to be able to deploy.

Remember the CAR/CABG was a basically Bde sized formation originally. When the Commando’s decreased from BN- size to Coy+ and went from 2 to 3, I think a lot of potential was lost.

Right now Canada has no integral ability to move a Mech unit, there are not enough C17 (5) to make it any sort of reasonable number of vehicles. Nor no RCN transport infrastructure in terms of RO-RO or even other cargo vessels to do that.

29 Herc’s of which really only the 17J Herc’s could be used (and I’m sure some of those are dedicated already for CANSOF).

If one says 10 J Herc’s are available that’s basically either an Airborne Bn or if not jumping a Light BN and some support In the first landing, with any support for that requiring either Allied AC , some C-17’s or being a week later if round tripping the Herc’s from Flight 1.

IMHO without prepositioning Mech Equipment, Canada is at least 90-120 days out with a Mech response.

Regardless of that - the CA needs a lot of additional equipment for both Mech and Light Forces to be a credible formation for a near peer conflict.

This is where your highlighted comment crashes against the balance of your post. We have no integral ability to move a Mech unit and only enough airlift capability for a Light Battalion. Absent either allied airlift or a major expansion of our own airlift capacity you're essentially looking at a Light Battle Group as our initial "rapid" response.

So that being the case you have a couple of options. You can assume you're only going to be able to initially deploy a Battle Group sized force and plan/organize accordingly. You can accept that the minimum size force you should be able to deploy is a Light Brigade and make obtaining the additional airlift capacity to do that a major priority, or you can decide that we can't deploy a Light Brigade (because we're unable/unwilling to get the airlift capacity to do so) and instead focus our efforts on improving our Mechanized forces - accepting the fact that doing so seriously delays our possible response time in case of a conflict except in the case that we pre-position forces in Europe.

 

[markppcli]

Points all well taken, but I don't believe anyone was considering making the Light Battalions any type of "ready to deploy" force.

The justification suggested numerous times on this site for a Light Brigade however has been it's ability to "rapidly" deploy in a crisis (i.e. more quickly than a LAV-based unit). While certainly not a 96hr NTM type capability, I'm assuming that a Light force would need to be able to deploy at least substantially more quickly than a LAV-based force in order to make that separate capability worthwhile. For example, if you can move a LAV Battalion to theatre in 90 days, is having a Light Battalion that still takes 60 days to deploy to theatre worth the expense of having an asymmetric force?


Would that still be an issue if all units are co-located? For example if 1,2 & 3 RCR, RCD, 2 RCHA, 2 CER and 2 Svs are all co-located in Petawawa the units could be organized under their parent units administratively but the sub-units could be habitually be operationally organized in permanent Battle Group structures.

Just curious if such a structure might enhance readiness for a force that supposedly as one of its main advantages is its ability to deploy more rapidly than our mechanized forces.

No because some of those units are sub sub unit, and are only parcelled out as needed. For example our armoured engineers are all in one squadron and probably don’t get helped being pushed out into a bunch of small troops. Similarly the FOO parties are probably best grouped as they are now, and the ability to operate as a regiment is still important for the artillery.

 

[KevinB]

This is where your highlighted comment crashes against the balance of your post. We have no integral ability to move a Mech unit and only enough airlift capability for a Light Battalion. Absent either allied airlift or a major expansion of our own airlift capacity you're essentially looking at a Light Battle Group as our initial "rapid" response.

My point was simply Canada doesn’t have the wherewithal to do anything in scale.
Taking more J Herc’s and C-17 could deliver a Light Bde inside 48hrs.
The issue is that’s a lot of eggs in one basket so it will be a NLI to require that.

So that being the case you have a couple of options. You can assume you're only going to be able to initially deploy a Battle Group sized force and plan/organize accordingly.

Depends on the task.
Some tasks- NEO support for instance wouldn’t require a Btl Group - and a Inf Bn can provide the security for SOF to conduct retrieval missions.

If you think you’re going to be in combat directly on landing the CAF isn’t suited for that role.

You can accept that the minimum size force you should be able to deploy is a Light Brigade and make obtaining the additional airlift capacity to do that a major priority, or you can decide that we can't deploy a Light Brigade (because we're unable/unwilling to get the airlift capacity to do so) and instead focus our efforts on improving our Mechanized forces - accepting the fact that doing so seriously delays our possible response time in case of a conflict except in the case that we pre-position forces in Europe.

I think both need to be done.
Increase airlift and prepositioning heavier equipment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheap and plentiful..... they may only reach out 800 m but 400,000 units going into the field or storage every year, and placed in the hands of anybody with a days training and willingness to be there...

Saab's 'huge ramp up' in anti-tank weapon, ammo production targets 400,000 units a year - Breaking Defense

“I would say that maybe in the last quarter we started seeing some effects specifically from the tragic war in Ukraine,” said Saab CEO Micael Johansson.

breakingdefense.com

Swedish manufacturer Saab has predicted production of the company’s Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) system will increase dramatically to reach an annual output of 400,000 units.

“In the context of how we have doubled capacity from one year to the next at our Swedish [NLAW] sites…and by 2025 we will have doubled capacity again, then it will be possible to generate 400,000 units from our sites per year,” said Saab CEO Micael Johansson during a Feb. 10 financial results media briefing. “It is a huge ramp up.”

 

[Kirkhill]

After Ukraine, French air force zeroes in on anti-drone strategy: Air chief - Breaking Defense

Gen. Stéphane Mille held a wide-ranging discussion with reporters, talking Ukraine, drones, nuclear deterrence and a new fighter jet strategy.

breakingdefense.com

GBAD and Cheap and Plentiful Drones

PARIS — For the French military, the war in Ukraine has thrown into stark relief the importance of ground-to-air defense, including anti-drone systems, to such an extent that the nation’s top air officer says he expects it to dominate strategic considerations for years.

“The conflict in Ukraine has brought ground-to-air defense back to the very heart of our thinking,” Gen. Stéphane Mille, chief of staff of the French Air & Space Force, told journalists earlier this week, adding that “the fight against drones, notably in preparation for next year’s Paris Olympic Games, is going to keep us busy for years.”

The daily, creative use of drones in combat may be happening on the other side of Europe, but Paris is taking note. Mille said he expected generally a greater use of drones in the future both in low intensity and high intensity conflict from here on.

The Senate report, likewise, says the “war in Ukraine has confirmed the now preeminent role played by drones, in particular the importance of having moderately priced, remotely-operated munitions considered to a certain degree as consumables just like other munitions. The Ukrainian experience shows that 90 [percent] of drones of this type are lost with an average operational life of between three to six flights.”

Citing the nature of the fighting in Ukraine, the Senate report calls into question the usefulness of exquisite drone systems like the Reaper, known as medium altitude long endurance or MALE unmanned aerial vehicles.

Mille said the air force is examining ways they could be effectively used, but conceded they are “very useful in asymmetrical wars but given their vulnerability and their cost, they would be difficult to exploit in a symmetrical context” like when two modern armies fight each other.

But speaking to the bigger picture, the report demands the French government “change [its] mindset: the era of ‘the dividends of peace’ is over. Democracies and authoritarian regimes have different ways of evaluating the costs/benefits of a war.”

 

[Kirkhill]

And here is that CIC graphic from the RCN's Type 26 that I was looking for. Change the colour of the wooly pullies and it could be an RRCA FSCC

 

[KevinB]

And here is that CIC graphic from the RCN's Type 26 that I was looking for. Change the colour of the wooly pullies and it could be an RRCA FSCC

Other than it’s enormous, and easily 4x bigger than would be practical on land.
But other than that, yes

 

[markppcli]

And here is that CIC graphic from the RCN's Type 26 that I was looking for. Change the colour of the wooly pullies and it could be an RRCA FSCC

We (the army) are trying to go the other direction. Hopefully

 

[Kirkhill]

We (the army) are trying to go the other direction. Hopefully

If you are you are swimming upstream

NORAD

PACOM

NASAMs FDC

RPAS GCS

My sense is that an awful lot of buttons will be pushed before someone deploys soldiers, especially Canadians.

 

[KevinB]

If you are you are swimming upstream

NORAD

PACOM

NASAMs FDC

RPAS GCS

My sense is that an awful lot of buttons will be pushed before someone deploys soldiers, especially Canadians.

You are mistaking static positions with something that needs to be mobile.

The Ship, well it’s mobile - but unless you are pulling a double trailer dual mobile home, (which can’t go off road) you don’t have room for what you showed in a what needs to be a maneuver item.

 

[markppcli]

If you are you are swimming upstream

NORAD

PACOM

NASAMs FDC

RPAS GCS

My sense is that an awful lot of buttons will be pushed before someone deploys soldiers, especially Canadians.

Well you said and FSCC which is a specific thing. The giant tent filled with screens we got used to in Afghanistan is sub optimal in an EW environment.

While I realize the difference may not be apparent to quote an old instructor of mine “these words have meanings and they matter.”

 

[Kirkhill]

SkySabre

I appreciate that words matter. But even words found in dictionaries fluctuate - words like tank, APC, drones, liberal. I indulge myself in a little poetic licence from time to time.

My old school instructor was fond of "Pay attention to detail and the words of command for, Sir!"

All of which leads me down a frightening path. After all the buttons, with all their brilliant Artificial Intelligence munitions have been exhausted the last button is attached to that brilliant autonomous sub-munition Private Bloggins.

 

[Kirkhill]

You are mistaking static positions with something that needs to be mobile.

The Ship, well it’s mobile - but unless you are pulling a double trailer dual mobile home, (which can’t go off road) you don’t have room for what you showed in a what needs to be a maneuver item.

Those static positions are all over the place. Relocatable static positions are all over the place. Mobile versions of those nodes are found at sea, in the air and on land. Self-propelled version of the battle management systems are found in Strykers and LAVs. And some people carry tablets into the field.

The troopie with the rifle is merely the last link that is sent down the last hole that all the other brilliant weapons can't reach.

 

[FJAG]

All the photos in the last half dozen posts or so, including the SkySabre one, are far too roomy and pristine to be an arty FSCC. Where's the plywood? the torn Naugahyde office chairs? the clipboards with reports? the three dirt covered monitors? the food encrusted laptops? the Coke can and two coffee cups? the grubby map covered in yellowed Maptac and stuck with multicoloured pins? the half dozen radios? the dim blackout lights?

 

[markppcli]

Those static positions are all over the place. Relocatable static positions are all over the place. Mobile versions of those nodes are found at sea, in the air and on land. Self-propelled version of the battle management systems are found in Strykers and LAVs. And some people carry tablets into the field.

The troopie with the rifle is merely the last link that is sent down the last hole that all the other brilliant weapons can't reach.

Yes but what you posted were picture of a sterile command suite on a ship, covered in computer terminals said it was an artillery FSCC? There’s a massive difference of scale, we’re trying to break those things apart so they aren’t all co located with large sources of emission. That’s what people are trying to tell you.