Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[RangerRay]

some say peace at any price, luckily they do not speak for us all, but the world is getting worse, not better, and with the army needing upwards of 30% reserve augmentation for the foreseeable future, if any mission goes hot, we will see it potentially hit all parts of canada equally, not just reg force base communities.

Not disagreeing. I just remember a lot more negative attitudes towards our mission in Afghanistan, even though I still believe it was a righteous one.

 

[markppcli]

@ FJAG thoughts

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636759639860686853

 

[FJAG]

I've expressed my thoughts on Archer before which is basically that I like a 155 under armour SP with decent range. I'm neutral on the issue of tracks and wheels (my leaning towards tracks goes mostly for IFVs operating with tanks - artillery matters less which way it goes albeit my preference for tracks with guns has more to do with platform stability and added cross country mobility which matters in systems that need to shoot and move frequently. I think the strategic mobility that wheels are supposed to give is an overblown factor - I prefer better tactical mobility.). My main criticism of Archer is the limited on-board ammo holding and the previous ammo replenishment limbers which I see as not tactical, not protected nor efficient enough to do the job. That can obviously be changed.

I like the idea that the Brits are doing something to to replace the AS-90s sent to Ukraine. In fact I don't think that was a necessity but just a good decision. The UK has 89 AS-90 (per Wikipedia) and has only two 18-gun regiments that use it (1 RHA and 19 RA). There is an indication some places that 104 RA in 1 Arty Bde may be an SP regiment but 104 RA is a reserve regiment with 105mm L118s. IMHO if it is to become SP it won't have "deployable" SPs but rather will be paired with the two RegF regiments and provide trained manning to fill out 1 RHA and 19 RA. So, all in all, the UK has 36 designated operational AS-90s which means that the 30-32 AS-90s going to Ukraine do not need replacing as they come out of surplus stocks created as a result of previous force reduction. That leaves the UK with roughly 21-23 AS-90s as surplus which is probably just enough to cover VOR replacements and training vehicles at the RSA but leaves no viable stock of operational spares or sufficient guns to equip 104 RA (if equipping them is even part of Future Soldier - I couldn't find confirmation one way or the other).

The Brits still have a project to replace the 30-year-old, but modernized, AS-90s which leads me to believe the Archer purchase has two main purposes: to take advantage of an available system to politically fend off arguments that the government is weakening its force for Ukraine and to have one regiment which can experiment with, develop experience with, and build the necessary TTPs for a more modern artillery structure based on longer range, better automated 155 SPs.

I still lean slightly towards the tracked SPs (either M109A7/M1299/K9 albeit, I still think the jury is out on the L58 format for the M1299 barrel - it strikes me that it may be a bridge too far as a practical gun - OTOH I think the L52 barrel (like on the K9) is fairly proven and robust - OTOH again, I think that the L39 on the M109A6/7 is barely adequate and needs to move to an L52. - I'm ambivalent on autoloaders - they add weight and reduce on-board ammo) I gravitate towards the M109 because of manufacturing scale and North American location - it greatly simplifies sustainment and compatibility with the US. I just wish it came with an in-production L52 barrel.

I'll add one additional factor. I think our artillery needs to seriously get on board with mixed systems of guns capable of firing a variety of natures (including illumination, smoke, and cheap dumb rounds as well as some guided precision natures) and longer range (yet cheap) steerable systems for precision work (whether those are steerable rockets or loitering munitions (both on multi-barrel launchers) is a toss up to me at this time and IMHO would depend more on gaining practical experience with both systems rather than just looking at glossy brochures).

 

[GR66]

I've expressed my thoughts on Archer before which is basically that I like a 155 under armour SP with decent range. I'm neutral on the issue of tracks and wheels (my leaning towards tracks goes mostly for IFVs operating with tanks - artillery matters less which way it goes albeit my preference for tracks with guns has more to do with platform stability and added cross country mobility which matters in systems that need to shoot and move frequently. I think the strategic mobility that wheels are supposed to give is an overblown factor - I prefer better tactical mobility.). My main criticism of Archer is the limited on-board ammo holding and the previous ammo replenishment limbers which I see as not tactical, not protected nor efficient enough to do the job. That can obviously be changed.

I like the idea that the Brits are doing something to to replace the AS-90s sent to Ukraine. In fact I don't think that was a necessity but just a good decision. The UK has 89 AS-90 (per Wikipedia) and has only two 18-gun regiments that use it (1 RHA and 19 RA). There is an indication some places that 104 RA in 1 Arty Bde may be an SP regiment but 104 RA is a reserve regiment with 105mm L118s. IMHO if it is to become SP it won't have "deployable" SPs but rather will be paired with the two RegF regiments and provide trained manning to fill out 1 RHA and 19 RA. So, all in all, the UK has 36 designated operational AS-90s which means that the 30-32 AS-90s going to Ukraine do not need replacing as they come out of surplus stocks created as a result of previous force reduction. That leaves the UK with roughly 21-23 AS-90s as surplus which is probably just enough to cover VOR replacements and training vehicles at the RSA but leaves no viable stock of operational spares or sufficient guns to equip 104 RA (if equipping them is even part of Future Soldier - I couldn't find confirmation one way or the other).

The Brits still have a project to replace the 30-year-old, but modernized, AS-90s which leads me to believe the Archer purchase has two main purposes: to take advantage of an available system to politically fend off arguments that the government is weakening its force for Ukraine and to have one regiment which can experiment with, develop experience with, and build the necessary TTPs for a more modern artillery structure based on longer range, better automated 155 SPs.

I still lean slightly towards the tracked SPs (either M109A7/M1299/K9 albeit, I still think the jury is out on the L58 format for the M1299 barrel - it strikes me that it may be a bridge too far as a practical gun - OTOH I think the L52 barrel (like on the K9) is fairly proven and robust - OTOH again, I think that the L39 on the M109A6/7 is barely adequate and needs to move to an L52. - I'm ambivalent on autoloaders - they add weight and reduce on-board ammo) I gravitate towards the M109 because of manufacturing scale and North American location - it greatly simplifies sustainment and compatibility with the US. I just wish it came with an in-production L52 barrel.

I'll add one additional factor. I think our artillery needs to seriously get on board with mixed systems of guns capable of firing a variety of natures (including illumination, smoke, and cheap dumb rounds as well as some guided precision natures) and longer range (yet cheap) steerable systems for precision work (whether those are steerable rockets or loitering munitions (both on multi-barrel launchers) is a toss up to me at this time and IMHO would depend more on gaining practical experience with both systems rather than just looking at glossy brochures).

Perhaps an M109 upgrade option with the L52?​

M109L52[edit]​

Jointly developed by the Dutch firm RDM and the German firm Rheinmetall, the M109L52 was first revealed in 2002. The main improvement was replacing the M126 series gun with the longer 52-caliber cannon from the PzH 2000, thus the MTLS ammunition of the PzH 2000 can be used. Improvements to the loading system were also made, resulting in an increased rate of fire from 3 rds/min to 9–10 rds/min, able to be sustained for up to 2 minutes. A total of 35 rounds can be carried.

Edited to add: I wonder though about the PzH 2000 L52 gun it uses though. Initial reports from Ukraine suggest that it's not holding up to the high level of use they are experiencing. I wonder if the K9 barrel is any better?

If you are able to use other options for the longer range targets (RAP rounds, HIMARS or Loitering Munitions) are you maybe better off sticking with the L39 gun on the A6/A7 if it turns out to be significantly more robust and longer lasting in combat?

 

[FJAG]

Perhaps an M109 upgrade option with the L52?​

RDM are the folks who built our 105mm C3s. They went bankrupt long ago. I would think that Rheinmetall furnished the existing gun and left it to RDM to work out the adaption. It's a dead line.

It's not an impossible task to do this but with no production in progress.

The US aren't considering it because their longer range upgrade path is to the M1299. (its interesting to see their heaviest armored division model where the three A7 battalions provides close support and the one M1299 battalion provides general support within the division - I'm not sure if this is an interim path while the M1299 is still in development/low rate production - the fact that the plan is to build 689 A7s makes it highly unlikely that the plan is only interim - I think the Army is probably locked into the A7 as is for the long term. I'm not sure if there is a viable upgrade path of an A7 to an M1299 - both vehicles are still in either low-rate production or experimentation and the autoloaders still some distance down the road.) I should have mentioned that the M1299 too has a very low amount of on-board ammo expected with the redesigned autoloader - just 23 rds vice the 31 planned. - The A7, I think, has the same capacity as the A6 i.e. 39 rounds - God only knows what will happen with its autoloader but I'd guess the same as the M1299) At least there's a decent ammo limber in the M992 but I'm left wondering how efficiently it recharges an A7 or M1299 magazine.

To do a Canada-only production of the few dozen guns we need would be a financial disaster. One either goes with production M109A7s or K-9s (I'd stay away from the specialty stuff being done in Poland and elsewhere - interesting, maybe even good - but sustainment nightmares)

 

[KevinB]

The US aren't considering it because their longer range upgrade path is to the M1299. (its interesting to see their heaviest armored division model where the three A7 battalions provides close support and the one M1299 battalion provides general support within the division -

Keep in mind MLRS and HIMAR are generally still viewed as the GS for most Divisions.
The M1299 ERAC is still pencilled in at best.

There is also still not a decision on if there will be a Wheeled SPG, the return to Div and Corps structures seems to have eliminated the need for a Wheeled SPG as there are no pure Stryker Div’s — I suspect that program will die on the vine.

To do a Canada-only production of the few dozen guns we need would be a financial disaster. One either goes with production M109A7s or K-9s (I'd stay away from the specialty stuff being done in Poland and elsewhere - interesting, maybe even good - but sustainment nightmares)

I think simply because the A7 is built a few miles south - it makes a great deal more sense.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think simply because the A7 is built a few miles south - it makes a great deal more sense.

…and not susceptible to ‘variably-committed’ other states in the weapons system/supply chain…I’d trust the American Experiment over the European Experiment.

 

[FJAG]

Keep in mind MLRS and HIMAR are generally still viewed as the GS for most Divisions.
The M1299 ERAC is still pencilled in at best.

Based on the Force 2030 structure the MLRS and HIMARs are Corps resources while at the Div level it's just guns. There's of course a long way to go before those structures become final and my guess is a few changes will occur between now and then.

There is also still not a decision on if there will be a Wheeled SPG, the return to Div and Corps structures seems to have eliminated the need for a Wheeled SPG as there are no pure Stryker Div’s — I suspect that program will die on the vine.

Not so sure about that. Some of the SBCTs are the third BCT in the Standard Heavy Division. That div arty bde currently is slated to have two M109 and one M777 battalions. If that BCT structure holds then the wheeled SP becomes even more necessary unless they go directly to a third M109 battalion which actually makes more sense to me.

The only issue left is that there are more SBCTs then are needed for the Standard heavy divs being formed which makes me wonder what they will be used for if kept at all. If there is some idea to keep a few independent SBCTs for the medium weight role then they might still want a few battalions of lighter wheeled SPs.

I think simply because the A7 is built a few miles south - it makes a great deal more sense.

Maybe a K9 turret on an M109 chassis spliced together here in London? (Yeah, I know - it's probably too heavy - you might as well go for an M1299 in the first place) Maybe if you beefed up the ACSV chassis and suspension and put duals on the back four wheels, London could add an Archer turret and stabilizers.

 

[KevinB]

Based on the Force 2030 structure the MLRS and HIMARs are Corps resources while at the Div level it's just guns. There's of course a long way to go before those structures become final and my guess is a few changes will occur between now and then.

It’s a ‘work in progress’ for anything beyond Div at this point — I think there is a consensus that Corps don’t need to be (or shouldn’t be) cookie cutter - which means that some Div’s probably won’t be either.
Plus unless we adopt a lot more robust Corps Arty structure than planned currently there will be a lot of extra Rocket Bn’s.

Not so sure about that. Some of the SBCTs are the third BCT in the Standard Heavy Division. That div arty bde currently is slated to have two M109 and one M777 battalions. If that BCT structure holds then the wheeled SP becomes even more necessary unless they go directly to a third M109 battalion which actually makes more sense to me.

My guess is the 777 will go to M119A3 units in Light roles. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in 105mm down here anymore.
Right now I suspect those Stryker Bde’s as the 3rd Maneuver element in a Heavy Div will lose the 777’s over to Light/Abn Div’s and the Div will get A7’s. Those SB’s in Light Div’s would retain the 777 I would assume.

The only issue left is that there are more SBCTs then are needed for the Standard heavy divs being formed which makes me wonder what they will be used for if kept at all. If there is some idea to keep a few independent SBCTs for the medium weight role then they might still want a few battalions of lighter wheeled SPs.

A few Stryker Bde’s got moved in Light Div’s as a protected mobility maneuver element.
Which sparked a debate along with the MPFV Light Tank as to what doctrinal justification exists given our current plans for Light/IBCT units

Maybe a K9 turret on an M109 chassis spliced together here in London? (Yeah, I know - it's probably too heavy - you might as well go for an M1299 in the first place) Maybe if you beefed up the ACSV chassis and suspension and put duals on the back four wheels, London could add an Archer turret and stabilizers.

I’m not sold on the ERCA, I don’t see then need given what HIMARS and MLRS have for range/payload options.
I don’t think the barrel life will be 1/3rd of the A7, and while I’d love to be proven wrong, I’m not holding my breath.

 

[FJAG]

It’s a ‘work in progress’ for anything beyond Div at this point — I think there is a consensus that Corps don’t need to be (or shouldn’t be) cookie cutter - which means that some Div’s probably won’t be either.
Plus unless we adopt a lot more robust Corps Arty structure than planned currently there will be a lot of extra Rocket Bn’s.

One of the problems with Force 2030 is that there hasn't been much new about it in the open source literature since around last October. My assumption is that corps arty remains a tailor made mix of current independent Fires Brigades made up of a headquarters, a Brigade Support Battalion, a signals company and UAV and STA batteries and of a mix of MLRS, HIMARS and M109 battalions. There are five Active Army Fires Bdes one assigned to each of the five Corps and another eight of which are unallocated ARNG brigades in a general pool. I haven't seen any change announced for any of those.

My guess is the 777 will go to M119A3 units in Light roles. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in 105mm down here anymore.

IBCTs currently have battalions mixed with two M119A3 batteries and one M777 battery. I'm not sure there are enough M777s left in the inventory to upgrade the M119A3 batteries. There are some 34 IBCTs in the Army (Active and ARNG) which would mean some 408 M777s would be needed to upgrade all the M119A3 batteries to M777. The Army has some 821 M119s and 420 - 518 M777s (the sources vary) of which 204 are in IBCTs and 162 in the 9 SBCTs (which makes me think that the lower figure might be more accurate). (Not counting what has been transferred to Ukraine or how many of the 580 owned by the marines were made redundant.)

Right now I suspect those Stryker Bde’s as the 3rd Maneuver element in a Heavy Div will lose the 777’s over to Light/Abn Div’s and the Div will get A7’s. Those SB’s in Light Div’s would retain the 777 I would assume.

The Army 2030 plan called for a single wheeled SP 155 Bn for Heavy Div but like I said, its anyone's guess with the restructure. To me the most logical thing would be to give them A7s so that all three battalions in the Heavy Div are the same gear. I can no longer see any advantage to a wheeled SP in a Heavy Div construct. It's an unnecessary complication and the cost savings would be minimal for acquisition and probably negative for sustainment.

A few Stryker Bde’s got moved in Light Div’s as a protected mobility maneuver element.
Which sparked a debate along with the MPFV Light Tank as to what doctrinal justification exists given our current plans for Light/IBCT units

It would be a mutt thing at best. I can see SBCTs in heavy divisions to give them more dismounts for a variety of tactical needs. I don't see the same purpose for the Light divisions. IMHO, if SVCTs are being added to some Light Divs, I would leave them with the M777 and standardize the Div arty on M777s and keep from introducing a new limited line of guns. Hell if they think an SP is necessary than use A7s. They aren't much heavier than most of the wheeled SPs. Yeah, Yeah, I know - road moves.

I’m not sold on the ERCA, I don’t see then need given what HIMARS and MLRS have for range/payload options.
I don’t think the barrel life will be 1/3rd of the A7, and while I’d love to be proven wrong, I’m not holding my breath.

That's kind of where I am. I didn't give much thought to barrel life until I started seeing the stats on current 155 barrel life. It's not 2,500 rounds but 2,500 EFCs, but when you start talking about "extended range" then EFCs become almost 1:1 to rounds fired and I'm pretty sure an ERCA is going to see less EFCs per barrel than 2,500. Don't know. Haven't seen the literature but physics is physics.

I don't like the per round cost of HIMARS/MLRS. I think there needs to be an additional lighter, cheaper long range precision rocket option fired from a multiple launch system. Something like the HERO 120 that the USMC are playing with - but perhaps with a choice of a rocket engine and designator guidance but basically something cheap for unitary hard targets. Something as hard to intercept as an artillery round but not requiring a gun to launch.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Since we will never have a division or Corp again and at best a fancy brigade or two, step everything down one?

 

[GR66]

Maybe a K9 turret on an M109 chassis spliced together here in London? (Yeah, I know - it's probably too heavy - you might as well go for an M1299 in the first place) Maybe if you beefed up the ACSV chassis and suspension and put duals on the back four wheels, London could add an Archer turret and stabilizers.

If you were to go for a Canadian Franken-Howitzer there might be a potential GDLS option if the US Army chooses the Griffin III in the OMFV program to replace the Bradley.

The ERCA turret is on a Bradley chassis which is lighter than the proposed Griffin III chassis. You could mount an A7 turret on a GDLS-produced Griffin Chassis.

Would only make sense to me IF the Griffin III was chosen to replace the Bradley in the US AND Canada also replaced our LAVs with the Griffin III in a Heavy Brigade. That way we'd have chassis commonality both with the US Army and within the vehicles in our own Heavy Brigade.

I don't like the per round cost of HIMARS/MLRS. I think there needs to be an additional lighter, cheaper long range precision rocket option fired from a multiple launch system. Something like the HERO 120 that the USMC are playing with - but perhaps with a choice of a rocket engine and designator guidance but basically something cheap for unitary hard targets. Something as hard to intercept as an artillery round but not requiring a gun to launch.

100% agree on the need for something between an artillery round and a HIMARS rocket. A loitering munition or lock-on-after-launch/smart seeker head NLOS-type missile multi-launch system would also be a good counter battery system as well.

Unlike gun-based counter battery fire that can only target the location where the enemy artillery was shooting from a LM/Missile system can be launched at the firing site but can also locate and target the enemy SPGs after they've already "scooted" from their firing positions.

On the other side of the coin it makes you wonder if each of our own Artillery Batteries should have an integral AD asset attached to protect against enemy CB fire.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Within the CAF there are two primary obstacles to building an effective Reserve Force (and not one that is heavily committed day to day, like much of the status quo being "Reg F on the cheap").

Those two obstacles are the Regular Force in second place, but the primary obstacle to an effective Reserve Force is the Reserve Force itself.

You're absolutely correct. I've said it before, if the ARes wants to be more than it is then it needs to come to the table with its own proposed solutions to it's institutional and organizational problems. And the status quo is not a solution.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You're absolutely correct. I've said it before, if the ARes wants to be more than it is then it needs to come to the table with its own proposed solutions to it's institutional and organizational problems. And the status quo is not a solution.

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the 'ARes' is a unified, well defined, self-aware, and properly led organization (not suffering from perpetual self-esteem crises and ADHD) that is ready and willing to making such decisions.

Which is one of the reasons we keep our bands going...

 

[Halifax Tar]

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the 'ARes' is a unified, well defined, self-aware, and properly led organization (not suffering from perpetual self-esteem crises and ADHD) that is ready and willing to making such decisions.

Which is one of the reasons we keep our bands going...

Hence the organizational and institutional problems I mentioned.

I think the Reg Force Army lives pretty much rent free in the heads of the Army Reserve.

The Reg Force knows there is problems, but also knows the mafias can only be beaten by the ARes themselves.

 

[FJAG]

You're absolutely correct. I've said it before, if the ARes wants to be more than it is then it needs to come to the table with its own proposed solutions to it's institutional and organizational problems. And the status quo is not a solution.

I'll go back to what I think are the basics. The CAF writ large and the Army in particular, will not accept any reform other than minor tweaking and fine tuning regardless of its source. The ARes problem is much too large for that. It needs a fundamental, from the ground up, redesign that is fully integrated into a fundamental, from the ground up, reform of the Army's RegF and the Army as a whole.

In all my little napkin forces I've been using the existing number of RegF PYs and ARes positions as the limiting factor. I'm going to start playing with the notion of reducing the RegF PYs by 1 bde's worth of combat arms and CS units to see how that can be reshaped into 70/30//30/70 structures. (Note that there is no CSS PY reduction contemplated) Maybe an imposed force reduction would be the sparking motivator for overall reform.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll go back to what I think are the basics. The CAF writ large and the Army in particular, will not accept any reform other than minor tweaking and fine tuning regardless of its source. The ARes problem is much too large for that. It needs a fundamental, from the ground up, redesign that is fully integrated into a fundamental, from the ground up, reform of the Army's RegF and the Army as a whole.

In all my little napkin forces I've been using the existing number of RegF PYs and ARes positions as the limiting factor. I'm going to start playing with the notion of reducing the RegF PYs by 1 bde's worth of combat arms and CS units to see how that can be reshaped into 70/30//30/70 structures. (Note that there is no CSS PY reduction contemplated) Maybe an imposed force reduction would be the sparking motivator for overall reform.

If we are going to reduce our CMBGs to 2 then I think at that point we need to seriously look at the value of a full time expeditionary Army.

The ARes needs to lead any changes to its structure and organization. Any forced upon will only be met with resistance. And our ARes units have some very powerful strings to tug on.

I think the idea that our ARes organizations can be some sort of part time CMBG is a dreamers fantasy. We need to be honest with ourselves with what these folks can reasonably accomplish and produce.

 

[KevinB]

If we are going to reduce our CMBGs to 2 then I think at that point we need to seriously look at the value of a full time expeditionary Army.

We have an Expeditionary army down here. We use the ARNG and USAR without major issues (these days).

I’m of the opinion one well equipped Light Bde of Regular Force personnel is all Canada needs for a 100% Reg Formation.

3 other Bde’s of 30/70 in Heavy, Medium and Light could do everything else on a rotational ( or if need be mobilized) basis.

The ARes needs to lead any changes to its structure and organization. Any forced upon will only be met with resistance. And our ARes units have some very powerful strings to tug on.

IMHO the Regular Army is quite happy with a bumbling PRes

I think the idea that our ARes organizations can be some sort of part time CMBG is a dreamers fantasy. We need to be honest with ourselves with what these folks can reasonably accomplish and produce.

I fail to believe that the Canadian PRes couldn’t be worked into CMBG’s given equipment, training and a mission.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I fail to believe that the Canadian PRes couldn’t be worked into CMBG’s given equipment, training and a mission.

I used to think that, then I sobered up

It would be a 10-20 year culture shift project, I'm guessing...

 

[Halifax Tar]

We have an Expeditionary army down here. We use the ARNG and USAR without major issues (these days).

I’m of the opinion one well equipped Light Bde of Regular Force personnel is all Canada needs for a 100% Reg Formation.

3 other Bde’s of 30/70 in Heavy, Medium and Light could do everything else on a rotational ( or if need be mobilized) basis.

I don't think its fair to compare what the USA has and can do to what Canada can and will. That's not excusing the current pitiful state, just saying our effect on will never be as big.

If Canada maintained just 1 RegF Light Bde, what do you envision as its role ? Is it expeditionary ?

If you want your 30/70 Bdes to be anything of value you will the GOC to adjust the legislation around the ARes.

We've argued this point before, but I maintain that Canada has no need for an expeditionary Army, and should revert to a territorial system to provide home defence and assistance to civil power. Canada's soul land based full time force should CANSOFCOM. But opinions are like A-holes.

IMHO the Regular Army is quite happy with a bumbling PRes

I disagree. To a certain extent the RegF lives rent free in a lot of heads on this forum. The RegF would love a capable and fully manned ResF but for various reasons, most self inflicted, the ResF cant produce that. So the ARes is simply seen as a augmentee production system.

I fail to believe that the Canadian PRes couldn’t be worked into CMBG’s given equipment, training and a mission.

Our Res CBGs could, you're right. But your setting up your conditions way out of whack with reality. We don't have the people, that's the first problem; the equipment, training or mission.

People and training are up to the Res to fix. We have a large number of folks from Cpl to CWO employed as Recruiters in my CBG, its the largest branch in our CBGHQ, but if they were paid on what they produced they would pretty much be out of a job.

Once you have the people and training fixed up, big Army will get you Equipment and a mission.