Agreed. There are sufficient authorized ResF positions to man, in conjunction with the RegF field Army PYs, 2 divisional structures.
The issue, however, isn't just authorized manning but pragmatically how filled are they. It's some time since I've looked at manning levels, but the 10 ResF CBGs were manned at roughly 1,200 to 2,200 pers each for, at that time, a total of roughly 16,500. And then there is the whole Class B dilemma that syphons of people and funding.
The population base is relevant, but only if it can be motivated to join and stay with the program. How we allocate positions is another matter.
Just as an aside, the term, 2 fully manned divisions does not necessarily have to equate to fully equipped divisions. In particular, ResF heavy brigades only need enough equipment in the first instance to ensure that they can be fully trained on it. OTOH, RegF heavy units intended for quick reaction work need both the equipment for training and the equipment for deploying with. In other words, the first thing that we need is a plan for want we want to be before we start planning for equipment. That's an entirely different question from reorganizing for the purpose of improving the management and training of the ResF which should be done regardless of whether we equip them fully or not.
That's the way I see it too.
IMHO we are bound to the reality of 3+1 bdes and 9 (12 in a pinch) deployable BG HQs. I don't think that's enough for a proper rotation scheme for the number of BG tasks that SSE demands the CAF can do (and most of those fall on the Army). One thing that a 30/70 structure in part of the force does, is provide more deployable/rotatable BG and Bde HQs.
I do not like the 1 Div construct. It runs multiple missions for CJOC and isn't well structured to become a deployed div HQ. OTOH we currently invest in 4 administrative divisional headquarters. I could see getting rid of 1 Div as structured and putting those resources and tasks directly into CJOC. In the meantime the 4 existing div HQs could be contracted into 2 proper div HQs one of which would have the role for being an expeditionary HQ while the other concentrates on defence of Canada.
I agree with a light brigade that is predominantly RegF. I would prefer to keep the arty and engineer resources out of the brigade and in their own formations (an Arty bde and a CS brigade). Both arty and engineer resources can be allocated as required tailored for each mission. There obviously needs to be some training crossover for appropriate FSCC, FOO, JTAC, STACC, ASCC and ESCC. Arty gunlines are rarely needed on peacetime mission. Engrs more often.
Same comment on arty and engineers. IMHO you need several 100/0 gun batteries to ensure proper career development for leadership offrs and NCMs. The rest can be 10/90. You probably need more than one 100/0 OP battery - again for career development. STA can be predominantly ResF - say 30/70.
As noted above I don't think we have enough HQs for those rotations if we continue on 6 month cycles. We need to ad hoc too often rather than deploying an established entity. As an example, if you take 1 CMBG (with 4 x BG HQs) and 3 CBGs and use its RegF & ResF components to create 3 x 30/70 bdes you would end up with 3 x deployable Bde staff and 9 x deployable BG HQs which would more than double the ability to create rotational HQs. The issue that is left is the number of deployable RegF sub units which remain the same but offer a better possibility to long-term plan and train reservists to fill the blank files. This would work well with such known and established tasks such as the eFP.
Obviously the quick reaction forces are a different issue and need to be handled differently.
I would go so far as to put a fully equipped Type 44 armoured regiment and two LAV battalions into Europe and conduct all bde level training (RegF and ResF) there on that equipment. (I'll leave aside how much of that it rotationally manned and how much is fly-over) That leaves enough tanks and LAVs in Canada to equip 6 LAV coys and 2 tank squadrons for training within the 3 x 30/70 bdes (in Ontario and on the Prairies) and another 6 LAV companies in Quebec.
I'm less sanguine about that. GBAD is a must have. ATGMs are a must have. We can risk manage the M777s and other deteriorating guns for a bit longer, but not much longer.
If we went to a 30/70 arty gun battery structure our 33 guns could provide 1 x 6 gun battery forward deployed and 4 x 6 gun batteries (generating 4 x 30/70 regiments). That leaves 3 spare for technical reference with RCEME and RCSA. (I'd move all training on the M777 to the regiments - and yeah. That really leaves the RCSA short but IMHO it's more critical that the field units can train as six-gun batteries)
That said, we do need a good 155mm/L52 or better SP and soon.
I must admit, I like this thread. There have been some very good ideas here that have made me modify my thoughts quite a few times.
