Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Short of WW3, I cannot see the need fro the CA to field a Division or more.
Creating a Division (or more) is however useful for a number of reasons.
Training all parts of one, so you don't
Ensuring Competencies and Capabilities
Break Glass in Case of War.


I believe that Canadians are better served as Coalition members - into Allied Divisions.
With the idea that a Canadian Armored Bde could plug into a US, UK, Polish Etc Division or Corps, Light into XVIII Airborne Corps etc.
However it could be theoretically possible for Canada to Deploy a DIV HQ and a Bde, plus a Arty Bde etc -
So I would prefer two Div HQ, 1 of which is deployable, which also allows for a Second Div in the event of mobilization.

Medium Forces these days aren't see with the same vigor they were in GWOT - but they do offer protected Mobility in larger conflicts or serve fairly well for OOTW. Canada has IMHO over invested in the LAV.

So CJOC would have under command 6 JTF Brigadiers/Commodores and a deployable MGen while a second, independent MGen would have administrative responsibility for 1,2,5 and 6 Bdes plus 1 Wing. MGen CADTC would have responsibility for the training of the Reserves.

Something like that?

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know if I was raising points so much as stumbling around trying to ask how such a theory would actually be implemented.

What is the cost/effectiveness relationship? Is it linear? Whatever the relationship, Is there a real world option to select at our theoretically desired tradeoff point?

The point is you asked the questions.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cost/Effectiveness is a very very hard metric to gauge, simply because the answer has so many variables.
As well some will weight effectiveness differently.

To me, you generally want as survivable a vehicle as possible, so that your crew can live if the vehicle is stuck by a significant projectile or explosion. It's the old Armor Trilogy: Protection, Firepower, Mobility -- except this day and age, you can often get the best of all three in one platform.

For OOTW, I'm generally a thin skin vehicle fan (may maybe with some up armor in some theaters), simply as anyone can make a bigger bomb, but when it comes to Mech/Armor stuff in a high intensity conflict, I'm all about getting the best one can get.

And here I will point out that all three of Krulak's blocks exist in Ukraine today. The war is many concurrent battles, some of which require masses of shells and heavy armour, some of which are managed with pickup trucks and dune buggies and some of which are managed with taxis, ambulances and cellphones.

Canada has an array of kit and willing soldiers that can be put to good use. Today. If necessary.

 

[KevinB]

So CJOC would have under command 6 JTF Brigadiers/Commodores and a deployable MGen while a second, independent MGen would have administrative responsibility for 1,2,5 and 6 Bdes plus 1 Wing. MGen CADTC would have responsibility for the training of the Reserves.

Something like that?

I'm not sure I like the idea of the FG/FE being so separate.
Accepting CJOC (grudgingly)

2 Div I would have as (currently) a Domestic Operations Role, Training (Schools), Doctrine etc.

1 Div would be the deployable Army - farming out units as needed for Domestic needs to 2 Div, but primarily focused on Expeditionary Warfighting.
Army of 6 Maneuver Bde's
1 CAB: LdSH(RC), 1 and 2 PPCLI, 1 CER.
2 CLB: 3 RCR, 3VP, 3 R22eR, 2 CER
3 CMB: RCD, 1 and 2 RCR, 3 CER
4 CMB: VIIICH, QOR, and Black Watch (RC), 4 CER
5 CMB: 12 RBC, 1 and 2 Vandoo, 5 CER
6 CCSB: 21EW, Int, MP's, 4 ESR
7 RCAB: 1-4 RCHA, 5RALC, 6 RCA (renaming the current 4 RCA)
8 RCSB: Service Support Bde(+)
*not naming the HQ's and small units in the Bde's

2 Div
CADTC
9 CRB: Canadian Rangers
10 RCSB: Domestic Service Support Bde.



*I'd pull the Influence Activities TF out of 6 CCSB and put in under CANSOF, as well as pulling the PsyOps Directorate from CADTC and intro CANSOFCOM.

** I would OP task all the PRes units to Regular units - 4 CMB would be a 10/90 entity, until one could fix the PRes system and then one could start making 30/70 and 70/30 units.

 

[McG]

So how does that look for Canada Re- more of lesser? Is the baseline for comparison today actual or a hypothetical ideal endstate?

More LAV 6.0's instead of looking to replace with a more expensive IFV?
More of a less capable (turretless) LAV than the 6.0 to expand the the fleet?

We just bought the LAV 6. If we are going to start buying quantities to equip the force in being and resource operations, and then our start point should be getting it right with projects already in the hopper.

The logistics vehicle modernization will deliver not enough trucks for our organization and no trucks for a dedicated operations fleet. So how do we get that project right? ACSV is in implementation but it will only deliver quantities to replace Bison & TLAV, not to provide enough for all our current CS & CSS A Veh needs. Is it too late to get that project right?

I know. If it does not launch missiles or have a cannon, it is not sexy and we would rather talk about something else. The CA talks about the importance of deployable brigades but, between the A/SPOD and the service battalion, we imagine a magic carpet conveyer moving resources forward. So let’s figure out that piece.

We also need to replace or establish most of our Artillery systems. Howitzers, rockets, and air defence. … and our Engineers are using bulldozers that have been in service since the Cold War.

How do we get the right quantity of CS & CSS to equip, support, and employ the size of force we want? Is there some feature we can do without in order to get enough trucks or self-propelled howitzers?

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure I like the idea of the FG/FE being so separate.
Accepting CJOC (grudgingly)

2 Div I would have as (currently) a Domestic Operations Role, Training (Schools), Doctrine etc.

1 Div would be the deployable Army - farming out units as needed for Domestic needs to 2 Div, but primarily focused on Expeditionary Warfighting.
Army of 6 Maneuver Bde's
1 CAB: LdSH(RC), 1 and 2 PPCLI, 1 CER.
2 CLB: 3 RCR, 3VP, 3 R22eR, 2 CER
3 CMB: RCD, 1 and 2 RCR, 3 CER
4 CMB: VIIICH, QOR, and Black Watch (RC), 4 CER
5 CMB: 12 RBC, 1 and 2 Vandoo, 5 CER
6 CCSB: 21EW, Int, MP's, 4 ESR
7 RCAB: 1-4 RCHA, 5RALC, 6 RCA (renaming the current 4 RCA)
8 RCSB: Service Support Bde(+)
*not naming the HQ's and small units in the Bde's

2 Div
CADTC
9 CRB: Canadian Rangers
10 RCSB: Domestic Service Support Bde.



*I'd pull the Influence Activities TF out of 6 CCSB and put in under CANSOF, as well as pulling the PsyOps Directorate from CADTC and intro CANSOFCOM.

** I would OP task all the PRes units to Regular units - 4 CMB would be a 10/90 entity, until one could fix the PRes system and then one could start making 30/70 and 70/30 units.

But what happens if you want to deploy 5 and 7 for an enduring mission? Who looks after 1,2,3,4,6 and that bit if 8 that isn't deployed? You need another MGen.

And your 2CLB, that is the element that I would form around the existing 1 Wing HQ.

 

[Kirkhill]

We just bought the LAV 6. If we are going to start buying quantities to equip the force in being and resource operations, and then our start point should be getting it right with projects already in the hopper.

The logistics vehicle modernization will deliver not enough trucks for our organization and no trucks for a dedicated operations fleet. So how do we get that project right? ACSV is in implementation but it will only deliver quantities to replace Bison & TLAV, not to provide enough for all our current CS & CSS A Veh needs. Is it too late to get that project right?

I know. If it does not launch missiles or have a cannon, it is not sexy and we would rather talk about something else. The CA talks about the importance of deployable brigades but, between the A/SPOD and the service battalion, we imagine a magic carpet conveyer moving resources forward. So let’s figure out that piece.

We also need to replace or establish most of our Artillery systems. Howitzers, rockets, and air defence. … and our Engineers are using bulldozers that have been in service since the Cold War.

How do we get the right quantity of CS & CSS to equip, support, and employ the size of force we want? Is there some feature we can do without in order to get enough trucks or self-propelled howitzers?

The really interesting part about the deficiencies you describe is that they can all be filled from Canadian factories with much of the capacity being supplied with existing civilian models.

Even the hard military stuff like the ACSVs - simply building lots of unarmed TCVs would go a long way to solving logistics bottlenecks.

 

[KevinB]

But what happens if you want to deploy 5 and 7 for an enduring mission? Who looks after 1,2,3,4,6 and that bit if 8 that isn't deployed? You need another MGen.

And your 2CLB, that is the element that I would form around the existing 1 Wing HQ.

Are you also deploying the Div HQ? A Div HQ is a massive beast, there is zero point to deploying it unless it is actually doing Division stuff.
If you are Deploying a Div HQ, then I would be getting 2 Div up and manned...

WRT 1 Wing, without a major realignment in the entire CAF, I don't see a point in putting it in the Army, even then it needs a major increase to do much.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I know. If it does not launch missiles or have a cannon, it is not sexy and we would rather talk about something else. The CA talks about the importance of deployable brigades but, between the A/SPOD and the service battalion, we imagine a magic carpet conveyer moving resources forward. So let’s figure out that piece.

Don't think this is entirely fair given the linked article explicitly discussed tanks and fighting vehicles.

The logistics vehicle modernization will deliver not enough trucks for our organization and no trucks for a dedicated operations fleet. So how do we get that project right? ACSV is in implementation but it will only deliver quantities to replace Bison & TLAV, not to provide enough for all our current CS & CSS A Veh needs. Is it too late to get that project right?

We just bought the LAV 6. If we are going to start buying quantities to equip the force in being and resource operations, and then our start point should be getting it right with projects already in the hopper.

We also need to replace or establish most of our Artillery systems. Howitzers, rockets, and air defence. … and our Engineers are using bulldozers that have been in service since the Cold War.


How do we get the right quantity of CS & CSS to equip, support, and employ the size of force we want? Is there some feature we can do without in order to get enough trucks or self-propelled howitzers?

But granted, topic changed. Are you talking micro or macro- an "Army" feature/capability done without to get said trucks and howitzers, or an "Item" feature left off the trucks and howitzers to get more of them cheaper?

 

[KevinB]

We just bought the LAV 6. If we are going to start buying quantities to equip the force in being and resource operations, and then our start point should be getting it right with projects already in the hopper.

The logistics vehicle modernization will deliver not enough trucks for our organization and no trucks for a dedicated operations fleet. So how do we get that project right? ACSV is in implementation but it will only deliver quantities to replace Bison & TLAV, not to provide enough for all our current CS & CSS A Veh needs. Is it too late to get that project right?

It's the typical CA death by 1000 cuts.

I know. If it does not launch missiles or have a cannon, it is not sexy and we would rather talk about something else. The CA talks about the importance of deployable brigades but, between the A/SPOD and the service battalion, we imagine a magic carpet conveyer moving resources forward. So let’s figure out that piece.

We also need to replace or establish most of our Artillery systems. Howitzers, rockets, and air defence. … and our Engineers are using bulldozers that have been in service since the Cold War.

How do we get the right quantity of CS & CSS to equip, support, and employ the size of force we want? Is there some feature we can do without in order to get enough trucks or self-propelled howitzers?

I fail to understand how projects in the CAF are constantly under valued, or cut after the bare necessity has already been established.

To me it should be fairly simple.
Requirement = X
So buy at least 1.5X
Start Replacement well before rust out.

Certain items should be bought annually, like Logistics vehicles, for example 200 Heavy Logistics Vehicles and 200 Medium Logistics Vehicles a Year. Ensures that you are not burning out one fleet to cover for another - like the HLVW fleet to make up for the MLVW fleet that fell apart.


I'm legitimately serious when I think the CAF should look at cutting some PY's, simply to ensure there is equipment (and modern viable equipment) for the troops it does have.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you also deploying the Div HQ? A Div HQ is a massive beast, there is zero point to deploying it unless it is actually doing Division stuff.
If you are Deploying a Div HQ, then I would be getting 2 Div up and manned...

WRT 1 Wing, without a major realignment in the entire CAF, I don't see a point in putting it in the Army, even then it needs a major increase to do much.

You're the one that brought up leading a Multi National Division and supplying the Artillery.

WRT 1 Wing. They are already in the Army even if they don't know it.

 

[McG]

Don't think this is entirely fair given the linked article explicitly discussed tanks and fighting vehicles.

You are right. I did orient the idea with an article focused on our least urgent fleet requirement.

But granted, topic changed. Are you talking micro or macro- an "Army" feature/capability done without to get said trucks and howitzers, or an "Item" feature left off the trucks and howitzers to get more of them cheaper?

So I think it might be a little of both. Do our SPH need tracks or can they be wheeled? If the SPH is wheeled, can we afford more? Would that additional quantity allow for dedicated op stock and replacement holdings to keep us combat effective longer into a war?

A more abstract idea might be to make some systems more capable so others become extraneous. Could we buy fewer 7 kW generator trailers if our LSVW CP replacement were hybrid electric and designed to be its own generator? Would this save money? Enough money to buy more CPs?

I fail to understand how projects in the CAF are constantly under valued, or cut after the bare necessity has already been established.

To me it should be fairly simple.
Requirement = X
So buy at least 1.5X
Start Replacement well before rust out.

There is no timely mechanism to get additional project funding without going back to the approval gateways that authorized the project. If a project approved by TB needs more money to deliver its scope, it needs to go back to TB to get that approval. And before it goes to TB, it needs to go through the departmental processes to approve and source more funds (usually by robbing from another project). And, if a project goes back for additional trips to DCB, PMB, or TB then it is stealing slots from other projects. So to not disrupt other projects, there is significant pressure to deliver something within budget. Better to deliver 70% of the quantity on 100% of the budget than to seek more funds.

And project staff are part of the TB approved funding, so if a problem can be solved with no extra acquisition cost but requires an extra year of project staff work, then it will overrun its budget. So if a OEM over promises & under delivers, it might cost time (= money) to hold them to the contract. The projects do not need to go back to gateways for approval to under deliver. So we will, hypothetically, accept a section carrier that cannot carry a section. The project will then declare victory & close-out.

 

[FJAG]

Honestly I fail to understand the logic behind the CMBG at this point anymore.
1 CMBG has tanks
2 and 5 don’t.
I really don’t understand why the 3rd BN’s are left in the “CMBG’s” as generally most other armies have a 2 Inf 2 Arm Bde structure for ‘Mech’ a 2:1 Armor/Inf for Armor Bde’s and a 3 Inf Bn for Inf Bde’s.

I've been a bit busy today so even though this thread has moved on I'd like to take a stab at what you're saying.

What is critical to the understanding of the current structure of the CA is that there is really no intention to mobilize and field a brigade of any sort. Transformation at the turn of the century looked at failed state scenarios as the the purpose of the CA and in that respect focussed on generating purpose built battle groups. This is enshrined in the tasks assigned under SSE which are limited to battle group-sized task forces.

For those operational roles, balanced brigade groups which work through managed readiness cycles are adequate. Some would argue appropriate. For peacetime, its mostly adequate and I might even say it's extravagant in some respects while inadequate in others.

Obviously I'm not a fan. I fully believe that an army needs to be structured to fulfill peacetime missions and yet have the capability to easily transition to a wartime role. I'm not going to daydream about what a 2% GDP could get us but I'm fully of the mind that within Canada's current defence budget and an army of in excess of 40,000 authorized positions (Reg and Res) we should be capable of fielding and sustaining a mechanized division to be part of a multinational force in a major conflict while being able to generate battle groups during peacetime.

Yes, that will take some additional equipment over time but much more importantly it will need a major change in attitude. IMHO, our current inputs do not match our defence outputs. That needs to change in a very serious way.

 

[FJAG]

The biggest problem would be that fielding that Division would gut the CAF and leave nothing to build on if further mobilization were required. Even contributing a Brigade Group, of any type, would be a major "bet" in that it would engage 1/4 to 1/3 of the field force.

That's clearly the problem in a force that is designed with a capable RegF that demands that all of it goes to war on day one.

If on the other hand you make that division a mix of RegF and ResF from day one and leave behind a large enough RegF component to to build the follow up sustainment elements and the continuing sustainment production then Bob's your uncle.

Our current situation is based on risk aversion and not building a ResF capable of deploying as part of the first wave without a major predeployment training effort. - It's easier to ignore the problem or say that it can't be achieved.

Which brings us back to @FJAG's perennial moan . Engaging the Reserves effectively in a timely fashion.

Moooaaaannnn!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The current Sterling truck is decent for most of the logistical branch, buy a dedicated Tactical truck in the 2-3 ton range to replace them and move them into the logistacl units and keep 1-2 in each unit for admin stuff.

 

[Rifleman62]

To prove your point.

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal? | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal? - 11 Jul 23​

Extracts:

The need for a more robust frame and the effects of inflation could mean a smaller initial buy.....

The Army had yet to settle on final quantities but had projected a buy of up to 300 TMPs in two variants — personnel and cargo — to equip the three light infantry battalions, the light engineer squadrons, and the light artillery tactical groups.

Depending on the feedback from the RFI, the project team is now estimating around 90 tactical vehicles, still in the same two variants, plus nine to 10 trailers. The majority, around 60, would be in the troop-carrying variant.

“We are focusing right now on the core capability of the light forces,” Khelil explained. That would mean equipping one light force battle group, which includes a light infantry battalion, a light engineer squadron, and a light artillery battery.

“That’s the minimum scope,” he added. “A middle scope would increase the amount up to 330 vehicles, to equip the three light battalions. The full scope would add around 200 more vehicles to equip Reserve units, including specialists such as pioneers and direct fire support. The Reserve units are one of the main players that will need to use the TMP. But, at this time, we are focused on the minimum scope.”

The Army had anticipated reaching initially operating capability (IOC) with one of the light battalions by 2025. Khelil said the project will now likely go out for tender by the end of 2024 or early 2025, and achieve IOC in 2028

 

[KevinB]

To prove your point.

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal? | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal? - 11 Jul 23​

Extracts:

The need for a more robust frame and the effects of inflation could mean a smaller initial buy.....

The Army had yet to settle on final quantities but had projected a buy of up to 300 TMPs in two variants — personnel and cargo — to equip the three light infantry battalions, the light engineer squadrons, and the light artillery tactical groups.

Depending on the feedback from the RFI, the project team is now estimating around 90 tactical vehicles, still in the same two variants, plus nine to 10 trailers. The majority, around 60, would be in the troop-carrying variant.

“We are focusing right now on the core capability of the light forces,” Khelil explained. That would mean equipping one light force battle group, which includes a light infantry battalion, a light engineer squadron, and a light artillery battery.

“That’s the minimum scope,” he added. “A middle scope would increase the amount up to 330 vehicles, to equip the three light battalions. The full scope would add around 200 more vehicles to equip Reserve units, including specialists such as pioneers and direct fire support. The Reserve units are one of the main players that will need to use the TMP. But, at this time, we are focused on the minimum scope.”

The Army had anticipated reaching initially operating capability (IOC) with one of the light battalions by 2025. Khelil said the project will now likely go out for tender by the end of 2024 or early 2025, and achieve IOC in 2028

The farce of that entire debacle is the .50 could be put into a different mount and not have issues.
It’s done down here in JSOC including the GAU-19 .50 Cal Minigun, and M3 ‘fast firing’ .50.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The farce of that entire debacle is the .50 could be put into a different mount and not have issues.
It’s done down here in JSOC including the GAU-19 .50 Cal Minigun, and M3 ‘fast firing’ .50.

In keeping with @McG 's point, and questioning what "features" are necessary, is the ability to mount and fire a .50 from an open air, unprotected dune buggy mobility aid so crucial as to leave 2/3's of the light force with nothing rather than to live without it?

 

[Kirkhill]

The farce of that entire debacle is the .50 could be put into a different mount and not have issues.
It’s done down here in JSOC including the GAU-19 .50 Cal Minigun, and M3 ‘fast firing’ .50.

No mate. They need a MRZR with a turret...

“That led us to confirm that we need a turret in the vehicle to be able to cover 360 degrees, so the shooter can be standing and have a proper position to sustain a few minutes of firing.

Presumably that extra weight will give them the stable platform they need.

Ten In The Bed - Super Simple

Practice counting down from 10 to 1 with the classic, “Ten In The Bed.” How many bears are left each time? And who is that in the window? It looks like some friends have come for a visit!

supersimple.com

I wonder if they are uprating the LFE-TMP to the LUV level and hoping to mix it in with the ISV-Milverado-Senators of the world to make GM happy?

 

[KevinB]

No mate. They need a MRZR with a turret...



Presumably that extra weight will give them the stable platform they need.

Or ridiculously top heavy…

Stability is relative on a vehicle like that.

Better to put a soft mount and the GAU-19

If you need to fire 360 in a vehicle for minutes like that, guess what, you got much larger issues.

There are already Hummer GMV’s in CANSOF (or at least there where) that have a turret. If you need a very light vehicle - then the MRZR is a great tool, but it’s not a heavy fire support vehicle, and adding a turret to it is flat out stupid.

Ten In The Bed - Super Simple

Practice counting down from 10 to 1 with the classic, “Ten In The Bed.” How many bears are left each time? And who is that in the window? It looks like some friends have come for a visit!

supersimple.com

I wonder if they are uprating the LFE-TMP to the LUV level and hoping to mix it in with the ISV-Milverado-Senators of the world to make GM happy?