Even if one considers the wholesale conversion remote/unmanned/ containerized systems as a bridge to far, I think there's a lot to be said for potential alignment between Canada's defense needs and:
- what the US is doing with either/both multi-domain task forces/ the evolution of the marines
- the A2AD concept
- leveraging loitering munitions/UAV's/containerized NLOS munitions
to create formations that can function either domestically or in an expeditionary manner to create an AD bubble within which LPRF assets can operate, with a light weight motorized force is conducting security tasks with their firepower augmented by loitering and NLOS munitions.
Useful in the arctic. Useful in the pacific. Useful in Europe.
I totally agree that the notion of doing it wholesale is a bridge to far (and should be). I was more thinking that if you look at the CA PY’s what can you get to make the most bang for the buck.
Now say we want to do that, but can't abandon conventional tasks. What's the minimum that will take?
One thing I have trouble reconciling is the overlap in the hierarchy of NATO map symbols/ unit sizes. A combat team is recognized as a subunit, but a square combat team (especially one with any meaningful CS attachments) is well into the "unit" bracket.
If Canada were to take a CMBG, give the arty SP 155's, strip the LIB and one of the mech Bn's, augment the CS coy with a 9 mortar 120 platoon + an NLOS/loitering munition AT platoon, and shift the tank squadron to 14, the remaining Tank Regiment and Mech Bn could be organized into 3 semi-permanent square combat teams with 3 tube 120mm mortar det and AT over watch. Such a formation (with its engineers would still have/be close to the personnel count/ unit count of a small bde, and re-organized as combat teams the two input maneuver units could generate 3 functional units for 2 up one back.
I think the ciritcal point before looking at Bde structure is what does Canada expect from a Bde? And just as importantly what do the NATO Allies.
I think the CA needs to give up on the idea of the CMBG, and see what Allied Divisions the CA can plug a Bde into.
It should then force the CA to do some introspective research and analysis as to what exactly the CA needs to do to accomplish its mandate from the GoC.
One thing the ‘containerized’ systems can do is reduce direct manpower needs for certain tasks. (And for
@FJAG i know they don’t truly reduce manpower needs as they require a lot of support in the logistics side as well as personnel to load them.
The CA is ~39k of Regular Army and PRes (I cut out the 5k Canadian Rangers from this as they aren’t a conventional force.
Using
@Kirkhill ‘s 29% that provides front line personnel at 11,310
When one strips the CT structures out of the Brigade the Brigades are generally 3 Inf Bn or 2 Inf Bn and Tank Bn in the vicinity of 3k personnel (albeit the Armor Bde’s down here go for Combined Arms BN’s, in either Armor Heavy or Infantry Heavy compositions).
So Canada should be able to field 4 Cbt Bde’s plus a Deployable Div HQ and CS and CSS support Bde’s (the support and HQ functions are allocated from the 71% tail personnel ratio)
Albeit 1/2 of that would be PRes, and realistically the heavier loading of HQ and certain support tasks would be regular).
Current state:
Canada currently can field 2 LAV Bde one of those with tanks.
NATO desires/requires Canada to supply a Heavy Bde to NATO upon times of crisis.
-assumption 1, that is supporting the long term NATO eFP BtlGrp
Canada desires to be able to also deploy 1 Bde(-) for short duration missions
Canada desires to be able to deploy 1 BtlGrp for long term missions, and 1 BtlGrp for short duration missions. Plus other smaller missions.
Right now the potential taskings from SSE are bigger than the CA can support.
Canada needs a way to be able to punch above its weight in terms of simple PY offerings to Allies.
1) Like it or not Canada needs to provide or be able to provide a Heavy Mech Bde to NATO for Europe.
2) Canada doesn’t have that, and the LAV6.0 isn’t a Bradley/CV90.
More to follow
