What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?

[Slim]

I think a first good step to defending this country would be to get the current govt. out of power and install one that is actually interested in focusing on defense issues...Instead of treating the military like a second rate organization that gets a handout or two now and then and is the first thing stripped of its budget when they need some extra coin.

The rest of the plans and thoughts regarding enforcing our sovereignty are nothing more than a well-thought out wish list without the govt.'s support.

Slim

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Its a democracy.  The people voted the govt in.  Get over it.

 

[Slim]

"Get over it?"

Buddy, its not my career that will suffer.

I say what I say because I care about the defense of this country...How about you?

Also, having been friends with a number of excellent people who call your Regt. home I wonder what they would have to say about your comment?

If you have a problem with the fact that I take offense to the govt. lying to Canadians on this subject then PM me and we'll sort it out. But I stand by what I said.

I don't think that comment of yours is the right way to think about this issue and I would ask you to re-evaluate why you said it.

Slim

 

[Infanteer]

Slim, we have to be more creative then simply saying "we can't do anything until Party X is gone".  This could be considered "waiting for Santa Claus" and putting off needed changes until the "presents are under the tree".  The military found out the hard way that it doesn't usually work that way when the Conservatives took over in the 1980s.

As far as I'm concerned, short of total deprivation or censure, we can succeed or fail despite the support of the government of the day.  Tieing our fortunes (good or bad) to the fickle nature of democratic politics will do us no good.  Our fate is in our own hands.

 

[Slim]

As usual Infanteer you have a number of excellent points.

The problem, as I see it, is this;

The military is mandated to carry out a specific number of tasks...Or should be, because no one really knows what direction the service is headed in.

The cold war is over, we're out of germany and now, although we have no shortage of enemies, the govt. of the day can't decide what we're going to do, to what extent we're going to do it, or if they should just let the US defend us and let our Forces go to pot.

I know the PC's aren't much better but at least they tried to do something for the service the last time they were in (EH101's under Kim Cambell)

My point in all of this is how can you set any kind of direction and long term strategy when the govt. ignores your service on a good day, rapes it as soon as the general public isn't looking any more, and, when they do replace aging and dangerous kit the service gets about a quarter of what it needs. And the replacement kit is substandard half the time.

Maybe the serving members need to tow the line more than the guys who've moved on, but, I gotta say that that kind of thinking kind of got me going a bit.

Yourself or PPCLI Guy are welcome to send me a PM to discuss this more and I would welcome the thoughts of others on this. I just don't see the sense of saying "oh well" and brushing it off.

Any other thoughts are welcome

Slim

 

[DJL]

Slim, we have to be more creative then simply saying "we can't do anything until Party X is gone".  This could be considered "waiting for Santa Claus" and putting off needed changes until the "presents are under the tree".  The military found out the hard way that it doesn't usually work that way when the Conservatives took over in the 1980s.

Thats the truth!!!  I bleed Tory Blue, but I'm still waiting for the twelve nuke boats promised in the '87 white paper.........

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Slim,

No call for a PM - I started it in public, so I should finish it there.

I apologise. :-[ 

The comment wasn't so much directed at you as it was to the general defeatist thinking that I keep running across.  We can't wish our problems away - although we sure tried from about 1970 to 1995.  We have to figure out how to a) make it work within the limitations that have been set for us by the people of Canada (in the form of their elected government - and we can argue on a separate thread on just how democratic our process really is - but its the one we have) and b) how to influence those limitations so that we can better serve the people of Canada.

So again, my apologies.

Dave

P.S. - For those that know me, I apologise for shocking you by apologising - twice!

 

[Mountie]

I came up with a couple of different options:

I mentioned it in the artillery section in more detail, but what do you think of each artillery regiment having three close support artillery batteries with a troop of 4 LAV-III 105mm Denel SPHs and a troop of 4 LAV-III 120mm Armoured Mortar Systems, fully supported by HLVW ammo carriers and LAV-III support vehicles such as CP versions, etc.  And of course eliminate the infantry battalion mortar platoons in return.  This allows for the artillery to completely control all medium and heavy fire support elements within the brigade.

With regards to the total CF structure.  Instead of the two Joint Task Forces, separate transport wing and maritime units that I proposed early, how about four smaller JTFs.  This allows each JTF to deploy as a complete unit in a major regional conflict.  Each JTF would have:
- JTF HQ (formed by reconfiguring each LFC Area Headquarters and splitting up the CF JHQ)
- 1 x Command Support Group (as above - by splitting up the Joint Signal Regiment, Area Signal Squadrons and adding ResFor MI Company and Total Force MP company)
- 1 x CMBG (as above)
- 1 x Air Expeditionary Wing
  - 1 x Tactical Fighter Squadron with 18 CF-18 Super Hornets or CF-35 JSFs
  - 1 x Transport Fighter Squadron with 8 CC-130J Hercules and 1 CC-150 Polaris MRTT
  - 1 x Tactial Helicopter Squadron (as above, but with upgrade CH-146 Griffons similar to upgrade UH-1Y Twin Hueys of the USMC)
  - 1 x SAR Squadron (not deployable)
- 1 x Maritime Task Group (as above)
- 1 x General Support Group (general support battalion, composite engineer support squadron, ResFor civil-military affairs company, ResFor air defence battery with MANPADs, Total Force Advanced Surgical Centre-based mini-hospital)

 

[a_majoor]

If I were the CDS:

1 "Special Forces" brigade, grouping valuable but hard to categorize units like JTF 2, CF DART and a Cyberwar unit. (add own favorite specialty units here). Core fighting power should be the "Canadian Parachute Battalion", created by bringing all the para assets under one canopy. (couldn't resist)

1 Regular Force Brigade/Area with one Light Infantry Battalion (maybe upgraded to an Airmobile Battalion), and three "Manoeuvre Battalions": composite formations resembling current battlegroups, but all under one "cap badge" for organizational and esprit de corps reasons. (If it makes traditionalists happy, the "cap badge" could be the current one, even though "I PPCLI" and the "LdSH(RC)" under this plan would have the same TO&E).

3 Reserve Battalions/Area, using the same TO&E as the Regular brigades. For realistic funding, equipping would be limited to one battlegroup stored at the Area Training Centre, but units would be lavishly equipped with proper simulators to gain and maintain proficiency with the equipment. Concentrations might be done on a rotational system, or even staggered through the year (i.e. *1 Bde will be the first two weeks of June; *2 Bde the first two weeks of July and *3 Bde the first two weeks of Aug).

Air Force to supply one strategic transport Sqn, and an air expeditionary wing/Area with the ability to lift and support one battlegroup (Support may be done with UAV/UACVs rather than manned fighter-bombers, AWACs, JSTARS etc.)

Navy configured to provide sealift and littoral support to a deployed Brigade.

C&C through Area Joint HQ's, with "jointness" promoted throughout the organization (common communications means, letting the Air Force and Navy types have "ownership" i.e. "Those are our guys we're transporting" etc.)

No back of the envelope cost figures or exact breakouts of unit mannings; this is the skeleton idea for a balanced force which can fight at almost all levels, and has a balance between strategic, operational and tactical mobility and fighting power.

 

[Inch]

Where do I even begin.

Let's start with the thing that's bothering me the most.  It's been mentioned that the Airforce should provide Strategic airlift and close air support as well as air mobility.  What about Air Superiority? Domestic SAR? How about base SAR? Bad stuff can happen even at home or close to home and believe me, spending a night in -40 weather after ejecting from an aircraft just isn't an option. No mention of VIP transport, guess they're on their own.

Now, the Navy, littoral support and sealift is fine, what about defense on the high seas? You want your BG equipment protected by capable ships don't you? Destroyers and Frigates will cure what ails ya. You think MCDVs can go into the open ocean? Nope, hell, they can barely do 15 kts. They don't have helo capability so they're useless in ASW and they're too small for AAW.  Frigates are pretty quick and very capable, but I'd still say they're too small to provide area air defence and C&C. They only carry one helo and for ASW, it's far more effective to have two helos working together, that way you don't lose your contact when you pull the ball up to reposition. There are plans on the table to either replace the destroyers or heavily modify some frigates, I can't tell you much more info than that.  No mention of Maritime patrol either, quite effective for Domestic ops (fishery patrols, drug patrols and any other illegal activity on the water), they're also very effective Sub hunters and with their speed they can search far more ocean than a helo or ship could. Back to the ships, I think the Sub necessity has been beaten to a bloody pulp.

Anyway, that's some food for thought, just my opinion though.

Cheers

 

[hugh19]

Just a few navy points if I may

A tanker based on a CPF is a bad idea the hull is not designed for that, and the Endeavour is too small for our needs IMO. The MCDV's are quite useless for anything other than training really. The subs need to stay

Also the CPF is a good size for C3 and AAW it would need mods to the design though. As the CPF is actually longer wider and heavier than the 280's are.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

To add to sledges point as well....CPF are single hulled by law a tanker must be double hulled.

 

[hugh19]

oh yeah thanks ex forgot that part and I am a tanker wanker LOL

 

[a_majoor]

OK so maybe that should have been "When I am VCDS".

These are very valid points, the capabilities I am talking about are the "joint" capabilities which the Airforce and Navy can directly add to support our activities on the ground. They can also adapt some of these capabilities for their own use, and will have to have some specialized things for their own use.

Some of this will have to be "common platforms" just for funding/economy of scale issues. A large and capable UAV like "Global Hawk" could be the basis for an AWACS, JSTARS, ocean surveillance and C3I platform, for example. The HMAS Jervis Bay is a converted high speed ferry the Australians used to transport a battalion's worth of troops to East Timor (Max speed=35kts). Using a similar hull for transport, supply, "Frigate" and so on would result in a production run of about 20 ships, all with similar capabilities (no slow movers in that convoy).

But the basic point is to create a flexible and "joint" structure to handle a wide range of scenarios. (The assumption that we will have allied or coalition help also needs to be carefully examined, especially if the Government wants to undertake a mission which potential allies do not have a vital stake in).

 

[hugh19]

OKay like I thought I mentioned before you cannot use the same hull form for a tanker that you would for a transport ship or a frigate or destroyer. It would be like trying to use a sports car to pull a semi trailer, or a Tractor trailer to race sports cars.

 

[a_majoor]

It depends on what you are trying to do, Sledge. While a dedicated tanker design can carry a lot of fuel, it cannot keep pace with the combatants in the convoy.

Thinking of "Jointness" to support Army missions, we start with a large volume, fast hull form like Jervis Bay to move 500 troops and their equipment very quickly to the deployment (a ship that can cross the ocean at 30 kts will get you there much faster than a transport ship plodding along at 15 kts). The large volume available to transport troops lends itself to other uses, such as a high speed oiler or supply ship, or a "frigate" with the volume to carry a large vertical launch cell of missiles, etc. It is true the supply ship isn't going to be as efficient as it could be, but the prompt arrival of the battlegroup with the associated supporting vessels in one package would probably have a lot more of an effect on whatever sort of operation you are doing than the slower or piecemeal arrival of efficient, dedicated ships with differing characteristics.

The cost factor of building a common hull and filling it with different "stuff" may or may not offset the cost of building a dedicated ship, I am inclined to believe it will, but don't know for sure.

 

[hugh19]

OK first off warships don't travel across the ocean at 30 knots unless its a huge emergency its a fuel conservation thing. So that idea is shot as with your mini tanker there would be no fuel left after crossing the Pacific. But 18 knots is NATO standard cruising speed. Hull form is for speed, Warships need a long thin hull for speed and manouverability. Supply and transport need much wider hulls for stability for one thing and to carry a payload thats worthwhile. So while its a nice idea its not feasible or practical. If it was don't you think navies the world over would have already done it? They don't for a reason. I am not trying to put you down in anyway but I do have a lot of experience with ships.

 

[pbi]

Details of hulls and cruising speeds aside, its good to see that there's some unity of thought on the idea that we can't just configure the Army in a vacuum-we need to think about a joint force "package" that can project/protect/employ/sustain/recover itself in a expeditionary way. We cannot afford to have Army, Navy, Air Force (nor supporting organizations such as Comms, MP, Med) focused on their own little rice bowls and losing sight of the big picture. I hope that some of the thinking we see in these posts will be reflected in the results of the Def/ForPol review and the resulting force structure. Cheers.

 

[jrhume]

I think all this thinking and planning is a healthy thing -- I just hope people high up in the Canadian government and CFHQ are doing the same thing.

One thing that strikes me is the unconscious mind-set I see -- that Canada is unlikely to ever be attacked from the outside.  Peggy mentioned possible threats to Vancouver Island and she was pooh-poohed.  After all, leaving aside the US, who could invade Canada? 

Well, how about a commandeered ro-ro carrier?  Filled with maybe 5,000 bloodthirsty terrorists.  How long would it take an armed mob to disembark from the ship, take over local transport and secure the entire island? 

Mind you, I'm not talking about an enemy intent on conquering Vancouver or any other part of Canada.  I'm talking about terrorists intent on killing all the infidels they can find and probably holding large numbers of civilians hostage.  The horrible possibilites are endless.

So, tell me.  If Canadian authorities had four hours notice of the approach of this ship, what forces are in position to assault into Vancouver and stop them?  Remember, they'll have the ship laden with anti-air missile defenses and probably some anti-ship missiles.  Such things are not hard to come by.  And a ro-ro ship would be difficult to sink.

General, you have four hours.  How do you stop the terrorists?

Time starts -- now.

PS: I'm not comparing Canada and the US here.  I'm not sure we're geared up adequately for this threat either.

 

[Danjanou]

Old Guy, if you'd presented that scenario say 3-4 years ago I'd have said you've reading too many Tom Clancy novels. Now as unlikely as it sounds it could happen. Who'd have though of a dedicated bunch of individuals taking over 4 not 1 airliners with box cutters and the devastation they caused.

Could it happen, possibly. Could we prevent, react to it, I have to admit probably not.