Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[markppcli]

I'm holding out hope for Haiti!

If you want our retention issues solved in the Army a mission that doesn’t involved BFAs would go a long way. Overall likelihood of success not withstanding.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have a difficult time envisioning Canada making a useful contribution to the "land war in Asia" part of a war against China. I also have difficulty envisioning the air/naval part of the war going deeply into the Pacific, from China's PoV, except as a convoy war.

The Ukraine war reminds me that - in crude terms - if our "come as you are" priors produce a force that can sustain operations for N months and it takes us M months to usefully mobilize where N < M, then a prospective foe just needs to design a force that can sustain operations for P months where N < P < M.

 

[GR66]

I have a difficult time envisioning Canada making a useful contribution to the "land war in Asia" part of a war against China. I also have difficulty envisioning the air/naval part of the war going deeply into the Pacific, from China's PoV, except as a convoy war.

You could potentially have something similar to an air-transportable version of the USMC Littoral Regiment:

The MLR will employ three subordinate elements:

• a Littoral Combat Team

• a Littoral Anti-Air Battalion

• a Combat Logistics Battalion

The LCT will be task organized around an infantry battalion along with an anti-ship missile battery. It is designed to provide the basis for employing multiple platoon-reinforced-size expeditionary advanced base sites that can host and enable a variety of missions such as long-range anti-ship fires, forward arming and refueling of aircraft, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance of key maritime terrain, and air-defense and early warning.

The Littoral Anti-Air Battalion is designed to provide air defense, air surveillance and early warning, air control, and forward rearming and refueling capabilities.

The Combat Logistics Battalion provides tactical logistics support to the MLR by resupplying expeditionary advanced base sites, managing cache sites, and connecting to higher-level logistics providers. It provides expanded purchasing authorities, limited Role II medical forces, distribution of ammunition and fuel, and field level maintenance.

If China wants to take Taiwan it will likely also have to hit the military facilities from which Allied forces are attempting to counter the invasion. You could place a version of Littoral Regiment along the likely strike routes taken by Chinese forces which would allow the AA Battalion to detect and shoot down incoming missiles/aircraft and the Anti-Ship battery would counter any surface strike attempts. The Infantry would provide local security to the missile units and the Logistics element would keep them supplied.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have a difficult time envisioning Canada making a useful contribution to the "land war in Asia" part of a war against China. I also have difficulty envisioning the air/naval part of the war going deeply into the Pacific, from China's PoV, except as a convoy war.

The Ukraine war reminds me that - in crude terms - if our "come as you are" priors produce a force that can sustain operations for N months and it takes us M months to usefully mobilize where N < M, then a prospective foe just needs to design a force that can sustain operations for P months where N < P < M.

One "advantage" the Ukrainians have "gained" from being the recipients of our weapons rather than our army is that they didn't import the TTPs for the systems. They were free to experiment and use the equipment in the manner that best suited their needs and circumstances. They experimented. That was also made easier because they were more willing to take chances as they focused less on winning and more on not losing.

 

[markppcli]

One "advantage" the Ukrainians have "gained" from being the recipients of our weapons rather than our army is that they didn't import the TTPs for the systems. They were free to experiment and use the equipment in the manner that best suited their needs and circumstances. They experimented. That was also made easier because they were more willing to take chances as they focused less on winning and more on not losing.

Oh interesting; can you point out some different TTPs they’ve developed ?

 

[Brad Sallows]

You could place a version of Littoral Regiment along the likely strike routes taken by Chinese forces which would allow the AA Battalion to detect and shoot down incoming missiles/aircraft and the Anti-Ship battery would counter any surface strike attempts. The Infantry would provide local security to the missile units and the Logistics element would keep them supplied.

I'd prefer to have the flexibility of air- and ship-based platforms over something that can only be deployed where there happens to be land and which can't easily depart its location if threatened.

 

[GR66]

I'd prefer to have the flexibility of air- and ship-based platforms over something that can only be deployed where there happens to be land and which can't easily depart its location if threatened.

Main issue being we don't have any "big honkin ships" to move a large land force...but of course we don't have any AD or Anti-Ship systems either so the whole thing is highly hypothetical. Just trying to give examples of how the Canadian Army could potentially make a useful contribution in a conflict with China. The same type of unit could of course be used in any conflict if the missile systems are capable of land attack as well as anti-ship (the Naval Strike Missile that the USMC has tested on JLTV platforms is dual capable).

 

[markppcli]

Main issue being we don't have any "big honkin ships" to move a large land force...but of course we don't have any AD or Anti-Ship systems either so the whole thing is highly hypothetical. Just trying to give examples of how the Canadian Army could potentially make a useful contribution in a conflict with China. The same type of unit could of course be used in any conflict if the missile systems are capable of land attack as well as anti-ship (the Naval Strike Missile that the USMC has tested on JLTV platforms is dual capable).

I think in a world where we don’t know what the next conflict will look like, general combat capability vs niche roles is the wise course of action.

 

[GR66]

I think in a world where we don’t know what the next conflict will look like, general combat capability vs niche roles is the wise course of action.

What is "general combat capability" these days though? Eastern Europe and the South China Seas are very different environments.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh interesting; can you point out some different TTPs they’ve developed ?

Nope. I say they have the opportunity to use things differently.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What is "general combat capability" these days though? Eastern Europe and the South China Seas are very different environments.

Up to the Bde level it's pretty much the same job, IMHO.

General War vs. Limited War/COIN is where most of the differences lie.

 

[markppcli]

What is "general combat capability" these days though? Eastern Europe and the South China Seas are very different environments.

I honestly don’t see it as being that different. The USMC Littoral Regiments are built ground up to seize and then defend island air strips. That’s a boutique unit with a neiche task. The USMC can afford to operate something like that because the have two other marine divisions to do the rest of it.

When I say “general combat capability” I mean a force that is capable of operating across the operational spectrum. You say we offer nothing tailore to the pacific, I’d argue that Japan operates mechanized Divisons based on wheeled IFV / APCs, they operate in the pacific no?

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd prefer to have the flexibility of air- and ship-based platforms over something that can only be deployed where there happens to be land and which can't easily depart its location if threatened.

Armies can unass when appropriate. But not all defendable targets can be unassed. Sometimes it is necessary just to stay and slug it out.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1609618982398578688

 

[GR66]

I honestly don’t see it as being that different. The USMC Littoral Regiments are built ground up to seize and then defend island air strips. That’s a boutique unit with a neiche task. The USMC can afford to operate something like that because the have two other marine divisions to do the rest of it.

When I say “general combat capability” I mean a force that is capable of operating across the operational spectrum. You say we offer nothing tailore to the pacific, I’d argue that Japan operates mechanized Divisons based on wheeled IFV / APCs, they operate in the pacific no?

Agreed...but the difference is that they are there...and we are not. It's no good having a capability if you don't also have the capability to deploy it and support it once it's deployed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Back to the Future in Air Defence

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/100qmry

 

[markppcli]

Agreed...but the difference is that they are there...and we are not. It's no good having a capability if you don't also have the capability to deploy it and support it once it's deployed.

We have deployed mechanized forces though? Or is it just not fast enough now? Agreed that we need more strategic lift regardless.

 

[GR66]

We have deployed mechanized forces though? Or is it just not fast enough now? Agreed that we need more strategic lift regardless.

I don't think you can compare Afghanistan to a peer conflict in the Pacific.

But 1000% agree that there isn't much point in restructuring the combat arms into a structure that we can't actually deploy to theatre and support once there and taking combat losses.

 

[markppcli]

I don't think you can compare Afghanistan to a peer conflict in the Pacific.

But 1000% agree that there isn't much point in restructuring the combat arms into a structure that we can't actually deploy to theatre and support once there and taking combat losses.

It’s be like any other conflict; we’ll piggy back of the US. I don’t disagree about the ability to deploying being different; but we’ve also send under equipped forces to Asia in the name of expediency in our past and we should learn from that mistake.

I don’t see much threat of Chinese military expansion, but that’s just me.

 

[GR66]

It’s be like any other conflict; we’ll piggy back of the US.

That's fine until there is a major conflict and the US is maxed out supporting their own forces. Then we're just a drain rather than a help.

I don’t see much threat of Chinese military expansion, but that’s just me.

The US and their "Pivot to the Pacific" suggests that others might feel otherwise.

That being said, frankly I'd be thrilled with an Army that is manned and equipped to fulfil ANY high end combat deployment in any theatre.

 

[markppcli]

That's fine until there is a major conflict and the US is maxed out supporting their own forces. Then we're just a drain rather than a help.

The US and their "Pivot to the Pacific" suggests that others might feel otherwise.

That being said, frankly I'd be thrilled with an Army that is manned and equipped to fulfil ANY high end combat deployment in any theatre.

Give us 40 more Leo 2s, 48 K9s, and 24 MSHORAD and we’re about there. Who’s going to man that is a whole other kettle of fish