Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO missions

[tomahawk6]

Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?

I'm assuming that this is a genuine question, so I'm going with 'yes'.

 

[Baz]

I'm assuming that this is a genuine question, so I'm going with 'yes'.

Related questions:
I'm assuming we could still get a brigade group out the door?
Could we sustain a brigade group?

 

[Good2Golf]

Bde Gp?  Hmmmm....I’d really doubt that.  BG maybe, but even a squared-up BG would be a stretch and Roto 1 would probably be cobbled together from across 2-3 Brigades.

 

[Infanteer]

Considering that in 2011, we essentially had:
Bde HQ and part of a Sigs Sqn (for the TF HQ)
1x Bn (to form the BG)
Leadership and about 1/3 of the troops of 1x Bn (to form the OMLT)
1x Coy from a third Bn (to form FP for PRT)
2x Armd Sqns (1 Tank and 1 Recce)
1/3 of an Arty Regt
1/3 of an Engr Regt
A chunk of a Svc Bn for the NSE

I'd say that Kandahar is a good example of us deploying nearly a Brigade on expeditionary operations.

 

[brihard]

Related questions:
I'm assuming we could still get a brigade group out the door?
Could we sustain a brigade group?

Do we care about things like HLTA, determinate roto lengths, etc, or are we talking a situation where the balloon has gone up somewhere and we're all in for the long haul? I'm assuming if we need to deploy a brigade (and in doing so break most of the army), it's probably a major scrap and we aren't worried about whether the troops get to frig off to New Zealand for R&R three months in.

Come to think of it, such a conflict would probably be a relatively short, max effort push than one of our perpetual 'long wars'. It would probably also mean that whatever army we're left with at the end would be getting rebuilt, retrained, and reconfigured in light of whatever lessons were learned. It would be interesting to hear from the pros what the sustainment choke points would be in this kind of situation versus the 'perpetual battlegroup' deployments.

 

[MilEME09]

That said public comments have been made that with current deployments and DOMOPs we are stretched thin, so it is unlikely we could deploy, or deploy quickly a brigade sized element with full kit

 

[daftandbarmy]

That said public comments have been made that with current deployments and DOMOPs we are stretched thin, so it is unlikely we could deploy, or deploy quickly a brigade sized element with full kit

As always 'political will' is the determining factor here....

 

[Blackadder1916]

Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?

Context?  What degree of notice?  In addition to the battalion(-) that is already on deployment in Europe?

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/operation-reassurance.html

At any time, there can be up to 915 CAF members deployed on Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada%u2019s largest current international military operation. This includes:

approximately 240 sailors onboard a frigate, operating with NATO
540 soldiers leading a NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia
135 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and approximately 5 CF-188 Hornet aircraft participating in NATO enhanced Air Policing



Enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia

In June 2017, the CAF deployed about 540 Canadian Army members to Latvia. They are leading a NATO battlegroup comprising military members from several nations, including:  Albania, Canada, Czech Republic, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain

This battlegroup works as part of the Latvian Land Forces Infantry Brigade. It is based at Camp Adazi, Latvia.

NATO has deployed four such battlegroups to the Baltics and Poland. These battlegroups demonstrate the strength of the NATO alliance, and aim to prevent conflict and protect stability in the region.

 

[tomahawk6]

I was thinking adding a battle group to a future US brigade rotation to Korea.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was thinking adding a battle group to a future US brigade rotation to Korea.

Never. Going. To happen.

 

[McG]

Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?

Related questions:
I'm assuming we could still get a brigade group out the door?
Could we sustain a brigade group?

Short answer to both questions: it depends.

What to you want it to be able to do while in theatre?  What other operations will the CAF simultaneously FG?  Will the current operations all continue, or do we assume them away for this thought experiment?  How hazardous is the theatre?  On a spectrum of "substantial" to "negligible" what is likely to be the requirement for pers and vehicle casualty replacement?

 

[Blackadder1916]

I was thinking adding a battle group to a future US brigade rotation to Korea.

What's in it for us?  Or more pointedly, why should we?  While there is a Mutual Defence Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea, no such agreement exists between Canada and ROK.  When we provided forces during the Korean War, that was in response to the United Nations and following that unpleasantness, the subsequent postings of odds and sods over the years have mostly been to United Nations Command (UNC).  There is no on-going UN resolution requesting/authorizing member nations to provide for stationing combat forces on the Korean peninsula.  Canadians, being typical Canadians, kinda like having such.

 

[tomahawk6]

There has been no peace treaty just essentially a ceasefire. The UN mandate remains. Besides it would be good training and might egender good will between countries.

 

[brihard]

There has been no peace treaty just essentially a ceasefire. The UN mandate remains. Besides it would be good training and might egender good will between countries.

It’s simply not in our national interest to make that particular military commitment. The limited value comes at too high an opportunity cost.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We do send RCN and RCAF assets/forces to conduct operations ISO the UN against North Korea...but, they are never large and never sustained.  Like a lot of things, we show up 'on a budget', get some PR and photo ops, and then go home again just when we start getting the battle rhythm down (my experience, at least, in that AO).

We don't want to commit forces but we didn't mind having a GOFO there as Deputy Commander UNC Korea.  I guess one GOFO counts as "demonstrating that Canada is doing its part for global peace and security"...

 

[tomahawk6]

My guess is that if a Canadian unit was part of a rotation to Korea the US would pay the bill and maybe the Canadians might be authorized to use US tanks and Brads. Too bad you couldn't include reserve forces.

 

[The Bread Guy]

My guess is that if a Canadian unit was part of a rotation to Korea the US would pay the bill ...

Given how POTUS45 seems to be asking for Korea to pony up more money for American presence there and the U.S. administration's push on NATO to spend more, I wouldn't assume the bit in yellow at all if I were involved in Canadian planning for such a deployment.

 

[FJAG]

Considering that in 2011, we essentially had:
Bde HQ and part of a Sigs Sqn (for the TF HQ)
1x Bn (to form the BG)
Leadership and about 1/3 of the troops of 1x Bn (to form the OMLT)
1x Coy from a third Bn (to form FP for PRT)
2x Armd Sqns (1 Tank and 1 Recce)
1/3 of an Arty Regt
1/3 of an Engr Regt
A chunk of a Svc Bn for the NSE

I'd say that Kandahar is a good example of us deploying nearly a Brigade on expeditionary operations.

No matter how you cut the math, that's only half of a brigade and at that, some of the elements (Bde HQ, OMLT, NSE) were not really configured as fully field-deployable combat capable. That said, I would certainly hope that we have the capability to put a full medium weight LAV VI brigade into the field even though the SSE does not make that one of DND's core missions. IMHO it should be though.

My guess is that if a Canadian unit was part of a rotation to Korea the US would pay the bill and maybe the Canadians might be authorized to use US tanks and Brads. Too bad you couldn't include reserve forces.

Funny that you should mention that. While I agree with others here that Canada would in all probability not get involved in the Korea thing, we are in Latvia (where I think we ought to be). I've just been reading up on Op Defender 2020 and note that one of the three US brigade combat teams deploying from the US for that exercise is the 116th Armored Brigade Combat Team from the Idaho Army National Guard which is an Abrams/Bradley/Paladin equipped formation which will draw its equipment in theatre from pre-positioned stocks (a la REFORGER) (They are also deploying the 168th Engineer Brigade from the Mississippi National Guard for the exercise)

I sometimes wonder if we got our reserves properly straightened out so that they could be deployable entities (which I firmly believe we could do of we ever got our heads out of our butts) and if we committed a full brigade to NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence, whether the US would "loan" us a couple of brigades worth of Abrams/Bradley/Paladins (and what the hell while we're dreaming, some Avengers and HIMARS) from their surplus stocks out in the Sierra Army Depot on the understanding that we pay the personnel and operations and maintenance costs.

:stirpot:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Do we care about things like HLTA, determinate roto lengths, etc, or are we talking a situation where the balloon has gone up somewhere and we're all in for the long haul? I'm assuming if we need to deploy a brigade (and in doing so break most of the army), it's probably a major scrap and we aren't worried about whether the troops get to frig off to New Zealand for R&R three months in.

Come to think of it, such a conflict would probably be a relatively short, max effort push than one of our perpetual 'long wars'. It would probably also mean that whatever army we're left with at the end would be getting rebuilt, retrained, and reconfigured in light of whatever lessons were learned. It would be interesting to hear from the pros what the sustainment choke points would be in this kind of situation versus the 'perpetual battlegroup' deployments.

A Peer fight where we would be near-peer would likely result in a lot of our LAV's being lost, most of our our artillery, I suspect the tank will do well but suffer from ATGM looses as their infantry is stripped away. A newfound respect for artillery and radio discipline will grow quickly. Panic buys of AT weapons, ATGM's mortars, artillery guns, trucks and tracked IFV's along with AD weapons as the various Air Forces do not provide the level of protection they said they would.