• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO missions

FJAG said:
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.

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)

Our reserves and national guard are designed to be able to deploy. Reservists civie jobs are legally protected and their employers get a tax break. My hat is off to those folks able to juggle a couple of careers.( civvie job and PT military career).

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:
 
FJAG said:
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.

Doesn't matter.  We had 3000+ (more than half a brigade) people deployed in a Task Force in a land-locked country in South Asia.  At its peak, I believe there were three to four manouevre units in its AO (we had the Cdn BG, 1-2 American Bns, and the PRT).  It had the brigade comms architecture and brigade sustainment issues.  Although its not a brigade built for mobile operations, it still constitutes a formation deployment.

As well, there are some treaty obligations SSE refers to that go beyond the smaller elements referred to in the concurrency section of SSE.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?

Not if we're going to maintain our current mission sets and the current approach to readiness.  If we are going to drop Ukraine, Latvia, or Iraq to do this, then yes.

If you look at the numbers we currently have deployed, its well over a BG in strength.  Heavy in NCO's and officers while many soldiers remain behind in Canada.
 
Infanteer said:
Doesn't matter.  We had 3000+ (more than half a brigade) people deployed in a Task Force in a land-locked country in South Asia.  At its peak, I believe there were three to four manouevre units in its AO (we had the Cdn BG, 1-2 American Bns, and the PRT).  It had the brigade comms architecture and brigade sustainment issues.  Although its not a brigade built for mobile operations, it still constitutes a formation deployment.

As well, there are some treaty obligations SSE refers to that go beyond the smaller elements referred to in the concurrency section of SSE.

I agree with you that we managed a pretty decent show there but to me the ability to deploy a full combat capable Brigade Group (with our own or an ally's theatre tail) into a theatre such as Europe (or notionally Korea) is a different thing than what we did in Afghanistan.

I'm a child of the Cold War. We had four brigades that could do that then.  ;D

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
 

I'm a child of the Cold War. We had four brigades that could do that then.  ;D

:cheers:

From a smaller population, too.
 
I thought the question was “Could we deploy a Bde Gp?” not “Could we deploy a Bde Gp HQ and some of the manoeuvre elements?” ???
 
Good2Golf said:
I thought the question was “Could we deploy a Bde Gp?” not “Could we deploy a Bde Gp HQ and some of the manoeuvre elements?” ???

What makes it more pathetic is that the original question was "Could the CF deploy a battalion" and some responses suggest that it would be difficult to do that without it being the single focus of the entire CF.
 
Originally I thought battalion/battle group as to deploy a brigade might be a tall order. I was thinking of a way to enable Canadian participation with US armored brigades deploying to Korea or Poland.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Originally I thought battalion/battle group as to deploy a brigade might be a tall order. I was thinking of a way to enable Canadian participation with US armored brigades deploying to Korea or Poland.

In my perfect world our 'light' battalions would be permanently deployed as marine/airborne/airportable augmentees to the USMC/82nd Airborne/101st Airmobile/10th Mountain Div, or equivalent NATO formations.

Super cheap, fast and easy to deploy a few commercial plane loads of light troops & gear versus armoured formations.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Originally I thought battalion/battle group as to deploy a brigade might be a tall order. I was thinking of a way to enable Canadian participation with US armored brigades deploying to Korea or Poland.

We essentially have a Battle Group currently deployed in Latvia (the EFP). Components of that BG are multi-national by design, but in theory it could all be Canadian if that was the ask.

In late 2018 we also put a Battalion and a Brigade Headquarters into Norway that exercised with NATO allies as part of Ex TRIDENT JUNCTURE. They were alongside a USMC formation among others. The deployment was a short pulse (or a surge), but it shows that we can do it.

 
daftandbarmy said:
In my perfect world our 'light' battalions would be permanently deployed as marine/airborne/airportable augmentees to the USMC/82nd Airborne/101st Airmobile/10th Mountain Div, or equivalent NATO formations.

Super cheap, fast and easy to deploy a few commercial plane loads of light troops & gear versus armoured formations.

So in your perfect world canadian soldiers are auxiliaries in another nation's military?  Deployed as directed by that nation's Commander in Chief?  You are happy for Canada to formally become a vassal state (accepting that we already often act like one)?

And all for cheap fast and easy?

No thanks.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
So in your perfect world canadian soldiers are auxiliaries in another nation's military?  Deployed as directed by that nation's Commander in Chief?  You are happy for Canada to formally become a vassal state (accepting that we already often act like one)?

And all for cheap fast and easy?

No thanks.

Agreed. 

Now, designing our force structure and doctrine so that we have the ability to deploy independently when required, but also have forces that can fit as easily as possible into existing US (and other allied) force structures in a useful way would be logical.
 
Are we not following, WRT defence, the cheap and easy now and for the past decades?
 
Rifleman62 said:
Are we not following, WRT defence, the cheap and easy now and for the past decades?

More like 'politically expedient but on the cheap'....
 
PPCLI Guy said:
So in your perfect world canadian soldiers are auxiliaries in another nation's military?  Deployed as directed by that nation's Commander in Chief?  You are happy for Canada to formally become a vassal state (accepting that we already often act like one)?

And all for cheap fast and easy?

No thanks.

Ack (fair enough, but...).  We’re just around the corner from getting our Light Forces sorted out...  (he said, being part of a 1997 LFWG in DAD/DGLCD)

:pop:
 
Good2Golf said:
Ack (fair enough, but...).  We’re just around the corner from getting our Light Forces sorted out...  (he said, being part of a 1997 LFWG in DAD/DGLCD)

:pop:

... and we might as well keep them interested so they don't leave at a high rate of knots because they're bored which, ironically, might have to be arranged on exercises and other deployments in closer connection with other armies.
 
Assuming that Canada can deploy a BN or BG or Brigade Group now ( it’s not clear from the above that this is possible without months of lead time and a lot of squeezing), how long until they can’t do this without breaking the institution and its people. I recall reading somewhere in these hallowed forums that the entire reg force infantry strength actually posted and available in total to all 9 battalions is less than 3000 and that actually less than 2000 are “effective”. If true, can it be assumed that other Cbt. Arms are in the same state? 
 
No first hand confirmed info here, but I'd be surprised if that was true.

Taking Afghanistan as an example - we had approx. 3000 personnel in theatre, plus we had a rotation doing their pre-deployment and another on their post-deployment.  So that right there adds up to well over 3000.  (I realize not all 3000 were infantry)

Or even now - Iraq is 800 to 1000, Latvia is 650, plus Ukraine which is 250.  Again, including pre-deployment & post deployment, that adds up to more than 3000.





The original question is - can we deploy a battalion for NATO operations? 

Simple answer, in terms of numbers & equipment, is yes.  We can.

Brigade or BG?  Questionable. 
 
Back
Top