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

FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
The main reason I said AD - was ATGM's can be done easily when the immediate need jumps up to bite like a snake -- AD take a lot more time and effort to get right - and requires JOINT integration to do properly -- ATGM are an Army only issue - unless the AirForce it putting some on an Attack Helicopter - oh wait...

I see China as the main deference need at this point. SO my main focuses would be Navy #1, I say that as it pains me as an Army centric guy - but the best bang for the buck comes in Sea Power at this point - then a Joint Expeditionary Capability.
Maybe I'll call it the JERC - Joint Expeditionary/Reactionary Capability.
That requires a Joint Approach - as the Army can't do anything if it can't get there and be supported, and the Air Force can't do anything if it can't get there and be supported.
Really only there Navy has a solo role - but also a supporting role to ferry the Joint Forces, and provide support.

I can agree with everything you said there. I just can't see anything being done to make the CAF battle-ready for the Pacific before 2025.

With the exception of continuing the current policy of attaching Halifax frigates to American (or is that AUKUS?) battle groups.

And frankly I don't expect to be seeing reports of Canadians fighting Chinese tanks any time soon. Now, Russian tanks in Latvia? Different story.
And ATGMs in the hands of infanteers would be quick and good and relatively cheap. If we're serious about supporting the Eastern Europeans with tanks and LAVs then we should start shipping them soon - with lots of ATGMs. And start placing orders now for AD systems, new guns, Long Range Missiles, N-LOS systems and UAVs - with Initial Operating Capacities five years from now - ca 2027.

And our Air Force? Well I wonder how the Aussies would feel about us flying their F-18s in defence of Australia?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,180
Points
910
Ideally no one would be fighting Chinese or Russian tanks, I do think Russia is fairly well deterred in Europe that the underequiped Can Army isn't in dire need of ATGM's, nor do I think China is going to punch out immediately either -- both those countries are cause for concern - and both need to be addressed by a robust Defense (and for Canada Defence) Policy - and a wholistic look at the needs versus wants.

With any luck you guys will have a new Party and new leader in place tonight - or Force 20XX can BOHICA for the JT show.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,898
Points
1,040
I've stayed out of the AT v AD battle because it's kind of like asking you to choose which of your children you want to kill. They're both essential.

I tend to favour going for AD first for two reasons.

First, like Kevin says, its a harder weapon system to develop into an integrated functioning capability for the same reasons he states; and

Second, a brief exposure to modern warfare showed in the Ukraine that most kills were indirect fire strikes brought in by airborne sensors and in Armenia, by loitering munitions also coupled with airborne sensors. In both cases those took place long before the armoured forces made contact (if at all)

In short it seems a capability to wipe out airborne sensors and incoming munitions is paramount if you wish to survive long enough to even use your AT resources.

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,579
Points
1,060
I've stayed out of the AT v AD battle because it's kind of like asking you to choose which of your children you want to kill. They're both essential.

I tend to favour going for AD first for two reasons.

First, like Kevin says, its a harder weapon system to develop into an integrated functioning capability for the same reasons he states; and

Second, a brief exposure to modern warfare showed in the Ukraine that most kills were indirect fire strikes brought in by airborne sensors and in Armenia, by loitering munitions also coupled with airborne sensors. In both cases those took place long before the armoured forces made contact (if at all)

In short it seems a capability to wipe out airborne sensors and incoming munitions is paramount if you wish to survive long enough to even use your AT resources.

🍻

Kind of like WW2 then?

Good thing we we're quick on the uptake after that AAR :)
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
698
Points
990
The reason I asked to hear the thoughts of the folks on this forum about “If we could only get either AT or AD in place soon, which one would you choose and why?” was because for myself - I’m quite torn.

And everybody has good points on this. Neither side has any faults.

On the one hand, a modern ATGM system would be fairly easy to absorb into the arsenal. Training would be pretty straightforward, simulators would be fairly affordable and easy to implement, and it could be purchased/acquired in a timely manner. (In theory, anyway…ahem…)

It would give the Army a real punch it doesn’t currently have, making our Army units far more lethal in a pretty cost effective manner.

(Aren’t there guided munitions for the 84mm now, in the most recent versions of both the ammo and the Carl G? Is that possibly an option?)




On the other hand, I’m inclined to agree with Kevin - if the enemy controls the skies above us, we can’t do anything - we can’t move, we can’t emit any electronic signatures at all, we can’t communicate, and the enemy can pick off what they want at their own will.

Having some form of AD system would allow our Army units to do their thing, while taking out the enemy’s ability to do anything other than the same.

Just look at the Ukrainian experience against Russia’s modernized warfare. Their troops couldn’t even use their radios without a barrage of artillery landing on them soon afterwards. And without being able to hide or maneuver freely, the Russians were able to employ some devastating EW capabilities against them.


In terms of purchasing a system that could be implemented by 2025 (essentially 3 years time) - there are options for both.

Could we go through the entire procurement process for a sophisticated, layered AD system…have it purchased…manufactured for us…delivered to us…have troops trained and proficient with it at all levels… in that time period?

I don’t think we could, especially at the pace we do things.

Could we purchase a modern, capable MANPAD system that would allow units to engage drones, helicopters, low flying planes, etc?

Yes, I think we could. The process would be extremely similar to buying the ATGM.



Overall, I’m inclined to agree with KevinB (and whoever else went with the AD option, I’ll catch up on reading this week.)

I go this route assuming that we will be operating in a coalition environment, where a sophisticated AD network is already in place. Even if it isn’t in place at the time hostilities start, it will very much be a top priority and I imagine will be set up fairly early on in any campaign.

Coalition air assets will be engaging enemy aircraft. Just in terms of sheer numbers & modern technology, coalition air forces would be clearing the skies of enemy combat aircraft in short order.

Nothing like having the largest & most advanced - BY FAR - Air Force in the world on our side. And the second largest ‘Air Force’ is actually just the air arm of the world’s largest navy, again on our side :)


If I had to choose between the two, I would go with the AD option. The Air Force will be fighting the glorious fight up there in their fast jets, trying to gain air superiority.

However, we only have to look at the recent conflict with Armenia to see just how deadly both a sophisticated and non-sophisticated enemy could be with a few handful of cheaply produced drones. The army needs a way to defend against those.

0.02
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,579
Points
1,060
The reason I asked to hear the thoughts of the folks on this forum about “If we could only get either AT or AD in place soon, which one would you choose and why?” was because for myself - I’m quite torn.

And everybody has good points on this. Neither side has any faults.

On the one hand, a modern ATGM system would be fairly easy to absorb into the arsenal. Training would be pretty straightforward, simulators would be fairly affordable and easy to implement, and it could be purchased/acquired in a timely manner. (In theory, anyway…ahem…)

It would give the Army a real punch it doesn’t currently have, making our Army units far more lethal in a pretty cost effective manner.

(Aren’t there guided munitions for the 84mm now, in the most recent versions of both the ammo and the Carl G? Is that possibly an option?)




On the other hand, I’m inclined to agree with Kevin - if the enemy controls the skies above us, we can’t do anything - we can’t move, we can’t emit any electronic signatures at all, we can’t communicate, and the enemy can pick off what they want at their own will.

Having some form of AD system would allow our Army units to do their thing, while taking out the enemy’s ability to do anything other than the same.

Just look at the Ukrainian experience against Russia’s modernized warfare. Their troops couldn’t even use their radios without a barrage of artillery landing on them soon afterwards. And without being able to hide or maneuver freely, the Russians were able to employ some devastating EW capabilities against them.


In terms of purchasing a system that could be implemented by 2025 (essentially 3 years time) - there are options for both.

Could we go through the entire procurement process for a sophisticated, layered AD system…have it purchased…manufactured for us…delivered to us…have troops trained and proficient with it at all levels… in that time period?

I don’t think we could, especially at the pace we do things.

Could we purchase a modern, capable MANPAD system that would allow units to engage drones, helicopters, low flying planes, etc?

Yes, I think we could. The process would be extremely similar to buying the ATGM.



Overall, I’m inclined to agree with KevinB (and whoever else went with the AD option, I’ll catch up on reading this week.)

I go this route assuming that we will be operating in a coalition environment, where a sophisticated AD network is already in place. Even if it isn’t in place at the time hostilities start, it will very much be a top priority and I imagine will be set up fairly early on in any campaign.

Coalition air assets will be engaging enemy aircraft. Just in terms of sheer numbers & modern technology, coalition air forces would be clearing the skies of enemy combat aircraft in short order.

Nothing like having the largest & most advanced - BY FAR - Air Force in the world on our side. And the second largest ‘Air Force’ is actually just the air arm of the world’s largest navy, again on our side :)


If I had to choose between the two, I would go with the AD option. The Air Force will be fighting the glorious fight up there in their fast jets, trying to gain air superiority.

However, we only have to look at the recent conflict with Armenia to see just how deadly both a sophisticated and non-sophisticated enemy could be with a few handful of cheaply produced drones. The army needs a way to defend against those.

0.02

Well, if we issued these we could do both :)

national-ww2-museum-weapons-88mm-gun-webinar-primary-r1.jpg
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,180
Points
910
FWIW I don't view a handheld ATGM or MANPAD as part of a network system -- they are not linked -- they are just individual enhancements.
Loiter Munitions or remote systems are perfect for the network approach.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
Is there much of a distinction to be made among Ground Launched Cruise Missiles, Loitering Munitions, "Loyal Wingmen", "Predators" and UAVs generally? Aren't they all UAVs? Projectiles? Bullets?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,804
Points
940
Would targeting be an issue?
The tiny UAV's would best be done with ECM means and shotgun.

With the money the CAF hands back every year, we could have a standing requirement approved to use surplus funds to buy X number of AT systems (pick one system as a "Interim system") every year for 5-7 years and build up a stock of missile and launchers. At the same time build up our AD systems and networks, with monies properly identified and funded.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
The tiny UAV's would best be done with ECM means and shotgun.

With the money the CAF hands back every year, we could have a standing requirement approved to use surplus funds to buy X number of AT systems (pick one system as a "Interim system") every year for 5-7 years and build up a stock of missile and launchers. At the same time build up our AD systems and networks, with monies properly identified and funded.
Great idea. Go one step further. Any spare money should be spent on munitions, consumables and spare parts for inventory.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,898
Points
1,040
The tiny UAV's would best be done with ECM means and shotgun.

With the money the CAF hands back every year, we could have a standing requirement approved to use surplus funds to buy X number of AT systems (pick one system as a "Interim system") every year for 5-7 years and build up a stock of missile and launchers. At the same time build up our AD systems and networks, with monies properly identified and funded.
I'm actually putting my money on directed energy systems and ECM jamming in combination. Small light-weight UAVs have very little "armour" and can easily be put down once targeted. What I don't want to see is a $500,000 missile used to knock down a $500 easily replaceable or swarming drone. Even a $1,000 35 or 40 mm airburst round is uneconomical if a burst of a dozen or so are fired at a target if an energy pulse could do it.

A system of systems to deal with varying threats is the way to go.

🍻
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,804
Points
940
That level of ECM equipment would be a platoon asset, not a AD asset. Likely directed energy and larger ECM units will be part of a combined Arty/Sig troop
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
But what if your Black Hornet camera has got a 20 km field of vision with High Definition Imagery.

Will you see that observer if it is sitting on a wall observing you from 15 miles away? And if you do observe the observer would the platoon be issued with a device with a 15 mile range? What other electronic systems are operating within that range that might be friendly? Directed Energy doesn't follow a ballistic curve and tends to spread a bit.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
698
Points
990
The tiny UAV's would best be done with ECM means and shotgun.

With the money the CAF hands back every year, we could have a standing requirement approved to use surplus funds to buy X number of AT systems (pick one system as a "Interim system") every year for 5-7 years and build up a stock of missile and launchers. At the same time build up our AD systems and networks, with monies properly identified and funded.
Not trying to derail the thread with this, even though it clearly belongs in another thread. I will elaborate in the appropriate thread.



Just to touch on this though…

I know the CAF can’t spend more than X number of dollars without the appropriate process from Treasury Board. Does anybody have current info on what that number is?

Could they CAF not use those funds to buy spare parts, simulators, ammunition, forward that money to help fund other projects, etc - if they did it in increments just under that amount?

Or, like suggested, have approval to use those funds to purchase ammunition, spare parts, and various other small but important items if need be?
 

dangerboy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
396
Points
910
I know the CAF can’t spend more than X number of dollars without the appropriate process from Treasury Board. Does anybody have current info on what that number is?
This might not be current and overly simplistic but there are votes given to DND based on our annual estimates from parliament. The votes that impact procurement most commonly are Vote 1 and Vote 5:

Vote 1 (O&M/NP)
• No specific external project approval constrains the Department's authority to expend Vote 1 funds
• Special review process for Vote 1 procurement over $30M
• Internal Departmental approval controls exist (NPOC)
Vote 5 (Capital) Project Approval
• Minister ( $30M )
• Treasury Board ( > $30M )
• Cabinet/Treasury Board ( High Dollar Value ($100M), High Risk or Profile )
• Internal Departmental approval controls exist such as Program Management Board (PMB)

Someone else will need to give more info.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
136
Points
430
Not trying to derail the thread with this, even though it clearly belongs in another thread. I will elaborate in the appropriate thread.



Just to touch on this though…

I know the CAF can’t spend more than X number of dollars without the appropriate process from Treasury Board. Does anybody have current info on what that number is?

Could they CAF not use those funds to buy spare parts, simulators, ammunition, forward that money to help fund other projects, etc - if they did it in increments just under that amount?

Or, like suggested, have approval to use those funds to purchase ammunition, spare parts, and various other small but important items if need be?
In the private world you get fired for this, dont ask me how I know😇
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,408
Points
890
Departments are assessed on their ability to deliver projects, using a tool called the OPCMA, with a rating from 0 (incompetent) to 4 (walks on water). Much like a Fort Frontenac "A", the 4 exists but is never awarded.

Every project is assessed using a tool called the PCRA, which also assigns a score of 0-4. If the PCRA is at it below the department's OPCMA, the Minister can normally approve the project.

Procurement within the project is subject to the dollar values previously mentioned, but also subject to other policies such as the Common Service Policy, things like the GoC policy on clothing procurement, munitions supply program etc etc

(DND also has two additional votes, 10 and 15, but they are special purpose and rarely seen outside NDHQ.)
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
302
Points
880
DND also has two additional votes, 10 and 15, but they are special purpose and rarely seen outside NDHQ.
But every SFCB mission wants vote 10 to give/buy the host nation the tools/eqpt we use because that is what we teach them to use.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,804
Points
940
Have a policy to allow DND to draft TB personal from ADM down to fill out AT teams and AD teams in event of an emergency. In which case the TB people might actually start thinking about end result vs policy. I have my own version of Dante's Hell for TB staff. Most of our problems in government stem from them.
 
Top