Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

I've argued this before here lol It doesn't go well lol

No one is saying that a credible Navy and Air Force aren’t needed.

I personally thing a 30 warship force and 12 SSN fleet would be a reasonable number for Canada’s Navy.

Don’t even get me started on the RCAF.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Basically I'm arguing that Europe has the manpower required to ultimately defeat Russia in a war and that a Brigade-sized contribution from Canada is enough deterrent to meet our political contribution. In my opinion our ability to surge key (and in short supply) high-end enablers to support NATO should a war begin (again Fires, AD, EW, logistics, etc. from the Army as well as RCAF and RCN contributions) would have a greater military impact on the conflict than the ability to send additional maneuver Brigades.

$0.02

The planning problem everyone is making, though, is that the US will always be there to back stop us. This makes it easy for other governments to spend more on their 'socialist paradises' at the expense of defence commitments.

This is a dangerous, misguided, selfish and deeply disturbing pattern.

 

[KevinB]

With the deepest respect, I think that's a very narrow view and very Army centric view. The most important campaign/battle/theatre for the ETO during WW2 was the BOA. Regardless of the opinions of the riflemen in the field. A sharp sword is of no value if it’s shattered beyond the point.

You mistaking my comment.

I’m saying as a deterrent force, Army forces in position make a much more defined statement.
I’m totally in agreement that the RCN and RCAF need more, and come an actual conflict the Navy will be required in significant numbers (way beyond Canada’s planned CSC acquisition).

My sole point was that given its current situation, the Army with its numbers should be able to field 2 Div.

I think a 45b Cdn Defense Budget is a more realistic number for Canada, especially given the salaries that eat into it so heavily.

 

[GR66]

With the deepest respect, I think that's a very narrow view and very Army centric view. The most important campaign/battle/theatre for the ETO during WW2 was the BOA. Regardless of the opinions of the riflemen in the field. A sharp sword is of no value if its shattered beyond the point.

I'm with Halifax Tar on this one. Our ships and aircraft would be as much on the front lines of a NATO/Russia conflict as the grunts in the trenches.

Both Russia and China know that in order to defeat the West (i.e. the USA) they need to prevent the US from being able to deploy its military power. Anything Canada can do to ensure that US forces/equipment safely get to where they need to go will be ultimately more valuable than any meagre land forces we're able to contribute ourselves.

Of course that doesn't mean that we ignore our Army contributions...just that we understand where they war is most likely to be won/lost and tailor our overall military to best support that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You mistaking my comment.

I’m saying as a deterrent force, Army forces in position make a much more defined statement.
I’m totally in agreement that the RCN and RCAF need more, and come an actual conflict the Navy will be required in significant numbers (way beyond Canada’s planned CSC acquisition).

My sole point was that given its current situation, the Army with its numbers should be able to field 2 Div.

I think a 45b Cdn Defense Budget is a more realistic number for Canada, especially given the salaries that eat into it so heavily.

I'm with Halifax Tar on this one. Our ships and aircraft would be as much on the front lines of a NATO/Russia conflict as the grunts in the trenches.

Both Russia and China know that in order to defeat the West (i.e. the USA) they need to prevent the US from being able to deploy its military power. Anything Canada can do to ensure that US forces/equipment safely get to where they need to go will be ultimately more valuable than any meagre land forces we're able to contribute ourselves.

Of course that doesn't mean that we ignore our Army contributions...just that we understand where they war is most likely to be won/lost and tailor our overall military to best support that.

As I have argued, I don't think we need expeditionary Land forces, beyond a small, mobile well equipped and trained SOF component. You can maybe include some sort of airfield/port security unit as well; maybe.

I think our Land forces would be best used in a facet like the Rangers, in much bolstered roll, in the North and continental and coastal defense and observation elsewhere.

 

[CBH99]

And/or programs?
One of the issues I have with the CAF is the entirely non transparent way that procurement is conducted (or perhaps not conducted)

People seem to wonder why the CAF has a number of issues finding bidders or industry partners

Hey now, it isn't entirely non-transparent.

Its just a confusing web of multiple government departments that need to communicate and approve of each other's things while signing off on each other's excessive paperwork, so that it can get to the next stage of the same thing.

Add bidders into the mix, and lawyer's from all parties needing to adjust/review/communicate with each other, etc

And finally, after the Tasmanian Devil has done his work & something is ready for announcement, they announce it in a way that emphasizes being vague and confusing...

This project is valued at X dollars. It includes the platforms, training materials, initial spare parts, and comprehensive support for the next 10 years to be done by 'this Canadian company.

This project is valued at Y dollars. It doesn't include s**t, and any work required will be done by a company that probably won't exist by the time this press conference is finished


...We're just misunderstood, okay?

 

[KevinB]

As I have argued, I don't think we need expeditionary Land forces, beyond a small, mobile well equipped and trained SOF component. You can maybe include some sort of airfield/port security unit as well; maybe.

I think our Land forces would be best used in a facet like the Rangers, in much bolstered roll, in the North and continental and coastal defense and observation elsewhere.

As far as actual capabilities, you probably aren’t wrong.
But from a geopolitical aspect, conventional troops on the ground show support, support that can’t leave very easily…

Plus you can’t build SOF without some foundation. Also SOF is an expensive investment in training time and $, so you don’t want them wasted doing non SOF stuff that could be done by conventional forces

If you want to penny pinch on the Army then go to two Div with 2 maneuver Bde / Div’s.

 

[GR66]

As I have argued, I don't think we need expeditionary Land forces, beyond a small, mobile well equipped and trained SOF component. You can maybe include some sort of airfield/port security unit as well; maybe.

I think our Land forces would be best used in a facet like the Rangers, in much bolstered roll, in the North and continental and coastal defense and observation elsewhere.

I'll disagree with you on this one though. While I think that air and sea should be the priority you can't ignore the land. Ultimately you can't control territory without "boots on the ground". For that you need conventional land forces.

Where @KevinB and I disagree is over how many of what type of forces are appropriate for Canada. I argue for a Brigade Group minimum (plus additional enablers) as anything smaller than that is not only politically insignificant but also really impossible to operate with any degree of autonomy in a major conflict. You'd be putting our troops under someone else's direct command. [realistically ANY sized force Canada deploys in a major war will ultimately under US/Allied command, but anything smaller than a Brigade would have to be under direct tactical command]

Others argue that based on the size of Canada we should be able to deploy at least a Division. Anything less isn't enough to show our Allies we are really taking on our share of the burden in the fight by putting our own sons & daughters lives on the line beside our partners.

I disagree with that in so far as I think that our sailors and aircrews will equally be in the line of fire doing the vital task of preventing our enemies from disrupting the flow of troops and equipment from the USA to the conflict zone. Every American ship or aircraft that we ensure arrives safely will have profoundly more impact on the conflict than additional Canadian boots on the ground in my opinion so I'll gladly trade the two extra Brigades required to deploy a full Division for additional RCN and RCAF assets.

I'd also suggest that if we are to deploy anything beyond a Brigade Group it would be more impactful (based on observations of recent conflicts including Ukraine) to deploy additional units such as artillery, long range precision fires, air defence, ISR, EW, etc. over more infantry/armour. It may be less people deployed overall...and less perhaps directly on the front lines, but I think it would likely be more impactful militarily.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll disagree with you on this one though. While I think that air and sea should be the priority you can't ignore the land. Ultimately you can't control territory without "boots on the ground". For that you need conventional land forces.

Where @KevinB and I disagree is over how many of what type of forces are appropriate for Canada. I argue for a Brigade Group minimum (plus additional enablers) as anything smaller than that is not only politically insignificant but also really impossible to operate with any degree of autonomy in a major conflict. You'd be putting our troops under someone else's direct command. [realistically ANY sized force Canada deploys in a major war will ultimately under US/Allied command, but anything smaller than a Brigade would have to be under direct tactical command]

Others argue that based on the size of Canada we should be able to deploy at least a Division. Anything less isn't enough to show our Allies we are really taking on our share of the burden in the fight by putting our own sons & daughters lives on the line beside our partners.

I disagree with that in so far as I think that our sailors and aircrews will equally be in the line of fire doing the vital task of preventing our enemies from disrupting the flow of troops and equipment from the USA to the conflict zone. Every American ship or aircraft that we ensure arrives safely will have profoundly more impact on the conflict than additional Canadian boots on the ground in my opinion so I'll gladly trade the two extra Brigades required to deploy a full Division for additional RCN and RCAF assets.

I'd also suggest that if we are to deploy anything beyond a Brigade Group it would be more impactful (based on observations of recent conflicts including Ukraine) to deploy additional units such as artillery, long range precision fires, air defence, ISR, EW, etc. over more infantry/armour. It may be less people deployed overall...and less perhaps directly on the front lines, but I think it would likely be more impactful militarily.

I would argue Canada as a Nation has no desire to take and hold ground; right or wrong. But I think the country is ok with the Army doing domestic/coastal defense.

 

[GR66]

I would argue Canada as a Nation has no desire to take and hold ground; right or wrong. But I think the country is ok with the Army doing domestic/coastal defense.

I'll agree that Canadians generally have no desire to "take and hold ground" that belongs to other people (although arguably that's basically what peacekeeping is), however I'd say we have a proven willingness to sacrifice our blood and treasure to help our friends and allies keep/retake their own ground from an invader.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll agree that Canadians generally have no desire to "take and hold ground" that belongs to other people (although arguably that's basically what peacekeeping is), however I'd say we have a proven willingness to sacrifice our blood and treasure to help our friends and allies keep/retake their own ground from an invader.

Have we ? Maybe in the past. Recently it only took 158 KIAs to have us pull out of AFG.

Not trying to be crass, but I don't think we have the stomach for conflict.

 

[KevinB]

Have we ? Maybe in the past. Recently it only took 158 KIAs to have us pull out of AFG.

Not trying to be crass, but I don't think we have the stomach for conflict.

Depends where it is.

Also if you stick a Bde in Singapore or on the Asian landmass itself, they are there for the duration, as you aren't evacuating anyone during a conflict regardless of public wishes - Canada doesn't have the logistics or force projection means to do it...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Depends where it is.

Also if you stick a Bde in Singapore or on the Asian landmass itself, they are there for the duration, as you aren't evacuating anyone during a conflict regardless of public wishes - Canada doesn't have the logistics or force projection means to do it...

I don't think Canada is interested in a Hong Kong part deux. That didn't go well, despite the valiant fight our soldiers put up.

 

[quadrapiper]

Have we ? Maybe in the past. Recently it only took 158 KIAs to have us pull out of AFG.

Not trying to be crass, but I don't think we have the stomach for conflict.

Which was a multi-layered, multi-headed mess, however gallantly fought and, in individual locations or certain areas, briefly promising of peace and progress. Without getting into whether or not it would actually be a good idea, I expect a direct CAF role in e.g. Ukraine would be a much easier sell than a continuation of the neverending fight in Afghanistan. Clear situation (Armed Russians in someone else's country), clear solution (skilful application of overwhelming violence to those Russians), readily identifiable endpoint (a country now without an armed Russian problem).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Which was a multi-layered, multi-headed mess, however gallantly fought and, in individual locations or certain areas, briefly promising of peace and progress. Without getting into whether or not it would actually be a good idea, I expect a direct CAF role in e.g. Ukraine would be a much easier sell than a continuation of the neverending fight in Afghanistan. Clear situation (Armed Russians in someone else's country), clear solution (skilful application of overwhelming violence to those Russians), readily identifiable endpoint (a country now without an armed Russian problem).

Everything is an easy sell to an emotionally irrational pubic who wants to pretend they are a world player. Its when the butchers bill comes in that things get real and opinions change.

 

[GR66]

Have we ? Maybe in the past. Recently it only took 158 KIAs to have us pull out of AFG.

Not trying to be crass, but I don't think we have the stomach for conflict.

Not trying to be crass myself and nothing against the poor, long suffering Afghan population, but I'm not sure I'd classify Afghanistan as our "friends or allies" in anything beyond the collective humanity sense.

I do think that a great many Canadian however would have much more of a stomach for conflict that involves our traditional friends and allies that have cultures and values broadly similar to ours and with which we have fairly deep and ongoing cultural and economic ties.

 

[FJAG]

I would argue Canada as a Nation has no desire to take and hold ground; right or wrong. But I think the country is ok with the Army doing domestic/coastal defense.

Do we really wish to have a defence structure and policy based on what the "herd" wants or expects. Military structure is a capital "P" political issue. Where does our country wish to have influence for all the selfish reasons that each and every country has: influence, trading partners, defence allies etc.

Our influence has waned and trading structure has become one-dimensional and vulnerable to disruption because we have pushed out heads up into our internal social policies butt. Our manufacturing capabilities continue to wane because of internal weaknesses.

I'm not saying that a robust defence posture will fix that but its part of a bigger revolution that has to take place and that will never take place until we stop kowtowing to small but vocal special interest groups that can not see beyond their pet issues.

Laurier said in 1904

“The 19th century has been the century of United States’ development… Let me tell you, my fellow countrymen, that all the signs point this way, that the 20th century shall be the century of Canada and of Canadian development. For the next 70 years, nay for the next 100 years, Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come."

That was on track during the early part of the century and then was frittered away by numerous government programs that were closer to a "bread and circuses" policy that one of strengthening and growing the nation.

Defence policies in Canada do not need to listen to the people because the people, as a mass, have no idea what it is and what the military is doing. We could have massive reforms which would never be noticed. Budgets do get noticed but, if handled properly and with the proper spin, are publicly manageable.

I'm entirely with @KevinB on this. If you want to make an impact amongst Europeans and Americans that we are doing our part then you need Canadian tanks rolling through their streets occasionally to let them know we stand with them and care. A ship offshore or a fighter at 10,000 feet, no matter how useful, has zero impact. It's the Canadian foot soldier in the street buying a pack of cigarettes at the local tobacconist who has the impact.

We need to regain some clout internationally and an army, even a flyover army, is one of the necessary tools to provide that.

Joe Lunchbucket understands that better than your average university career academic. It's time to stop listening to the wrong advocacy groups.

Here's the bottom line.

The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression

There will always be a**holes in the world but, if you do deterrence right there will not ever be a "butcher's bill". If you do it wrong by huddling in a corner then the eventual butcher's bill will be enormous.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm entirely with @KevinB on this. If you want to make an impact amongst Europeans and Americans that we are doing our part then you need Canadian tanks rolling through their streets occasionally to let them know we stand with them and care. A ship offshore or a fighter at 10,000 feet, no matter how useful, has zero impact. It's the Canadian foot soldier in the street buying a pack of cigarettes at the local tobacconist who has the impact.

Memories of being with another Army on the NATO AMF (L) exercise in Arctic Norway when it was announced that Canada's CAST Brigade wouldn't be deploying that year, or probably ever.

Although it wasn't a 'thing' back then, our response equated to making an 'L' on our foreheads.

 

[FJAG]

Memories of being with another Army on the NATO AMF (L) exercise in Arctic Norway when it was announced that Canada's CAST Brigade wouldn't be deploying that year, or probably ever.

Although it wasn't a 'thing' back then, our response equated to making an 'L' on our foreheads.

I was with 2RCHA when D Bty had the AMF(L) role. It was good to have a purpose. I can't recall ever practicing with 5CMBG a situation where both AMF(L) and CAST deployed. I presume there were plans for that but they never got down to us guys at the coal face.

They tried exercising the CAST on Ex BRAVE LION back in the 1980s. It was a roaring success if you listen to the folks at Public Affairs but in reality was a dismal failure that showed clearly that the emperor had no clothes. It was either fix it or let it die a lingering death. In true Canadian fashion we chose the latter.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Do we really wish to have a defence structure and policy based on what the "herd" wants or expects. Military structure is a capital "P" political issue. Where does our country wish to have influence for all the selfish reasons that each and every country has: influence, trading partners, defence allies etc.

I'm simply playing the field that exists. We can dream and play with paper napkin forces all day. Or we can grasp reality and make the best of it.

I would love to see Canada have real powerful expeditionary forces. Unfortunately I think Canadians only want that until we start sending hearses down the highway of heroes again.

I also think mixing our "herds" climate and geographic location make Naval and Air assets and forces the perfect spot for us to project and play a role.