• 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

Reaction score
173
Points
530
Not arguing that something like that wouldn't be a nice to have capability...but there are lots of "nice to haves" on the list. Not sure that this one would make it into my top 10 though.

I don't see Canada getting into the opposed amphibious landing business any time soon, so what we're really looking at is littoral deployment capabilities into permissive environments. JSS can support deployment by Chinooks. AOPS and CSC's can support deployments by medium-lift helicopters. All of the above have small craft for over the beach deployments. If LAVs are needed we can deploy them by C-17 or JSS if required.

For emergency response along our own coasts one look at the map will tell you that wherever you place your handful of amphibious ships they are likely to be quite far away from where they are needed. Airborne deployments will certainly be your quicker response option so if I had to choose where to invest my limited dollars I'd pick additional aircraft over the amphibious capability. Aircraft also have the advantage of being able go places other than the shoreline.

Again, not discounting amphibs as an excellent capability to have, but in the absence of having the funds available to fully and properly develop the capability as @KevinB outlined above, then to my mind improving our air transport capability is the smarter way to go.
I know I've posted this in another thread and it's conceptual but Davie's G-LAM does answer many needs along with supplementing the 2 new AORs with some limited RAS capabilty. Large flight deck and hanger etc.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
9,231
Points
1,140
Close, but....

Get out of the 412 platform for tac hel (move them into domestic only use for dispersed SAR etc (like 417 SQN) or RW initial flight training and get a fleet of S70i plus a few MH6 for CanSOFCom
I love the Hawk, but for now I think it’s better to wait and see with FVL. No point in TacHel getting 60R’s unless one can get a screaming deal at this point.
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
666
Points
810
I love the Hawk, but for now I think it’s better to wait and see with FVL. No point in TacHel getting 60R’s unless one can get a screaming deal at this point.
Several counterpoints (in no particular order as my squirrel brain spits them out)

FVL is still very much a developmental tech and is probably 10-12 years away from mature and widespread implementation

The 41EP-SAR (Griffon) will be nearing end of their cost effective operational and parts supported utility long before the Canadian purchasing system sees deliveries of FVL

The 60R might satisfy our Naval needs but there are other varients more suited to Army and Air Force needs.

The US does not sell export UH60'x', they are all S70's. They will gift old 60's to second and third world armies and airforces however (for example Afghanistan).

FVL will be a quantum increase in cost over the 412 with a lot less built in Canada spinoffs (assuming you consider Bell in Quebec as being in Canada😜) so there will not only be an inflation driven fleet size reduction but also a larger platform cost driven fleet size reduction

The 'Hawk series with the newest generation of avionics will be a viable and supported platform for 15-20 years and is in widespread use by NATO and other allies - FVL will be a tightly held tech for a while.

The V22 took over 20 years to become a reliable transport. With a lot of fatalities along the way. We do not have the depth of experience or fleet size to support that sort of incremental safety improvement upgrade.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,109
Points
1,060
The upper photo is of the LPD HMS Albion swaying out a pair of LCVPs from her davits.
The lower photo is of Marine Atlantic's RoPax ferry Highlanders (previously Stena Traveller).

I believe I could make a commercial case for an ice strengthened version of the Highlanders with the addition of the LCVP davits to launch LCVPs as freight lighters to remote communities along the coast. Buy 3 more ships than the commercial service justifies but keep them in service at a low rate of use.

1658873278190.png
1658873364757.png
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
666
Points
810
The upper photo is of the LPD HMS Albion swaying out a pair of LCVPs from her davits.
The lower photo is of Marine Atlantic's RoPax ferry Highlanders (previously Stena Traveller).

I believe I could make a commercial case for an ice strengthened version of the Highlanders with the addition of the LCVP davits to launch LCVPs as freight lighters to remote communities along the coast. Buy 3 more ships than the commercial service justifies but keep them in service at a low rate of use.

View attachment 72212
View attachment 72213

And people...no lessons learned here

 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
131
Points
580
The upper photo is of the LPD HMS Albion swaying out a pair of LCVPs from her davits.
The lower photo is of Marine Atlantic's RoPax ferry Highlanders (previously Stena Traveller).

I believe I could make a commercial case for an ice strengthened version of the Highlanders with the addition of the LCVP davits to launch LCVPs as freight lighters to remote communities along the coast. Buy 3 more ships than the commercial service justifies but keep them in service at a low rate of use.

Agreed, we should augment the tiny fleet of AORs with plenty of cheap options in lieu of more Protecteurs.

The oldest ship in the Royal Naval Service to become the new Littoral Strike Ship

A closer look at the Littoral Strike Ship concept

Converting the Bay-class auxiliaries into littoral strike ships
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
13,034
Points
1,160
Speaking of Reserve vs Active culture/conflict...



proven innocent madeline scott GIF by Fox TV
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,109
Points
1,060
This is more akin to the classic RM landings of the 19th Century to capture high ground over a fort to compel surrender, just missing the Sailors dragging some artillery ashore.

Canada could certainly use a couple of these. Crew is around 18-25

Absalon. Absalon. Absalon.


It wouldn't take much to configure a Type 25 from the current design to the Command & Support configuration - and the navy gets to keep most of the utility of a frigate with the added utility of a mothership. The army gains a transport and the air force gains a FARP.

Wouldn't the JSS fit the same role?

The RN's Type 31 descends from the Iver Huitfeldts which in turn descend from the Absalon. The Huitfeldts are characterized by a AAW suite.
The Absalons are characterized by a large open space - a Flex Deck.

The Type 31 frigate or Inspiration class, and formerly known as the Type 31e frigate or General Purpose Frigate (GPF), is a planned class of frigate intended to enter service with the United Kingdom's Royal Navy in the 2020s alongside the submarine-hunting Type 26 frigate.[11] Designed by Babcock International, it is also marketed under the name Arrowhead 140 and was based on the hull of the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate.[12]

The Type 32s descend from the Type 31s meaning they descend ultimately from the Absalons. Both the Absalon and the Type 32s are characterized by their Flex Decks. Absalon was designed to host a Company Combat Team but has been used to host ASW and Anti-Piracy teams as well as doing Standing Patrols. The Type 32s are designed "with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems" and " to support the Royal Navy's new Littoral Response Groups (LRGs)."

What is more autonomous than a Company Combat Team?

The RN is planning to sail 8 Type 26s, 5 Type 31s (Iver Huitfeldt variants) and 5 Type 32s (Absalon variants).

Defence in a Competitive Age, elaborated further on the Type 32 frigate stating that it would be designed to protect territorial waters, to provide persistent presence and to support the Royal Navy's new Littoral Response Groups (LRGs). The document also stated that, along with the Type 31, the frigates would be more flexible than their predecessors, featuring a modular design, and equipped with advanced sensors and weapons.[6] According to the document, the ships are likely to be built at Scottish shipyards, like the Type 26 and Type 31.[6]

During the DSEI exhibition in September 2021, Babcock International revealed it was pitching its Arrowhead 140 design, used by the Type 31 frigate, as the base design for the Type 32. The company's Chief Corporate Affairs Officer John Howie stated that the design was well suited to the Royal Navy's requirements for the Type 32, with a flexible mission bay capable of operating subsurface and airborne autonomous systems.[7]

In November 2021, Royal Navy First Sea Lord Tony Radakin announced that the ship had entered its concept phase. He added that it was too early to define its characteristics but being a "Type 31 Batch 2" frigate could be an option. Radakin also reiterated the intent of the programme to provide "additional volume" to the fleet and embrace emerging technology.[8] The revised National Shipbuilding Strategy, released in March 2022, suggested that the Type 32 frigates were likely to be "the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems".[9] Earlier comments by the UK's Minister for Defense Procurement, Jeremy Quin, also suggested that the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the Royal Navy's capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.[10]

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,412
Points
1,160
What you really need is a ocean crossing capable vessel that can self land heavy equipment on unprepared beaches, either by coming ashore (LST type) or a flooding deck to load landing craft that it carries. Also a helipad and if not a LST then a hanger as well. Note I am not suggesting vessels that can do opposed landings.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
13,034
Points
1,160

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,159
Points
1,040
The CAF needs to figure out what it really wants to be. Right now IMHO the taxpayer gets a pretty terrible return on investment due to lack of strategic planning and inter service (and inter regimental) rivalries.

I think there needs to be a massive increase in the TacHel to properly support domestic response - as well as overseas.
Part of the problem with the highlighted portion is related to equipment and another part is political.

On the equipment side we don't have enough tanks to make all of our Brigades "Heavy". On the other hand we don't have enough LAVs to make all three of our Brigades fully "Medium" either. You could make all three Brigades "Light" but then what do you do with the LAVs and tanks you do have? You could give them to the Reserves, but there's a 193 page discussion of why that's not going to happen any time soon.

So what are your options? You can either have Brigades that are a mix of unit types that don't really work together (like we have now), or you can have asymmetrical Brigades (1 x Heavy, 1 x Medium and 1 x Light). This is where we run into the political problems.

Firstly you have the language issue. If you create asymmetrical Brigades what does that do for career planning? If all the tanks for example are in Edmonton then what do you do with the Francophone tankers (or recruits that want to become tankers)?

Secondly you have the Regimental mafias. Which Regiment gets to be Heavy/Medium/Light? What if the bulk of deployments to places/missions that are considered "favourable" go disproportionately to one Brigade due to them having the most appropriate force type while more of the "less favourable" deployments fall to another Brigade? Same thing goes with deployment splits between the Anglo and Franco Brigades.

The Regimental issue could at least partially be helped by splitting up the existing 3 x Regiments into 9 x individually named Battalions (or alternately make them all Battalions of a single Regiment (like in Australia), but the geographical/linguistic issue would still remain.

Personally I think the best route would be to have all three Brigades configured the same so that you'd have the makings for a full Division but going Heavy or Medium would require significant new vehicle purchases while going Light would be politically difficult with all the money that's recently gone into the LAV fleet.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,394
Points
1,310
Our current problem is easily summed up with this allegory:

-The Government wants us to have $2.00 with the least amount of coinage possible
- We currently have about $1.25 if we're being generous. It's all in nickels.
-we can switch out our nickels for any other size of coinage we want.
-Everyone will have their own opinion on what configuration of coins they want to have BUT:

-At the end of the day, we're 75 cents short and until we get that $0.75 from the Government that sets the $2.00 target, we will still just be switching $1.25 around trying to make it 2 bucks.
 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
244
Points
530
@GR66 what about expanding the option set?

We have the symmetrical status quo, the proposed asymmetrical 1+1+1, why not asymmetrical 2+1, with 1 and 5 remaining CMBG's with all of the LAV's and tanks split between them, 2 goes light?
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,159
Points
1,040
Our current problem is easily summed up with this allegory:

-The Government wants us to have $2.00 with the least amount of coinage possible
- We currently have about $1.25 if we're being generous. It's all in nickels.
-we can switch out our nickels for any other size of coinage we want.
-Everyone will have their own opinion on what configuration of coins they want to have BUT:

-At the end of the day, we're 75 cents short and until we get that $0.75 from the Government that sets the $2.00 target, we will still just be switching $1.25 around trying to make it 2 bucks.
True, but also remember that even if the government coughs up the extra $0.75 it might not go to you. You have two brothers you have to share the $2.00 with and they have things they want to buy as well. Either way you can spend the $1.25 wisely and at least have something you can use or you can spend it unwisely.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,217
Points
1,160
@GR66 what about expanding the option set?

We have the symmetrical status quo, the proposed asymmetrical 1+1+1, why not asymmetrical 2+1, with 1 and 5 remaining CMBG's with all of the LAV's and tanks split between them, 2 goes light?
Valcartier does not have the infrastructure to support or employ modern tanks. Neither does Petawawa.
Even if all the tanks are in Edmonton, we will not have an armoured brigade. 2 mech brigades and one light brigade is a reasonable structure for our army if we feel that we need to keep a light battalion for every infantry cap badge.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,159
Points
1,040
@GR66 what about expanding the option set?

We have the symmetrical status quo, the proposed asymmetrical 1+1+1, why not asymmetrical 2+1, with 1 and 5 remaining CMBG's with all of the LAV's and tanks split between them, 2 goes light?
I guess asymmetrical is still asymmetrical. Similar potential problems. I guess if the perfect solution existed then it would have been done. Whatever the Army ends up doing it will likely solve some problems, leave some existing problems unresolved and create some new problems.
 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
244
Points
530
Valcartier does not have the infrastructure to support or employ modern tanks. Neither does Petawawa.
Even if all the tanks are in Edmonton, we will not have an armoured brigade. 2 mech brigades and one light brigade is a reasonable structure for our army if we feel that we need to keep a light battalion for every infantry cap badge.
Could the tanks stay at Gagetown with 12 RBC filling the whole squadron?
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,217
Points
1,160
Could the tanks stay at Gagetown with 12 RBC filling the whole squadron?
The infrastructure exists, but you will end up with an infantry battalion and a tank squadron that are co-located but don’t optimize their collaborative training because each is being directed by a different Bde HQ.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,109
Points
1,060
On the equipment side we don't have enough tanks to make all of our Brigades "Heavy". On the other hand we don't have enough LAVs to make all three of our Brigades fully "Medium" either. You could make all three Brigades "Light" but then what do you do with the LAVs and tanks you do have? You could give them to the Reserves, but there's a 193 page discussion of why that's not going to happen any time soon.

But we might be able to make one Swedish Pattern Combined Arms Brigade with what we have.

Major acquisitions would be 24 AMOS 120mm Mortar Systems, and 12 MSHORAD type AA systems

CV90 type CCVs would be nice but we could cheap out initially with LAV 6.0s

RCAC Bde
Leo 2A6M
Leo 2A6M
ISTAR Sqn
LdSH(RC)RCD12 RBC
Leo 2A6MLeo 2A6MLeo 2A6M
Leo 2A6MLeo 2A6MLeo 2A6M
CCVCCVCCV
CCV-AACCV-AACCV-AA
CCV-AACCV-AACCV-AA
CCV-AACCV-AACCV-AA
CCV-AACCV-AACCV-AA
CCV-RCCV-RCCV-R
CCV-RCCV-RCCV-R
CCV-RCCV-RCCV-R
CCV-RCCV-RCCV-R
CCV-PnrCCV-PnrCCV-Pnr
CCV-PnrCCV-PnrCCV-Pnr
CCV-PnrCCV-PnrCCV-Pnr
AVLBAVLBAVLB
Leo 2A6MLeo 2A6MLeo 2A6M
Leo 2A6MLeo 2A6MLeo 2A6M
Leo 2A6MLeo 2A6MLeo 2A6M
Leo 2A6MLeo 2A6MLeo 2A6M
AMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOS
AMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOS
AMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOS
AMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOSAMOS
Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4Leo 2A4
Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4Leo 2A4
CCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FO
CCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CP
CCV-EMECCV-EMECCV-EMECCV-EMECCV-EMECCV-EME
ARVARVARVARVARVARV
BVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-Log
BVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-Log
BVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-Amb
Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4
Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4
Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4
Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4MLeo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4Leo 2A4
CCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CP
CCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CP
CCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FOCCV-FO
CCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CPCCV-CP
CCV-MainCCV-MainCCV-MainCCV-MainCCV-MainCCV-Main
ARVARVARVARVARVARV
BVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-Log
BVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-LogBVs-Log
BVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-AmbBVs-Amb
CCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCV
CCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCV
CCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCV
CCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCVCCV
 
Top