Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[McG]

I think the recce and anti-armour symbol are necessary to show the dual function. The UAV symbol isn't necessary but the armoured/wheeled is useful.

If you like greater specificity in your symbols, you might like the one the French tended to use for regimental recce (as opposed to the more traditional symbol that they reserved for higher assets).

 

[markppcli]

How about a UAV Battalion per Bde Gp?

With capabilities like these, we're nuts/ dead if we ignore the potential...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588139903099047938

We hold them in a few places already, I don’t know that they shouldn’t be held by existent units. Frankly I’d be tempted to hold any loitering munitions under 4 GS where they have air space control centres organic.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We hold them in a few places already, I don’t know that they shouldn’t be held by existent units. Frankly I’d be tempted to hold any loitering munitions under 4 GS where they have air space control centres organic.

If I was getting blasted by Russian arty, I'd like to be able to look up and see a sky 'dark with armed UAVs' heading their way, followed by a horizon dancing with flame as they pound the shit out of them for us.

However that pans out Org Chart wise I could care less, of course

 

[markppcli]

If I was getting blasted by Russian arty, I'd like to be able to look up and see a sky 'dark with armed UAVs' heading their way, followed by a horizon dancing with flame as they pound the shit out of them for us.

However that pans out Org Chart wise I could care less, of course

Well, there’s good sources out now about how the Ukranian UAVs were in a period of ineffectiveness because they were simply to slow to effect strikes, that’s been solved by using HIMARS to erode Russian AD. I’d rather here some F35’s telling me “no factor” as I brief threats and we begin dropping GBU 49s with impunity.

But I get your point. I’d just read up on the joint force arsenal thread and I think peopl on here, well some anyways, don’t really get that airspace requires coordination so everything doesn’t run into each other. Skies dark with UAVs is great until they all smash into each other.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well, there’s good sources out now about how the Ukranian UAVs were in a period of ineffectiveness because they were simply to slow to effect strikes, that’s been solved by using HIMARS to erode Russian AD. I’d rather here some F35’s telling me “no factor” as I brief threats and we begin dropping GBU 49s with impunity.

But I get your point. I’d just read up on the joint force arsenal thread and I think peopl on here, well some anyways, don’t really get that airspace requires coordination so everything doesn’t run into each other. Skies dark with UAVs is great until they all smash into each other.

Which would be awesome!

 

[markppcli]

Which would be awesome!

Somewhere a tacp just had an aneurism

 

[GR66]

Okay. Another cut at the Army's Future Force Structure. I call this one Force 2026 to be different.

Notes:

1. All brigades and units are still based on existing CA personnel counts (RegF and ResF) and equipment holdings (except a HIMARS and AD Arty regiment which are aspirational as far as equipment is concerned and will continue to be equipped with 105mm C3 until new equipment procured)
2. 1 (CA) Div has one job and one job only - NATO commitment to Europe during Phase 1 (current equipment holdings) with a flyover armoured brigade and during Phase 2 (new equipment procured) up to a mech division.
3. 2 (CA) Div is responsible for defence of Canada and being the lead on all other missions at up to battle group strength.
4. Rather than classifying units by readiness levels, they are classified by manning and equipment holdings. e.g. a Type 30/70 unit or subunit has a 30% RegF manning and 70% ResF manning and holds 30% of that unit's equipment. Typically a 30/70 Bn would have 1 x 100/0 fully equipped and RegF manned company and 2 x 10/90 partially equipped companies with a 70/30 Bn HQ, and 30/70 CS Coy and CSS Coy.
5. From it's own resources, 1 (CA) Div can immediately man 1 complete fully equipped Armd brigade in Canada as well as 1 complete fully equipped prepositioned Armd brigade in Europe.
6. 2 (CA) Div forms all Canadian JTF headquarters based on 39 Bde Victoria (JTF West - BC, AB, SK & NT), 2 Bde Petawawa (JTF West Central - MB, ON & NU), 5 Bde Valcartier (JTF East Central - QC) and 36 Bde Halifax (JTF East - NS, NB, PE, & NL), Cdn RGR groups are placed under command of these four Bde/JTF headquarters.
7. 2 (CA) Div no longer has any Mech bns, however each Type 100/0 or 30/70 recce regt or inf bn has an integral ground mobility platoon/troop or company/squadron with varying types of vehicles (including up to TAPV and LAV6) depending on role and therefore has some limited mech capabilities (appx 6 companies and 3-4 squadrons worth in total).
8. A small Depot Bn has been added to Vancouver

View attachment 74541

Curious as to your thoughts on how the 30/70 and 70/30 Service Battalions will be organized. Currently I believe each has an Admin, Supply, Transport and Maintenance Company. Would each Company be manned at the split levels, or would for example the Maintenance Companies be manned 100/0 and the Supply and Transport Companies at 30/70?

 

[Ostrozac]

Somewhere a tacp just had an aneurism

Wait until self-propelled anti-aircraft guns make their big comeback in the counter-UAS role. They’ll be throwing up ordnance all over the sky at drones, helicopters, geese, unusual looking clouds…

 

[markppcli]

Wait until self-propelled anti-aircraft guns make their big comeback in the counter-UAS role. They’ll be throwing up ordnance all over the sky at drones, helicopters, geese, unusual looking clouds…

Happily you can drop a bomb through fire, it’s the UAVs and loitering munitions I worry about

 

[FJAG]

How about a UAV Battalion per Bde Gp?

With capabilities like these, we're nuts/ dead if we ignore the potential...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588139903099047938

That's gonna be hard to buff out.

My preference is to use existing resources that already perform the basic functions.

I see UAVs with both brigade recce and artillery forward observers and infantry recce and mortar MFCs.

I see the armed UAVs, or loitering munitions get launched by mortar platoons or by specialized artillery batteries depending on their size and range.

There's already a very robust command and control structure to integrate them into.

 

[FJAG]

Curious as to your thoughts on how the 30/70 and 70/30 Service Battalions will be organized. Currently I believe each has an Admin, Supply, Transport and Maintenance Company. Would each Company be manned at the split levels, or would for example the Maintenance Companies be manned 100/0 and the Supply and Transport Companies at 30/70?

You're right. The split probably needs to be different. I start with the first principle that a 30/70 brigade and it's 30/70 battalions have a primary purpose which is to be a training and mobilization base but with a secondary day-to-day role to provide rotations to such things as the Latvia eFP BG.

For starters, under the initial phase, where equipment holdings are based on existing holdings, each battalion etc will hold only roughly 1/3 of the equipment of a full brigade. In that respect the CSS support does not need to be 100% even for maintenance although I do think maintenance requires a higher full-timer ratio. In my day, the supply and transport function was conducted by one company. That's basically the organization within a US BCT's brigade support battalion which has a distribution company, a field maintenance company and a headquarters company (I'll leave aside the forward support companies which are their equivalent of our unit A Echs). They also put the brigade medical company under the BSB.

Effectively the BSB is my model (albeit I've boosted the numbers from roughly 400 to 530) which I see with the following numbers PYs/Class A :

HQ &HQ Coy - roughly 60/80;

Maintenance Coy - roughly 70/70 - 90/50 depending on types of equipment held by the particular brigade;

S&T Coy - 40/120

Field Ambulance - 25/65

Totals: 195-215 / 335-315 That's roughly 37 - 40% RegF PYs.

Note A - the numbers are for the deployable field force and do not include static support base functions

Note B - the numbers contemplate that there is a divisional sustainment brigade with a maintenance battalion, two transport battalions and a logistics/special troops battalion and that there is a field hospital all of which deploy either in whole or in part for theatre support.

 

[KevinB]

That's gonna be hard to buff out.

My preference is to use existing resources that already perform the basic functions.

I see UAVs with both brigade recce and artillery forward observers and infantry recce and mortar MFCs.

Everyone is going to get UAS down to the section level eventually.
It’s happening down here, and so far the exercises are going well. There needs to be fantastic A-G Coordination when using Helicopters and Fast Air, but so far even experimenting with drone swarm integration is going well.

I see the armed UAVs, or loitering munitions get launched by mortar platoons or by specialized artillery batteries depending on their size and range.

Again I think that depends on scale - a micro copter section level drone dropping a grenade can work in some situations. The heavier duty large UAS that launch missiles, rockets etc need to be controlled at higher / I don’t think a Mortar Platoon is the right place - but I also may be a little old fashioned there.
I tend to like the idea of A/UAS for the AirForce and Artillery. Someone on a direct Brigade net.

There's already a very robust command and control structure to integrate them into.

I don’t see the CA Mortar Platoons being that anymore.

 

[IKnowNothing]

A couple of interesting submissions from Battle Order

1 - the structure of the Platoon in the Swiss Territorial Division (5 Battalions per Division)

The APC93, or Piranha IIC, is effectively a Bison or Coyote with an RWS on top, leaving room for 3 crew and 8 Pax.

The alternate transport is an armoured truck with an RWS on top with the same loading

MOWAG Duro IIIP (GMTF 11 Pl/2t 6x6 gl).

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the "Territorial" nature of this suggestion was missed. There's nothing particularly novel about their RegF mech formations (other than maybe using wheeled Eagles to screen totally tracked mech bde's). What's interesting to me is they've explicitly addressed the limitations of their reservists (discussion about giving the DMR's to the senior NCM's in sections because they're more likely to be able to make good use of them), kitted them out accordingly (cheaper and less complex weapons and vehicles requiring less maintenance, less cost to acquire, maintain, and operate) and turned out 17 battalions of infantry that can get from A to B under armour and are loaded with (albiet short range) MBT level anti-armour capability.

Ukraine has shown us the potential of a peer fight of any length to force combatants to dig deep into reserves- of people/ vehicle stocks/ munitions.

We're never going to match the per capita (or even absolute) size that the Finn's and Swiss generate via conscription, but there might be something to be learned from their employment and surge capability, that there's a middle ground to be found with deployable reserves without US expenditure levels, and without massive leaps required to get the reserves trained on using and maintaining the best and most complicated kit.

 

[FJAG]

I don’t see the CA Mortar Platoons being that anymore.

They're tied directly into the bn/BG FSCC which is all you need.

I think that the bn mor pl concept is tactically and organizationally still valid. I do wonder whether a mortar platoon should be manned by "uptrained riflemen" or whether they shouldn't be a specialty in their own right like in the US. One could have a trade called indirect fire support that covers everything from tube to UCAVs ... maybe even heavy anti-armour ... etc. Basically keep all weapon systems used within the rifle company as your standard infantryman qualification and career stream and everything from bn support weapons and create a separate stream.

We're never going to match the per capita (or even absolute) size that the Finn's and Swiss generate via conscription, but there might be something to be learned from their employment and surge capability, that there's a middle ground to be found with deployable reserves without US expenditure levels, and without massive leaps required to get the reserves trained on using and maintaining the best and most complicated kit.

That makes me think a bit cart before the horse. It works on the proposition that we have a reserve and a cheap government so let's see what we can do with it without first looking to see if we need a cheap, moderately trained force.

Where and how will we use these territorial units? Will it be for home defence? That presupposes an attack on Canada. And where do we need them, our main harbour areas? the north? Will we send it overseas as part of a NATO force? They already have such forces. Do they need or want more? Or do they want armoured or mech or artillery brigades? Will we use it on missions outside the country such as UN or training support missions? That's not a ResF job per se under our political/military construct - that's a full-timer job.

I keep pivoting the ResF towards a mech force in Europe. Why? 1) Europe needs more armoured and mech forces as a deterrent to the Putins in life and it fits our current NATO obligations, 2) such forces do not need to be forces in being - flyovers exercising regularly in Europe add deterrent value at a fraction of the cost of a full-time force and can be mobilized and deployed as threat levels go up 3) we already have the bulk of the equipment we need to equip such a force to a brigade level and to train and sustain it, 4) our RegF should pivot to being a) a leadership/training/support cadre for a mobilizable force, and b) light quick reaction forces and specialized units that are needed on a day-to-day, full-time basis and/or need constant training to hone their skills.

Our main impediment to restructuring the force in that way is that the RegF does not want to give up their toys to part-timers. The mantra that the ResF can't maintain them is ridiculous. The fact is that the ResF can't maintain this equipment under the current system. In any organization worth its salt if there is a capability gap then you redesign the system to close the gap. We have ignored doing that for decades. We continue to fine tune a broken concept.

We need to stop looking for a role for an inadequate ResF and restructure the force to make it affordable and capable for real defence needs.

The first step should always be - what are our day-to-day defence needs and what is the force we might need to generate for an extreme event. I do not see a Ukrainian style territorial force as falling under either category in the foreseeable future. That might have been the case in the period before the Boer War but not now.

 

[KevinB]

They're tied directly into the bn/BG FSCC which is all you need.

Theoretically, but given the CA seems intent on constantly divesting the Reg Force Mortar Platoons, and have PRes set to form them - I tend to view that as suboptimal.

I think that the bn mor pl concept is tactically and organizationally still valid. I do wonder whether a mortar platoon should be manned by "uptrained riflemen" or whether they shouldn't be a specialty in their own right like in the US. One could have a trade called indirect fire support that covers everything from tube to UCAVs ... maybe even heavy anti-armour ... etc. Basically keep all weapon systems used within the rifle company as your standard infantryman qualification and career stream and everything from bn support weapons and create a separate stream.

Now admittedly I was an Artilleryman and Foo Tech prior to my Infantry Mortar experiences, but I believe that Cbt Spt positions a great places for senior Cpl's and 3rd year Pte's, it gives some time away from Rifle Platoon work - and gives experience from that to the Cbt Spt Platoons.
Mortar, Recce/Sniper, Pioneer and Armor Defense Platoon aren't places for brand new troops.

I don't see the ability in Canada to break the trade further given the small Army - and limited positions for that.

That makes me think a bit cart before the horse. It works on the proposition that we have a reserve and a cheap government so let's see what we can do with it without first looking to see if we need a cheap, moderately trained force.

Where and how will we use these territorial units? Will it be for home defence? That presupposes an attack on Canada. And where do we need them, our main harbour areas? the north? Will we send it overseas as part of a NATO force? They already have such forces. Do they need or want more? Or do they want armoured or mech or artillery brigades? Will we use it on missions outside the country such as UN or training support missions? That's not a ResF job per se under our political/military construct - that's a full-timer job.

I keep pivoting the ResF towards a mech force in Europe. Why? 1) Europe needs more armoured and mech forces as a deterrent to the Putins in life and it fits our current NATO obligations, 2) such forces do not need to be forces in being - flyovers exercising regularly in Europe add deterrent value at a fraction of the cost of a full-time force and can be mobilized and deployed as threat levels go up 3) we already have the bulk of the equipment we need to equip such a force to a brigade level and to train and sustain it, 4) our RegF should pivot to being a) a leadership/training/support cadre for a mobilizable force, and b) light quick reaction forces and specialized units that are needed on a day-to-day, full-time basis and/or need constant training to hone their skills.

110% agreed with the above.

Our main impediment to restructuring the force in that way is that the RegF does not want to give up their toys to part-timers. The mantra that the ResF can't maintain them is ridiculous. The fact is that the ResF can't maintain this equipment under the current system. In any organization worth its salt if there is a capability gap then you redesign the system to close the gap. We have ignored doing that for decades. We continue to fine tune a broken concept.

We need to stop looking for a role for an inadequate ResF and restructure the force to make it affordable and capable for real defence needs.

The first step should always be - what are our day-to-day defence needs and what is the force we might need to generate for an extreme event. I do not see a Ukrainian style territorial force as falling under either category in the foreseeable future. That might have been the case in the period before the Boer War but not now.

think we both agree that a European leaning Heavier force should be PRes Focused 30/70 type construct - the fact the ARNG has heavy armor (and real capabilities) means there is no reasonable argument that the PRes cannot do it.

Both the Reg Force and PRes in Canada seem to be enjoying the status quo of their rush to the bottom...

 

[IKnowNothing]

That makes me think a bit cart before the horse. It works on the proposition that we have a reserve and a cheap government so let's see what we can do with it without first looking to see if we need a cheap, moderately trained force.

Where and how will we use these territorial units? Will it be for home defence? That presupposes an attack on Canada. And where do we need them, our main harbour areas? the north? Will we send it overseas as part of a NATO force? They already have such forces. Do they need or want more? Or do they want armoured or mech or artillery brigades? Will we use it on missions outside the country such as UN or training support missions? That's not a ResF job per se under our political/military construct - that's a full-timer job.

I keep pivoting the ResF towards a mech force in Europe. Why? 1) Europe needs more armoured and mech forces as a deterrent to the Putins in life and it fits our current NATO obligations, 2) such forces do not need to be forces in being - flyovers exercising regularly in Europe add deterrent value at a fraction of the cost of a full-time force and can be mobilized and deployed as threat levels go up 3) we already have the bulk of the equipment we need to equip such a force to a brigade level and to train and sustain it, 4) our RegF should pivot to being a) a leadership/training/support cadre for a mobilizable force, and b) light quick reaction forces and specialized units that are needed on a day-to-day, full-time basis and/or need constant training to hone their skills.

I don't see it as in conflict with the heavy aspect of your plans, but as proof of concept as to how it could be extended, particularly 4a.

Hypothetically, you get your way. Full Bde kit in Europe 2x 30/70 Bde's trained and organized to man it. In this future this formation is fully kitted to modern standards, tracked IFV's, SP155's etc. etc.

Is it not reasonable to assume that

a.the Heavy tasking will require the commitment of essentially all of the Grade A mechanized kit we acquire? (and currently all of what we have now)
b. that the combat arms reserves can/should deliver more than 8 (2per Bn x 4 30/70 Mech Bn's) Inf Coy's? and 4x tank + 4x recce squadrons

It seems like with some small tweaks and some RegF integration (HQ and CS Coy) the Swiss/Finnish template could yield formed battalions, maybe even a bde (with RegF help on CS/CSS) that aren't so much adhoc Ukrainian territorials as they are budget Stryker battalions, significantly increasing the size and deterrent effect of our flyover capability at a fraction of the cost.

 

[markppcli]

I don't see it as in conflict with the heavy aspect of your plans, but as proof of concept as to how it could be extended, particularly 4a.

Hypothetically, you get your way. Full Bde kit in Europe 2x 30/70 Bde's trained and organized to man it. In this future this formation is fully kitted to modern standards, tracked IFV's, SP155's etc. etc.

Is it not reasonable to assume that

a.the Heavy tasking will require the commitment of essentially all of the Grade A mechanized kit we acquire? (and currently all of what we have now)
b. that the combat arms reserves can/should deliver more than 8 (2per Bn x 4 30/70 Mech Bn's) Inf Coy's? and 4x tank + 4x recce squadrons

It seems like with some small tweaks and some RegF integration (HQ and CS Coy) the Swiss/Finnish template could yield formed battalions, maybe even a bde (with RegF help on CS/CSS) that aren't so much adhoc Ukrainian territorials as they are budget Stryker battalions, significantly increasing the size and deterrent effect of our flyover capability at a fraction of the cost.

The Swiss and Finns have that template because they know exactly how many draftees they’ll get every year.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Swiss and Finns have that template because they know exactly how many draftees they’ll get every year.

So would we if we had any control over our supply chain of people, which any good organization should be able to figure out assuming a proactive recruitment processes...


Proactive recruitment is focused on sourcing, engaging, and attracting candidates ahead of hiring demand. With the ever-increasing time to hire and cost per hire, it makes sense for recruiters to engage their candidates proactively and stay ahead of the hiring demands.

Unlike reactive recruiting, proactive recruiting doesn’t depend on candidates applying for a position after it’s open. Instead, proactive recruitment focuses on identifying talent before its demand, establishing contact, nurturing relationships, and ultimately making the candidate interested in an open opportunity.

Proactive recruiters are much more like marketers and/or salespeople and tend to treat their candidates as customers. Candidates once sourced enter into your sales funnel or rather a series of stages ultimately resulting in the candidate working for your company.

What is Proactive Recruitment?

Proactive recruitment involves finding, engaging, and recruiting candidates ahead of hiring needs. Learn more about its methodology & phases.

recruiterflow.com

 

[OldSolduer]

Wait until self-propelled anti-aircraft guns make their big comeback in the counter-UAS role. They’ll be throwing up ordnance all over the sky at drones, helicopters, geese, unusual looking clouds…

Don't forget "very small rocks"

 

[GR66]

Okay. Another cut at the Army's Future Force Structure. I call this one Force 2026 to be different.

Notes:

1. All brigades and units are still based on existing CA personnel counts (RegF and ResF) and equipment holdings (except a HIMARS and AD Arty regiment which are aspirational as far as equipment is concerned and will continue to be equipped with 105mm C3 until new equipment procured)
2. 1 (CA) Div has one job and one job only - NATO commitment to Europe during Phase 1 (current equipment holdings) with a flyover armoured brigade and during Phase 2 (new equipment procured) up to a mech division.
3. 2 (CA) Div is responsible for defence of Canada and being the lead on all other missions at up to battle group strength.
4. Rather than classifying units by readiness levels, they are classified by manning and equipment holdings. e.g. a Type 30/70 unit or subunit has a 30% RegF manning and 70% ResF manning and holds 30% of that unit's equipment. Typically a 30/70 Bn would have 1 x 100/0 fully equipped and RegF manned company and 2 x 10/90 partially equipped companies with a 70/30 Bn HQ, and 30/70 CS Coy and CSS Coy.
5. From it's own resources, 1 (CA) Div can immediately man 1 complete fully equipped Armd brigade in Canada as well as 1 complete fully equipped prepositioned Armd brigade in Europe.
6. 2 (CA) Div forms all Canadian JTF headquarters based on 39 Bde Victoria (JTF West - BC, AB, SK & NT), 2 Bde Petawawa (JTF West Central - MB, ON & NU), 5 Bde Valcartier (JTF East Central - QC) and 36 Bde Halifax (JTF East - NS, NB, PE, & NL), Cdn RGR groups are placed under command of these four Bde/JTF headquarters.
7. 2 (CA) Div no longer has any Mech bns, however each Type 100/0 or 30/70 recce regt or inf bn has an integral ground mobility platoon/troop or company/squadron with varying types of vehicles (including up to TAPV and LAV6) depending on role and therefore has some limited mech capabilities (appx 6 companies and 3-4 squadrons worth in total).
8. A small Depot Bn has been added to Vancouver

View attachment 74541

Couple of questions about your proposed 3 Mechanized Brigade in Latvia.

Would this replace our eFP Latvia commitment or would it be in addition to that? If 3 Brigade is in addition to eFP Latvia then presumably each force would require their own, separate equipment and support structures in theater.

You show 3 Brigade as being 10/0 manning. I assume that means that the Canadian-based Brigades would only fly over for annual exercises rather than provide rotating limited manning of the Brigade? The Brigade HQ and the Maintenance Coy might possibly be at higher manning levels to coordinate with Allied units/service the pre-positioned equipment I'm thinking.

Do you see 3 Brigade as an actual separate Brigade HQ and unit structure or would on activation one of the three Canada-based Brigades just basically take over the equipment with the other two Brigades filling out the missing sub-units (until such time as the 10/90 sub-units can be worked up and rotated in)?