... I would like to see a firm well informed and broadly discussed doctrine established that informs TO&E ORBATS and force structures vs current discussion of those items without the doctrine of how we will fight.
100%. Doctrine should drive organization. Canada does not have a doctrine-based army. It is a capability-based army. Our organization is based around building task-based battlegroups with available sub-units. We do exercise at higher levels but operationally we are focused on ad-hoc battle groups.
Fair point. Obviously a Light or motorized IBCT has a different msn set than the IBCT (Airborne) that is more in line with the capabilities of the Light Bns but I grant that it’s possible that a light Bn could end up beside a 82nd BCT doing something Hati or Kabul like.
Again though I will highlight that to me the expected msn sets drive TO&E and ORBAT and then training something that to me gets forgotten often.
A potential example is the light Bn mobility project. Currently I understand it to be focused for use in the Cdn North in the current threat environment there, hence not armoured or armed. All good but if we expect to drop that same Bn into Latvia to hold a village maybe it should be armoured and armed as a relatively random example.
I think one has to take a look at the US Army's BCT organizations to see where IBCTs fit in.
The Active Army has 31 BCTs of which only 14 are IBCTs. Of those 14, 5 are Airborne, 3 are Air assault and 6 are pure IBCTs. Of those 6, 3 are with the 10th Mountain aimed at true light leg operations, 2 are with the 25th Inf Div in Hawai'i and 1 with the 11th Airborne in Alaska. IBCTs but with clear focii.
The Active Army IBCTs, even the straight leg ones, are oriented to entry operations.
On the other hand of the 27 ARNG BCTs, 20 are pure leg IBCTs. The ARNG IBCTs are oriented and equipped to be an economy of cost force in peacetime, to provide domestic support and to add mass in a wide variety of roles in wartime.
By comparison Canada's RegF has 1/3 of its infantry in our 3 "BCT's" as light with a minor airborne capability. OTOH, we have no ResF BCTs and little capability to form any.
It is hard to discern any specific role for the RegF light battalions. One can't help but conclude their formation was to turn the late 20th Century 10/90 battalions into something a little more robust in order to create the base of 12 manoeuvre units that the army felt it needed in the early versions of Advancing with Purpose and the managed readiness plan that it was developing. It was obviously something that could be done without spending money on more LAVs. (I'm a bit of a cynic as IMHO any LAV battalion can operate as light infantry if the mission or task requires it)
As for the 10 ResF CBGs; they have zero operational value. At most they form a pool of partially-trained individuals and with much effort, tasked sub-subunits. They are, at best, a wasted opportunity.
Let me simply say that I value light infantry highly. But only when it has a clear purpose and is organized and equipped for the role. I actually think Canada has a great need for real IBCTs. It could form a RegF IBCT and two Mechanized BCTs right now if RegF regimental politics and the managed readiness system didn't stand in its way. It could also form several real ResF IBCTs and combat support and combat service support brigades if it didn't let the antiquated ResF structure stand in its way and if it learned to better blur the line between the RegF and the ResF.
Any change would need a change in government direction and a doctrine to support well defined defence objectives. Unfortunately, trying to be a small jack-of-all-trades military does not provide that sorely needed focus.