Agree 100% on understanding our allies doctrine in this particular American and I do get that interoperability is a means to an end. I don’t think we are keeping up on interoperability with the US, the digitalization of their forces is quickly hindering our ability to integrate effectively without US SFAB personnel and equipment.
In terms of how we fight I do mean the CAF and the CA. 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.
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.
There is ongoing work regarding the GRTF which indeed looks at expected roles/mission sets to inform training, doctrine, equipment and organization. Although what is available also drives what can be done at any given time. I am optimistic about this current initiative.
At the risk of summoning the usual suspects with their copy-pastas from Google, there are two mobility projects, one of which is DAME (for the arctic) and the other is a vehicle for all theatres. All that to say, work is afoot...
The White Paper focuses on the Armor Division (Reinforced) and Airborne Division in the interests of brevity to show the contrasts, but the structure of the Air Assault and Light/Motorized Divisions are quite similar to the Airborne. All have their Combat Support pulled up to Division level. The Airborne Division is highlighted as JFE capable, but the vignette is an airborne turning movement to support a US Army Corps consisting of Armor and Light Divisions.
Of note, the Air Assault Division is also tagged as JFE capable. For Canadian purposes, the Airborne and Air Assault Divisions have the roles of world-wide strategic deployment and
joint forceable entry. So they are not just JFE. The Light/Motorized Divisions are to be capable of task organizing to respond to contingencies worldwide. So I think it's relevant to understand where the US is going and how we might integrate with them with our GRTF.
As a complete aside that may upset some folks, Canadian LIBs have participated in the JFE stage of JRTC/JPMRC rotations. Anyhoo. JPMRC and JRTC afford our light infantry outstanding collective training opportunities while fostering interoperability.
I think the US model of doctrine development is itself something to study. They have a process, and when they put their mind to it they get after it.