- Reaction score
dapaterson said:Given the title of the thread, that was a quick and dirty assessment of what it would cost to replace roughly two thirds of the in-service guns. Agreed that any equipping discussions need to be in the context of force outputs desired.
That said, Canada does need to invest in indirect fire capability. My quick and dirty cost of $250M over seven years is not a huge amount out of the defence budget to sustain a necessary capability.
Agreed and I do not quibble with your numbers. I quibble with the need for 16 ResF regiments and 3 independent batteries. Based on our current force structure of 3 equipped and deployable brigades, we need:
a. definitely 30 x M777s to bring each RegF regiment up to 3 x 6 gun batteries (reduce by 18 and add 18 x M109ish self propelled guns if one brigade goes heavy);
b. definitely 3 ResF batteries plus 12 additional detachments (2 batteries) (M777 trained) to round out all three Reg F regiments (adjust by one battery and 4 dets if M109 in one brigade);
c. definitely 1 x 3 battery air defence regiment;
d. probably 3 x brigade UAV batteries;
e. probably 3 x brigade anti-armour batteries;
f. probably 1 x 3 battery Long Range rocket regiment;
g. probably 3 x target acquisition troops;
h. possibly an additional 18 gun general support regiment;
By my count that's a total of a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 20 batteries and some odds and sods and tops, 3 regimental headquarters.
If one converted the Res F into 2 brigade groups and 3 support brigades one would need an additional two regt HQs and 6 gun, 2 Anti-armour, 2 UAV batteries and two target acquisition troops.
Effectively the majority of the regimental headquarters and almost half of the existing batteries become redundant (although the number of people would probably stay close to the same)
Effectively these are ResF roles for the simple reason that they only need to be there in the event of a "break the glass" type of emergency. Many of the regimental headquarters are not needed because the batteries and dets fall under the Reg F bdes and regts and therefore should be directly under their wing and direction.
The problem is that with our current mission grid under SSE we have enough of everything because we can always cobble together the one or two battle groups we deploy and we're happy to send less than a full battery anyway.
It gets us back to what you said before; the folks in charge think in terms of the permissive environment of insurgent warfare rather than the new Cold War. We continue to think and plan small.