CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[Fishbone Jones]

I see this planning as taking to long. If it takes us a year or so to plan this then we really are in trouble. We have been over there for a few years now. This speaks volumes that we do not have the equipment, including support parts, tools, ancillary equipment and staffing at all support levels to make this acceptably viable.
What we will have is a deployment of the Soldiers will make it work, make it happen and pour everything into it until it fails. Then they will put more effort into it.
It is not the Tanker, or Tech on the grounds fault. But it will be their burden to make happen. It is the GOC, our Leaders who failed to provide an adequate working environment that works.
The only saving side of this is the Manufacturer will be a short distance away and it is in their best interest to provide support for the short term into this deployment. GOC will do what they do best. Demand High serviceability rates, high tempo rates with a small in-adequate budget. Then be surprised when it starts falling apart.

Don't worry about the tankers. We don't take responsibility for anything.

Don't get off the tank.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Don't worry about the tankers. We don't take responsibility for anything.

Don't get off the tank.

Or bathe ...

 

[Ostrozac]

We need to remember that when we first assigned a brigade to Germany, early 1950s, in Hanover, there were some families but the men, the rank and file, were, largely single soldiers - the first units served two years, many of the officers and NCOs were unaccompanied. Later we moved to the Soest/Hemer/Werl area, into purpose built barracks with nearby PMQs and adequate rental accommodation because the army was changing - more and more junior ranks and most senior NCOs were married and the army wanted longer tours of duty for both operational and administrative efficient and effectiveness.

The initial deployment of 27 Brigade to West Germany is an interesting story. The announcement of the deployment was made in May 1951, and the main body started sailing to Europe in November of the same year. More than half the Brigade was recruited off the street with no prior military experience. Despite initially wearing the capbadges of some 15 reserve regiments it wasn’t really a mobilization of the militia from out of the armouries, it was specially recruited for the task.

Canadians in 1951 wanted to enlist in order to deploy to Europe, and the Canadian Army had the ability to enrol and train them rapidly. Things appear to be very different today, on both fronts.

 

[ueo]

I'd suggest it's going to be longer than 5-6 years...
Might make room for a whole Bde BTW

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678851432118734855

4 Bde lives!

 

[daftandbarmy]

4 Bde lives!

3 Mech Cdo be like...

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, here's how the info-machine says it can unfold (archived link here - text also attached in case neither link works)

... Preparation Phase: The initial Preparation Phase commenced shortly after the NATO Leaders Summit in Madrid in June 2022 and much progress has already been made.

• Canada hosted the inaugural Multinational enhanced Forward Presence Brigade Force Sensing Conference in October 2022, which will be followed by regular forthcoming iterations;
• An important initial step for Brigade development, Canada formally affiliated its land-based NATO Response Forces to Latvia;
• To enable this affiliation, the Canadian Army has realigned its Managed Readiness Plan to assign a single Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group to support deterrence and defence in Latvia, including through forward-deployed forces and Canada-based reinforcements;
• In addition to the previously announced Urgent Operational Requirement procurements for the enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group, which included Portable Anti-X Missile systems, Counter Uncrewed Aircraft Systems, and Air Defence Systems, Canada will continue to invest in capabilities and infrastructure to support the Brigade, including increasing forward-deployed equipment and materiel within Latvia;
• In January 2023, Canada deployed the Forward Command Element to Latvia to prepare for integration of a Canadian-led Brigade Headquarters into Multinational Division – North and the future arrival of Brigade capabilities and troops;
• Latvia has adopted a law regarding the development of the new military training area “Selonia”, 25 000 hectares in size. Latvia has allocated EUR 38 million of national financing for the first phase of the development of “Selonia”;
• Latvia has allocated financing for the procurement of medium-range air defence systems, rocket artillery systems, and costal defence systems; and
• Latvia has introduced conscription in order to increase the fighting force of the Latvian National Armed Forces (LNAF).

Build Phase: Canada and Allies will flow the bulk of the Brigade’s forces and equipment into Latvia. As the transition to the Build Phase occurs, Brigade build-up and infrastructure development will need to be aligned.

• The enhanced Forward Presence Brigade will begin reporting directly to the Multinational Division Headquarters – North;
• Canada will bolster its presence in Latvia by deploying a Canadian Army Tank Squadron of 15 Leopard 2 battle tanks and personnel by the end of 2023;
• In Fall 2024, the enhanced Forward Presence Brigade will conduct its first Brigade exercise and NATO Combat Readiness Evaluation;
• The enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group will transition from the Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade to the Canada-led enhanced Forward Presence Brigade;
• Brigade build-up aims to be completed in 2025 with a significant increase in Canadian and multinational Armed Forces soldiers persistently deployed on the ground in Latvia, with additional forces assigned to reinforce Latvia at high readiness from their home country;
• In Fall 2025, Latvia will finalize construction of the first phase of “Selonia”, including a life support area and shooting ranges, thus providing initial opportunities for military training and exercises in the area. Meanwhile, current and additional new infrastructure will be available to facilitate build-up of the enhanced Forward Presence Brigade;
• Medium-range air defence systems and coastal defence systems will enter service in LNAF, thus reinforcing enabling capabilities;
• Conscription system is stabilized and LNAF experiences steady flow of personnel into units; and
• Latvia, as one of the Multinational Division – North Headquarters Framework Nations, will develop a plan concerning further development of Multinational Division – North.

Steady State Phase: The Steady State Phase will see the Canada-led multinational enhanced Forward Presence Brigade in Latvia to consist of a mix of a significant proportion of forward deployed forces, with stocks and equipment prepositioned for the use of rapidly deployable surge forces readied on standby in Canada and across Allied contributing nations. The goal of this phase will be to maintain readiness and demonstrate the Brigade’s capability in order to deter, and if necessary, defend against potential aggression.

• By 2026, Canada will complete the full implementation of persistently deployed Brigade capabilities to Latvia;
• The enhanced Forward Presence Brigade will deploy and exercise episodically to maintain readiness and demonstrate the Brigade’s capability;
• Rocket artillery systems will enter service in LNAF boosting enabling capabilities;
• Canada will have up to 2 200 persistently deployed Canadian Armed Forces members as part of the enhanced Forward Presence and supporting elements in Latvia, and will be prepared to deploy hundreds more as needed;
• Latvia will gradually increase capacity of military training area “Selonia” to accommodate Brigade-level exercises; and
• Latvia, as one of the Multinational Division – North Headquarters Framework Nations, will lead the development of Multinational Division – North as a fully resourced and enabled warfighting division.
  
  (...)

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the last time Defence was a non-partisan issue in Canada was when the Fenians crossed the border in 1866....

Not a non-partisan issue even then. The Fenians had their supporters in Canada as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

The initial deployment of 27 Brigade to West Germany is an interesting story. The announcement of the deployment was made in May 1951, and the main body started sailing to Europe in November of the same year. More than half the Brigade was recruited off the street with no prior military experience. Despite initially wearing the capbadges of some 15 reserve regiments it wasn’t really a mobilization of the militia from out of the armouries, it was specially recruited for the task.

Canadians in 1951 wanted to enlist in order to deploy to Europe, and the Canadian Army had the ability to enrol and train them rapidly. Things appear to be very different today, on both fronts.

Concurrently the Army raised 25 Brigade for Korea by forming 2 PPCLI, 2RCR and 2 R22eR by recruiting from the streets for special service.

On 7 August 1950, Canada's government authorized the creation of the "Canadian Army Special Force". Originally, it was to comprise an armoured regiment, and the 2nd Battalions of each of Canada's permanent-force infantry regiments – Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Royal Canadian Regiment, and Royal 22e Régiment – placed under the overall command of Brigadier-General J.M. Rockingham.[3]

Although a full brigade had been trained and armed by 1951, the success of the Inchon Landing meant that only 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (2PPCLI) was initially sent.[2] However, Chinese and North Korean forces subjected Canadian forces to fierce fighting throughout April 1951. 2PPCLI earned a Presidential Unit Citation for their actions during the Battle of Kapyong while serving with the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade. It had detached from the 25th Brigade in order to leave for Korea in advance of the formation, and would later rejoin its Canadian brigade group.

So between August 1950 and November 1951 (15 months) Canada created, recruited and deployed two active brigades from the street with the first units being blooded, and performing well, within 8 months of being recruited.

That was pretty much from a standing start.

 

[OldSolduer]

While that’s true I wonder if the same could be done in this age.

 

[GK .Dundas]

One very important thing about the Korean Brigade was an awful lot of those guys off the street had prior combat experience.

 

[daftandbarmy]

For the record, here's how the info-machine says it can unfold (archived link here - text also attached in case neither link works)

Can we expect to se Salonia twinned with Wainwright in the near future?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Or bathe ...

That too.

 

[childs56]

So based on your experience supporting tanks deployed overseas what could an acceptable time line have been? What would the acceptable equipment stock pile look like. I’m assuming you also have an in-depth knowledge of the start and end date for this planning cycle given that it’s “taken too long.” Which I would find interesting to know given that the CCA told the CO of the LdSH (RC) in front of the battle group tanks wouldn’t be deployed to Latvia because we can’t support them over there in 2020.

Edit here. 90 days to deploy. 120 days to sustain any long term.

I know your the "expert" in all things Canadian Military and like to throw your weight around on the forums. I wonder what your thoughts are in condescending tones to others responses?
Based on your "expertise" what would a reasonable time line be to deploy 15 tanks, crews, parts, aux equipment, support, etc?

I will add my thoughts, which will obviously go against your special knowledge of the situation.
Based on the CF has a hard time deploying any sizable force quickly,(outside of the Navy) I guess it makes sense for planning to be over a year in time and span over a 3-10 year plan. The lack of spare parts, staff, aux equipment, support equipment, transport both in and to the theatre are lacking. It makes sense I guess.
No different then when we were toying the idea of sending Cf18s to Africa. Lots of planning for not much results. Mainly based on we could not sustain ourselves. We needed support from our Allies who did not want to provide.

I would assume that infrastructure in country is lacking for a larger contingent right now. Canada does not have the ability to provide temporary shelter for our soldiers to be deployed quickly. Nor do we have the equipment to do so.
We are more then likely short on staffing which may be a major part of the key, Afterall we can more then likely leverage our allies for spare parts and aux equipment. Poland seems to be pretty good at providing gear.

administratively Canada is more then likely trying to figure out how to swell the HQ level of the Deployment so more in Ottawa can get a service ribbon for deploying out of a hotel.

I wonder how long it would take for Canada to provide a QRF, Ready Reaction Force for our Troops anywhere in the world if they required it? I am guessing we can't. Or would it take a year to plan to get out the door?

This surge of equipment and Soldiers along with extension of commitment is definitely a good thing for the CF, it will give us a focused long term mission again. Might open minds and pockets books of the government.

But like most things liberals, they are committing us to a mission that the bulk of the money and commitment will happen after the next election.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the record, here's how the info-machine says it can unfold (archived link here - text also attached in case neither link works)

... Preparation Phase: The initial Preparation Phase commenced shortly after the NATO Leaders Summit in Madrid in June 2022 and much progress has already been made.

• Canada hosted the inaugural Multinational enhanced Forward Presence Brigade Force Sensing Conference in October 2022, which will be followed by regular forthcoming iterations;
• An important initial step for Brigade development, Canada formally affiliated its land-based NATO Response Forces to Latvia;
• To enable this affiliation, the Canadian Army has realigned its Managed Readiness Plan to assign a single Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group to support deterrence and defence in Latvia, including through forward-deployed forces and Canada-based reinforcements;
• In addition to the previously announced Urgent Operational Requirement procurements for the enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group, which included Portable Anti-X Missile systems, Counter Uncrewed Aircraft Systems, and Air Defence Systems, Canada will continue to invest in capabilities and infrastructure to support the Brigade, including increasing forward-deployed equipment and materiel within Latvia;
• In January 2023, Canada deployed the Forward Command Element to Latvia to prepare for integration of a Canadian-led Brigade Headquarters into Multinational Division – North and the future arrival of Brigade capabilities and troops;
• Latvia has adopted a law regarding the development of the new military training area “Selonia”, 25 000 hectares in size. Latvia has allocated EUR 38 million of national financing for the first phase of the development of “Selonia”;
• Latvia has allocated financing for the procurement of medium-range air defence systems, rocket artillery systems, and costal defence systems; and
• Latvia has introduced conscription in order to increase the fighting force of the Latvian National Armed Forces (LNAF).

Build Phase: Canada and Allies will flow the bulk of the Brigade’s forces and equipment into Latvia. As the transition to the Build Phase occurs, Brigade build-up and infrastructure development will need to be aligned.

• The enhanced Forward Presence Brigade will begin reporting directly to the Multinational Division Headquarters – North;
• Canada will bolster its presence in Latvia by deploying a Canadian Army Tank Squadron of 15 Leopard 2 battle tanks and personnel by the end of 2023;
• In Fall 2024, the enhanced Forward Presence Brigade will conduct its first Brigade exercise and NATO Combat Readiness Evaluation;
• The enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group will transition from the Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade to the Canada-led enhanced Forward Presence Brigade;
• Brigade build-up aims to be completed in 2025 with a significant increase in Canadian and multinational Armed Forces soldiers persistently deployed on the ground in Latvia, with additional forces assigned to reinforce Latvia at high readiness from their home country;
• In Fall 2025, Latvia will finalize construction of the first phase of “Selonia”, including a life support area and shooting ranges, thus providing initial opportunities for military training and exercises in the area. Meanwhile, current and additional new infrastructure will be available to facilitate build-up of the enhanced Forward Presence Brigade;
• Medium-range air defence systems and coastal defence systems will enter service in LNAF, thus reinforcing enabling capabilities;
• Conscription system is stabilized and LNAF experiences steady flow of personnel into units; and
• Latvia, as one of the Multinational Division – North Headquarters Framework Nations, will develop a plan concerning further development of Multinational Division – North.

Steady State Phase: The Steady State Phase will see the Canada-led multinational enhanced Forward Presence Brigade in Latvia to consist of a mix of a significant proportion of forward deployed forces, with stocks and equipment prepositioned for the use of rapidly deployable surge forces readied on standby in Canada and across Allied contributing nations. The goal of this phase will be to maintain readiness and demonstrate the Brigade’s capability in order to deter, and if necessary, defend against potential aggression.

• By 2026, Canada will complete the full implementation of persistently deployed Brigade capabilities to Latvia;
• The enhanced Forward Presence Brigade will deploy and exercise episodically to maintain readiness and demonstrate the Brigade’s capability;
• Rocket artillery systems will enter service in LNAF boosting enabling capabilities;
• Canada will have up to 2 200 persistently deployed Canadian Armed Forces members as part of the enhanced Forward Presence and supporting elements in Latvia, and will be prepared to deploy hundreds more as needed;
• Latvia will gradually increase capacity of military training area “Selonia” to accommodate Brigade-level exercises; and
• Latvia, as one of the Multinational Division – North Headquarters Framework Nations, will lead the development of Multinational Division – North as a fully resourced and enabled warfighting division.

First Read -

The key enablers will be supplied by Latvia - Medium Range Air Defence and Long Range Precision Fires including Coastal Defence.
I think that reduces any imperatives for Canada to contribute any of those capabilities. A couple less jobs for 4th Artillery Regiment (General Support) to worry about?

Canada will contribute up to 2200 troops persistently as part of the Danish led Multi-National Division - North, co-operating with Latvians, Danes and Estonians and supported by Brits.

The troops on the ground will be urgently equipped with an existing Squadron (-) from the LdSH and will be supplied with new purchase

Portable Anti-X Missile systems, Counter Uncrewed Aircraft Systems, and Air Defence Systems

Presumably the PAXM systems are something like the Javelins or Spikes, or perhaps a larger family of solutions and will be issued to existing troops to enhance their existing armoury with a small training delta.

The CUAS and ADS systems I am guessing are going to the newly re-stood up AD Bty in the 4th (GS) Regiment. Which means something like the MSHORADs and/or MADIS and/or ManPADs for that Battery, co-operating with the MRRs already in service.


Taking that all together suggests to me that the Canadian Army is not looking at a Division in its aspirational future, but will continue to look at supplying up to a small Brigade Group whose heaviest weapons are the Leopards and the LAVs and 155mm guns. Conceivably the M777s might be replaced by something like RCH or the Archer or the CESARs. And that is likely to be the Tip of the Spear formation for the Canadian Army.

As part of the Danish led Multinational Division - North it will be subordinate to JFC-Brunsum in the NATO command structure.

Multinational Division North​

On 8th of March in Adazi, Latvia, Danish, Estonian and Latvian Defence Ministers officially opened Headquarters Multinational Division North (MND N). This new unit is first of its kind in the northern part of the Baltic Sea region and will further enhance safety, security and NATO’s defence capabilities.The main element of the Danish-led headquarters is located in Adazi with a smaller cell present in Karup/Slagelse, Denmark.
Framework Nations of MND N are respectively Denmark, Latvia and Estonia.

Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But Denmark, Latvia and Estonia are all also charter members of the British led Joint Expeditionary Force which, when created, included all the Baltic and Scandinavian NATO members as well as the then non-NATO members of Sweden and Finland.

That left JEF straddling the borders of NATO. Fortunately for all concerned Finland and, hopefully, Sweden are both now within NATO so JEF's position is not so anomalous or politically challenging. But it still constitutes an active block within the NATO structure that is politically active. How much independence of action it retains will be interesting.

JEF​

Denmark is part of the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force along with nine other European countries.

What is the JEF?​

The JEF is a UK-led coalition of like-minded nations (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden), comprising high readiness forces configured to respond rapidly to crises in the High North and Northern Europe. It can integrate into larger international operations such as those led by NATO, the UN, or other security coalition and can conduct the full spectrum of operations. It enhances the deterrence messaging of NATO and provides agile, credible, and capable forces in support of JEF Participant Nation interests. The JEF is not a standing force and will draw on Participant Nation forces across all five Domains when conducting activity.

The JEF Framework​

The JEF is designed as a multinational force, with NATO standards and doctrine as its baseline. At its core, the JEF can operate as a scalable force package that presents itself as a persistent competitor to any adversary. To contribute to this deterrence, the JEF must be capable and credible, and demonstrate and communicate intent. Preference will always be to cooperate with Participant Nations, who can provide additional force elements, intelligence, and capabilities depending on the type of activity, operation or training being conducted.

Opportunities for Further Integration​

As well as operational utility, a key strength to the JEF is the close relationship between all JEF nations. The JEF provides focus for developing greater interoperability between JEF members using NATO protocols, including tactical integration between units across Participant Nations. It also provides a community to drive innovation and experimentation, whilst seeking opportunities to support developing concepts through NATO-founded doctrine.

Last updated December 13, 2022 - 11:56

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/03/joint-expeditionary-force-a-new-era-of-military-cooperation/

So with Canada in NATO but also in NORAD it is subordinate to US command structures in both NORAD and NATO but in the NATO context it will be operating in a JEF environment and JEF has demonstrated some tendencies towards independence of thought and action and showing initiative.

JEF is focused on the Arctic and Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland are all members of the Arctic Council. Russia owns one half of the Arctic but has been removed from the Arctic Council.

That leaves Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland:

all members of the Nordic Defence Co-Operation
together with Denmark which commands the MND-N that Canada's Latvian Brigade reports to

all members of JEF,
together with Britain and the Netherlands with their navies and marines regularly exercising in the Arctic with the Royals establishing a permanent base in Norway

And the US:
Refurbishing NORAD
Pushing Air Missile Defense
Standing up the 11th Abn Division for Arctic Operations

And Canada......

Wait Out?

 

[Ostrozac]

One very important thing about the Korean Brigade was an awful lot of those guys off the street had prior combat experience.

For the first rotation to Korea, absolutely, with experience in the 1939-1945 unpleasantness. But the first West Germany rotation was mostly without such experience.

I do wonder if we could do a Special Force style rotation to Latvia right now. All Pte positions in the brigade are enrolled on 3-year terms without cost moves. First year is BMOQ/BMOQ-L/DP1 — then company level shakeouts. Second and third year are a 24 month (tax free!) posting to Latvia. Officers, SNCOs and JNCOs would be volunteers looking for a guaranteed 24 month tour.

24 month rotos - all volunteers. Repeat every 2 years. We have the policies to do all this, but it might not be practical. The volunteers for the brigade cadre would be those trying to get out of some of our worst jobs (procurement, CJOC, base headquarters, Wainwright) and therefore crippling those often under appreciated yet important capabilities. (Or those wanting a long tour to avoid bankruptcy.) And a 2023 brigade might not need as many privates as a 1951 brigade — I get the sense that what we most need is solid RC Sigs, RCEME and C Int C Corporals, and those we can’t ‘shake and bake’.

 

[Kirkhill]

I know your the "expert" in all things Canadian Military and like to throw your weight around on the forums. I wonder what your thoughts are in condescending tones to others responses?
Based on your "expertise" what would a reasonable time line be to deploy 15 tanks, crews, parts, aux equipment, support, etc?

@markppcli is more of an expert in things Canadian Military that many if not most of us here. He is far more of an expert than I am. His opinions are far more valid than mine and a lot of other folks.

Perhaps we can haul back on the sarcasm a bit because on these boards, unlike the table in the bar, we can't see the smile on your face or just the mood from body language. It doesn't take much for language to derail an otherwise interesting and informative discussion.

And for the record, I'm smiling.

I enjoy hearing from both of you. Even Mark....

 

[Ostrozac]

3 Mech Cdo be like...

The 3rd Mechanized Commando — although slightly ridiculous in execution — was a well-intentioned attempt to prioritize the needs of the army (one M113-equipped mechanized infantry battalion in Baden-Soellingen) over the wants of the regimental system (It should be RCR! It should be PPCLI!)

What Baden ended up with, the alternating rotations between 3RCR and 2PPCLI with the other battalion in Winnipeg, might have been even worse than keeping 3 Mech Cdo.

 

[daftandbarmy]

For the first rotation to Korea, absolutely, with experience in the 1939-1945 unpleasantness. But the first West Germany rotation was mostly without such experience.

I do wonder if we could do a Special Force style rotation to Latvia right now. All Pte positions in the brigade are enrolled on 3-year terms without cost moves. First year is BMOQ/BMOQ-L/DP1 — then company level shakeouts. Second and third year are a 24 month (tax free!) posting to Latvia. Officers, SNCOs and JNCOs would be volunteers looking for a guaranteed 24 month tour.

24 month rotos - all volunteers. Repeat every 2 years. We have the policies to do all this, but it might not be practical. The volunteers for the brigade cadre would be those trying to get out of some of our worst jobs (procurement, CJOC, base headquarters, Wainwright) and therefore crippling those often under appreciated yet important capabilities. (Or those wanting a long tour to avoid bankruptcy.) And a 2023 brigade might not need as many privates as a 1951 brigade — I get the sense that what we most need is solid RC Sigs, RCEME and C Int C Corporals, and those we can’t ‘shake and bake’.

That would be a great model for the whole CAF 2.0, IMHO…

 

[GR66]

For the record, here's how the info-machine says it can unfold (archived link here - text also attached in case neither link works)

Thanks for this. Great info!

It will be interesting to see what the final configuration and Canadian content of the Multinational Brigade will be.

• Canada will have up to 2 200 persistently deployed Canadian Armed Forces members as part of the enhanced Forward Presence and supporting elements in Latvia, and will be prepared to deploy hundreds more as needed;

With the bulk of the Canadian contribution being persistently deployed (up to 2,200) compared to "hundreds more" prepared to deploy as needed I'm guessing that a good chunk of our contribution with be the Brigade HQ and support elements. I'd expect the ration of fly-over to persistent to be reversed if we were planning a lot of combat elements.

The existing eFP Latvia Battle Group will be one of the Brigade's units. I wonder if the 2nd might be a Combined Arms Battalion consisting of the already announced Tank Squadron, one persistent Mech Company and one fly-over Mech Company? Deploying just a single Tank Squadron and a single Mech Company on a persistent basis should be manageable with our existing force structure and equipment, so attractive to the GOC and CA as it wouldn't require radical organizational changes or equipment purchases.

• The enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group will transition from the Latvian Mechanized Infantry Brigade to the Canada-led enhanced Forward Presence Brigade;
• Brigade build-up aims to be completed in 2025 with a significant increase in Canadian and multinational Armed Forces soldiers persistently deployed on the ground in Latvia, with additional forces assigned to reinforce Latvia at high readiness from their home country;

Clearly mentions significant additional multinational contributions to both the persistent and reinforcement elements of the Brigade so perhaps the 3rd unit in the Brigade will be from one (or more) other NATO nations?

As I said, it will be very interesting to see how this ends up developing.

 

[markppcli]

Thanks for this. Great info!

It will be interesting to see what the final configuration and Canadian content of the Multinational Brigade will be.


With the bulk of the Canadian contribution being persistently deployed (up to 2,200) compared to "hundreds more" prepared to deploy as needed I'm guessing that a good chunk of our contribution with be the Brigade HQ and support elements. I'd expect the ration of fly-over to persistent to be reversed if we were planning a lot of combat elements.

The existing eFP Latvia Battle Group will be one of the Brigade's units. I wonder if the 2nd might be a Combined Arms Battalion consisting of the already announced Tank Squadron, one persistent Mech Company and one fly-over Mech Company? Deploying just a single Tank Squadron and a single Mech Company on a persistent basis should be manageable with our existing force structure and equipment, so attractive to the GOC and CA as it wouldn't require radical organizational changes or equipment purchases.


Clearly mentions significant additional multinational contributions to both the persistent and reinforcement elements of the Brigade so perhaps the 3rd unit in the Brigade will be from one (or more) other NATO nations?

As I said, it will be very interesting to see how this ends up developing.

I’d imagine that 3rd unit will be the Danish Bn that’s already there.

Edit here. 90 days to deploy. 120 days to sustain any long term.

I know your the "expert" in all things Canadian Military and like to throw your weight around on the forums. I wonder what your thoughts are in condescending tones to others responses?
Based on your "expertise" what would a reasonable time line be to deploy 15 tanks, crews, parts, aux equipment, support, etc?

I will add my thoughts, which will obviously go against your special knowledge of the situation.
Based on the CF has a hard time deploying any sizable force quickly,(outside of the Navy) I guess it makes sense for planning to be over a year in time and span over a 3-10 year plan. The lack of spare parts, staff, aux equipment, support equipment, transport both in and to the theatre are lacking. It makes sense I guess.
No different then when we were toying the idea of sending Cf18s to Africa. Lots of planning for not much results. Mainly based on we could not sustain ourselves. We needed support from our Allies who did not want to provide.

I would assume that infrastructure in country is lacking for a larger contingent right now. Canada does not have the ability to provide temporary shelter for our soldiers to be deployed quickly. Nor do we have the equipment to do so.
We are more then likely short on staffing which may be a major part of the key, Afterall we can more then likely leverage our allies for spare parts and aux equipment. Poland seems to be pretty good at providing gear.

administratively Canada is more then likely trying to figure out how to swell the HQ level of the Deployment so more in Ottawa can get a service ribbon for deploying out of a hotel.

I wonder how long it would take for Canada to provide a QRF, Ready Reaction Force for our Troops anywhere in the world if they required it? I am guessing we can't. Or would it take a year to plan to get out the door?

This surge of equipment and Soldiers along with extension of commitment is definitely a good thing for the CF, it will give us a focused long term mission again. Might open minds and pockets books of the government.

But like most things liberals, they are committing us to a mission that the bulk of the money and commitment will happen after the next election.

I never called myself an expert. I’m sorry asking for a basis for your argument hurt your feelings.