With respect to the funding/vision thing:
The generalized use of simulators down to every garrison and armoury impacts on the size of the training bill, the size of the training staff, command and control in the CAF, comms, netting, and the way the CAF fights.
In a world of google glasses and every weapon with a scope/screen attached, and 20,000 people playing Halo while another 50,000 play COD and god knows how many others playing WOT etc. the technology is already there. Security issues need to be addressed - but that was/is true for radios, heliographs and semaphore. Ruggedness issues need to be addressed but I have faith that you will figure out ways to break anything that is fielded in any event.
In the mean time even if the early effort is focused on "training only" solutions at the armoury floor the Command, Control, Communications and Networking dollars spent will likely be indistinguishable from the CCC and Networking dollars spent from the operational budget. The Upper Management HMIs will all look and work the same. The Data management will be the same in both cases. The only question will be the nature of the sensors and the operators - are they spoofed, are they directly connected, are they man-in-the-loop or are they autonomous operators reporting in by voice?
I could easily see the day where Command pods like the GBAD one, or even the Reaper one, shown were cropping up everywhere. If one Command HMI pod were in common use then training, ops, maintenance and the budget would all benefit.
If you can get three or four pods to every armoury then adding in a few for a new overseas deployment would be a dawdle.
And if you used a common architecture for a naval CIC as for the land forces, and you accepted that command is command then you would impact on the deployable footprint of HQs.
If each 2-person Command Pod is optimized to report one up, and controlling 2 to 5 subordinates then your Command training becomes standardized and simplified - and secured due to the redundancies associated with nodal networking.
Once the upper management level is fixed (both cured and standardized) then the lower levels become easier. And plugging in operators (flyers, tankers, recce troopers, sailors, gunners, mortars, mgs, snipers and assaulters) all become easy. Most of the systems necessary exist.
The impact, I believe (opinion I stress), the impact would be across the board. Mechanical systems that wear out during training would be conserved. Training would become closer to real world training. Actual vehicles and weapons would be concentrated at training nodes and points of departure to be issued as required. (And complaints about weapons not properly cleaned on return should be dealt with by the summary firing of Sergeants Major until cleaning improves - maintenance will just have to suck up the rest - but their numbers should be concentrated in fewer locations managing fewer systems and with clear distinctions between deployable vehicles and weapons and training vehicles and weapons).
And people would start asking: "why do I need so many pods to relay instructions between me in Ottawa and Bloggins in Kinshasa when I can see what he sees and hear his call for fire support and I know I have 4x F35s, and a dozen missiles in VLS cells off shore that I can vector to his assistance?"
Give the job to Sony and have them build it around the Xbox system. Two operators in a seacan with an Xbox, two wide screen tvs, a pair of La-Z-Boys and a coffee maker.
They can then start plugging in F-35s, M777s, Leopards, Mortars and C6/7/8/9s.
And as a side benefit - If the module is standardized across ABCA then Canadians could stand a shift while Aussie and Brit Reaper operators get their heads down.
That's what I meant by a plan, a concept, a vision - a flaming target. Something to aim for.
Edit: By the way, modelling on the basis of 1 and 4 yields this:
CDS - 1
Chiefs - 4
Groups - 16
Units - 64
Sub-Units - 256
Sub-Sub-Units - 1024
Sections - 4096
Dets/Tms - 16384
Troops - 65536
Adjust according to practical and budgetary demands.
