• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

FORCE 2025: Informing the Army’s future structure

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,395
Points
1,160
There well may be some other things we should change in how things are done ..


This, times 1000 ;)

"If I hear one more reference to that fucking loser who wrote On Killing from a Fivehead Transportation Commander who failed CCC three times, I am going to drag each and every one of you with me down to hell."
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
294
Points
730
This, times 1000 ;)

"If I hear one more reference to that fucking loser who wrote On Killing from a Fivehead Transportation Commander who failed CCC three times, I am going to drag each and every one of you with me down to hell."
So Captain aside from that, how was your day ?
 

DBNSG

Guest
Reaction score
19
Points
130

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,895
Points
1,360
Jaded for sure, but probably not too far off, with this…
This is some sort of lovecraftian paradox where doing something as simple as pretending to help unload a connex for 10 minutes, or just not being fat, earns you Dick Winters levels of praise, but two years spent trying to improve and fix systems for the betterment of your people and the mission is met with utter indifference and, usually, failure.
 

Skysix

Member
Reaction score
382
Points
780
Never mind the incredibly high attrition rate of irreplaceable (during a war) high end assets like ships fighters and tanks, Force Projection will now require adequate Force Protection as those needs now will include commercial shipping, rail, and air supply from Canada to wherever, or even within Canada, as well as at-home armed protection (not an uparmed rent-a-cop but counter-SF level operators and emplaced air defense batteries) of critical manufacturing plants (artillery shells and UAS for example)

"A determined adversary might find that it is both easier and more effective to render U.S. Army units inoperable by destroying these vital logistics pipelines instead of targeting fighting units directly.

The future transparency of this expansive web of support should be nothing short of terrifying to U.S. military planners. The ability to achieve surprise, to protect one’s logistics, and to conceal the force from persistent detection is evaporating. These factors have staggering implications for future Army doctrine, organizations, and
platforms"

THEY should WE likely won't. Prove me wrong. Please.

(Time to upgrade and expand the Rangers into a real Territorial Defense Force?)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,634
Points
1,140
Never mind the incredibly high attrition rate of irreplaceable (during a war) high end assets like ships fighters and tanks, Force Projection will now require adequate Force Protection as those needs now will include commercial shipping, rail, and air supply from Canada to wherever, or even within Canada, as well as at-home armed protection (not an uparmed rent-a-cop but counter-SF level operators and emplaced air defense batteries) of critical manufacturing plants (artillery shells and UAS for example)

"A determined adversary might find that it is both easier and more effective to render U.S. Army units inoperable by destroying these vital logistics pipelines instead of targeting fighting units directly.

The future transparency of this expansive web of support should be nothing short of terrifying to U.S. military planners. The ability to achieve surprise, to protect one’s logistics, and to conceal the force from persistent detection is evaporating. These factors have staggering implications for future Army doctrine, organizations, and
platforms"

THEY should WE likely won't. Prove me wrong. Please.

(Time to upgrade and expand the Rangers into a real Territorial Defense Force?)
That is part of the current MDO doctrine and DHS mandate down here.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,395
Points
1,160
Never mind the incredibly high attrition rate of irreplaceable (during a war) high end assets like ships fighters and tanks, Force Projection will now require adequate Force Protection as those needs now will include commercial shipping, rail, and air supply from Canada to wherever, or even within Canada, as well as at-home armed protection (not an uparmed rent-a-cop but counter-SF level operators and emplaced air defense batteries) of critical manufacturing plants (artillery shells and UAS for example)

Good old fashioned Infantry, alot of Infantry, is the best solution of course.

But the chances of standing up another 10 or 12 battalions - chump change in the great scheme of things - are ridiculously small I'm thinking.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,060
Good old fashioned Infantry, alot of Infantry, is the best solution of course.

But the chances of standing up another 10 or 12 battalions - chump change in the great scheme of things - are ridiculously small I'm thinking.

I agree on the capital cost of the 10 or 12 battalions. But that represents a major opportunity cost in terms of lost manpower and a massive political cost.

Better to pay those 10 or 12 battalions to build smart motors.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,830
Points
1,010
We appear to have a developing standard

Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and now Slovakia. Switzerland is already a member of the club.

That's a different turret then the CV90 normally has. I wonder if its the Block IV version turret or something different. The competition results were relatively open source. CV90 actually failed an obstacle height test but did better than the Lynx on the shooting (mainly due to the Lynx not being able to rotate the turret unless the engine was on). I'll try to find the link and post it in Future Armour or something.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,168
Points
1,060
CV90 actually failed an obstacle height test but did better than the Lynx on the shooting (mainly due to the Lynx not being able to rotate the turret unless the engine was on).

The Sherman was sub-optimal in many areas. But it was made to work regardless. And it is apparently still in service today.

 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,634
Points
1,140
MkIV turret below 26657A2A-F766-4A63-AA71-76A72024ADE3.jpeg386D0A29-BB4D-4D45-8B75-12FD489EADD6.jpegE51F34B8-9522-482A-95DC-9858CE7F02C2.jpeg

It appears to me to be a modified turret for the Slovakian Military. It’s missing a few functions from the MkIV IFV standard turret.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,634
Points
1,140
I mean I’ve ridden in a Slovakian BVP2, anything would be an upgrade.
True - but I also noticed they said ‘illustration’ on the press release, and mentioned MkIV, so perhaps the article didn’t have access to MkIV images and dropped that in as a reasonable facsimile.
 

markppcli

Full Member
Reaction score
453
Points
830
Interesting given thst they had spent money upgraded some BVP2s, I think mostly for recce ? How extensive it was I’m unsure.26BC32B1-E811-425A-96DE-BE3BBC61CC09.jpeg
 
Top