- Reaction score
- 8,059
- Points
- 1,160
That’s fine, it’s also not what I was talking about. JFO does not mean in and of itself your carrying an LTD.
OK. I look forwards to being educated.
That’s fine, it’s also not what I was talking about. JFO does not mean in and of itself your carrying an LTD.
JFO is a designation that includes training on terminal guidance. TGO is 100 percent inside their wheel house, but does that mean every marine squad is going to be carrying an LTD? I have my doubts given their bulk, weight, and fragility. Similarly the use of an LTD, especially if your going to be having 1 per squad / section, has some complexities to it in terms of angles (between the emitter and the weapon being released) and coding that would require a hefty bit of coordination.OK. I look forwards to being educated.
The thing is - that is not the only source I have seen describe the Asst Sqd Ldr as a Forward Observer.
As to munitions?
Stuff carried by F35s (Small Diameter Bombs and Paveway).
Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs launched by HIMARS.
Joint Air Ground Munitions replacing TOWs, Hellfires, Brimstones and Longbows
70mm APKWS
Laser guided artillery is a weird one for me. You’re expecting the supported arm to be exposed to fire and it’s going to need to designate each round, seems sun optimal to me personally.Vulcano 155mm, 127mm and 76mm artillery rounds
With experimental work being done with 40mm, 82mm and 120mm rounds.
No, I also don’t think we’ll ever see much of an increase in reserve CSS without heavy education incentives, or targeted contracts to ensure released members have reserve obligations.But the question is are there enough combat arms reservists in Alberta to generate 4 x 90% Mech Companies, 2 x 90% Tank Squadrons, 2 x 90%
Armoured Recce Squadrons, 2 x 70% CS Companies (4 if the Tank and Armoured Recce Regiments are to have CS Squadrons) and 4 x 70% CSS Companies?
JFO is a designation that includes training on terminal guidance. TGO is 100 percent inside their wheel house, but does that mean every marine squad is going to be carrying an LTD? I have my doubts given their bulk, weight, and fragility. Similarly the use of an LTD, especially if your going to be having 1 per squad / section, has some complexities to it in terms of angles (between the emitter and the weapon being released) and coding that would require a hefty bit of coordination.
I mentioned that I was curious about Sea and Land, since any air attack will be handled by a JTAC or FAC (A).
Laser guided for a deep strike weapon would be odd.
See above
Air launched or ground ?
Laser guided artillery is a weird one for me. You’re expecting the supported arm to be exposed to fire and it’s going to need to designate each round, seems sun optimal to me personally.
But the question is are there enough combat arms reservists in Alberta to generate 4 x 90% Mech Companies, 2 x 90% Tank Squadrons, 2 x 90%
Armoured Recce Squadrons, 2 x 70% CS Companies (4 if the Tank and Armoured Recce Regiments are to have CS Squadrons) and 4 x 70% CSS Companies?
Age Group | Total | Male | Female |
---|---|---|---|
0 to 4 years | 266,515 | 136,520 | 129,995 |
5 to 9 years | 270,715 | 138,990 | 131,725 |
10 to 14 years | 241,920 | 124,060 | 117,860 |
15 to 19 years | 240,035 | 123,625 | 116,410 |
20 to 24 years | 261,830 | 133,990 | 127,840 |
25 to 29 years | 310,940 | 156,715 | 154,225 |
30 to 34 years | 333,175 | 167,555 | 165,620 |
35 to 39 years | 305,505 | 153,655 | 151,850 |
40 to 44 years | 281,205 | 142,545 | 138,660 |
45 to 49 years | 269,030 | 135,855 | 133,180 |
50 to 54 years | 284,310 | 142,205 | 142,100 |
55 to 59 years | 275,540 | 138,565 | 136,970 |
60 to 64 years | 226,230 | 113,440 | 112,790 |
65 to 69 years | 173,680 | 85,500 | 88,180 |
70 to 74 years | 117,035 | 56,430 | 60,610 |
75 to 79 years | 83,955 | 39,105 | 44,845 |
80 to 84 years | 62,165 | 27,590 | 34,575 |
85 to 89 years | 39,965 | 16,050 | 23,915 |
90 to 94 years | 18,025 | 5,755 | 12,275 |
95 to 99 years | 4,735 | 1,145 | 3,595 |
100 years and over | 650 | 115 | 535 |
We literally just saw the Ukrainians launch an offensive with light mechanized Bdes, yes plural, across a narrow front to isolate1 st Guards Tank Army. What comes out in videos is not the whole picture.Thanks for the education.
I think a major part of the discussion revolves around the whole concept of dispersion.
In Ukraine we are looking at a 2000 km frontline and a couple of hundred kilometers of depth with maybe 20 or so brigades operating on each side? The I am not seeing fields of tanks or even black masses of troops moving on the surface. I am seeing independent sections and platoons operating out of sight of mutual support.
In the marines case we are looking at 3 Regiments with one infantry battalion each with 3 companies with 3 platoons supported by 30 or so light amphibious vessels and 3 missile regiments. So 27 to 30 independent platoons operating over 5410 km from Tokyo to Darwin (as the crow flies) and thousands of islands.
That battle plan doesn't really seem to fit with Wainwright and Gagetown exercises - or even Suffield Battle Groups.
It feels to me as if the Marines are planning for, and the Ukrainians are opting for, something that is more akin to the way Special Forces have operated. A lot more self sufficiency, more autonomy and a lot less mutual support - more open flanks.
Edit - I think the key difference is going to be in the definition of what close means - especially when it applies to close combat. Range, stand-off, I would expect, would be your friend whenever possible.
Maybe we do really, really suck. I have no idea how many Reservists are in the South Alberta Light Horse, King's Own Calgary Regiment, Loyal Edmonton Regiment and Calgary Highlanders but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's not enough to fill all the positions that FJAG's proposed plan would require.IIRC that there are over a million people in Alberta in the right age ranges to join the Reserves. If we can't recruit a few thousand, we really, really suck....
By 2046, Alberta's population is expected to reach almost 6.4 million people, an increase of roughly 1.9 million people from 2020, as arrivals from other countries account for about 54% of the expected growth over the projection period. The population become more concentrated in urban centres, especially along the Edmonton-Calgary Corridor, 80% of Albertans are expected to live in this region by 2046.
As per 2016 census, Below is the population by Age and sex. Population of Alberta as per 2016 census is 4,067,175, increase of 412,918 people from the last 2011 census of Population with 3,645,257. By 2016 census the Population from 0 to 14 years are 779,155, 15 to 64 years are 2,787,805, 65 years and over are 500,215, 85 years and over are 63,385. Alberta population in 2021 is to be 4.43 million(estimated).
Age Group Total Male Female 0 to 4 years 266,515 136,520 129,995 5 to 9 years 270,715 138,990 131,725 10 to 14 years 241,920 124,060 117,860 15 to 19 years 240,035 123,625 116,410 20 to 24 years 261,830 133,990 127,840 25 to 29 years 310,940 156,715 154,225 30 to 34 years 333,175 167,555 165,620 35 to 39 years 305,505 153,655 151,850 40 to 44 years 281,205 142,545 138,660 45 to 49 years 269,030 135,855 133,180 50 to 54 years 284,310 142,205 142,100 55 to 59 years 275,540 138,565 136,970 60 to 64 years 226,230 113,440 112,790 65 to 69 years 173,680 85,500 88,180 70 to 74 years 117,035 56,430 60,610 75 to 79 years 83,955 39,105 44,845 80 to 84 years 62,165 27,590 34,575 85 to 89 years 39,965 16,050 23,915 90 to 94 years 18,025 5,755 12,275 95 to 99 years 4,735 1,145 3,595 100 years and over 650 115 535
We literally just saw the Ukrainians launch an offensive with light mechanized Bdes, yes plural, across a narrow front to isolate1 st Guards Tank Army. What comes out in videos is not the whole picture.
The 1 Bde HQ is in Edmonton but draws its units from across all three Prairie Provinces with equipment stationed in Edmonton/Wainwright and Shilo.Where I struggle with most attempts at integrated force structures is Geography vs Population.
You have a 30/70 Armoured Brigade in Edmonton. With 1 x 100% Reg Force Company/Squadron per Battalion/Regiment that leaves 4 x Mech Companies and 2 x Tank Squadrons to be manned 90% by Reservists (plus 2 x CS and 3 x CSS Companies to be 70% Reservists). 41 Brigade in Alberta only has 2 x Infantry and 2 x Armoured Reserve units. Even drawing in the Saskatchewan Reserve units you're only adding 1 x Armoured and 2 x Infantry units but the travel distances required to train with their parent units in Edmonton are impractical.
Your Toronto and Montreal Armoured Brigades have the opposite problems. There are plenty of Reservists available in these large metro areas, but what training facilities are there that can handle a Mechanized Brigade?
By moving our training areas away from our population centres we've created a situation where it is very difficult to achieve your objective Heavy forces being largely manned by Reservists. I totally understand the goal, but not sure I see a doable path toward it at this point in time.
The "ready deployable force" is in 2 Div where there are four infantry battalions and 2 recce squadrons that are 100/0. In addition in 2 Div there are 6 battalions each of which has a RegF Bn HQ and 1 x 100/0 rifle company. In other words 2 Div can deploy 10 battalion HQs and 18 x 100/0 rifle companies.I've got to say I am still struggling with the notion of Mixed Units. 90/10-70/30-50/50-30/70-10/90. I just think that terms of service and geography both work against the concept.
I think I prefer a small, ready, deployable full-time force and a 10/90 reserve with a Reg Force Cadre responsible for ensuring that the Reserves can supply competent sub-units.
OK - I'm tracking now.The "ready deployable force" is in 2 Div where there are four infantry battalions and 2 recce squadrons that are 100/0. In addition in 2 Div there are 6 battalions each of which has a RegF Bn HQ and 1 x 100/0 rifle company. In other words 2 Div can deploy 10 battalion HQs and 18 x 100/0 rifle companies.
1 Div has a different concept. It has the ability to deploy 3 x RegF tank regt HQs and 6 x Reg F Inf Bn HQ with 3 x 100/0 tank squadrons and 6 x 100/0 LAV companies (plus CS and CSS). Essentially there are enough RegF elements to do 6 to 9 RegF Latvia style rotations or even deploy a full RegF armoured brigade in the aggregate (with two additional brigades of ResF personnel and 1 bde of equipment back in Canada). Plus three 100/0 rifle companies as yet unallocated. Essentially both brigades have sufficient 100/0 RegF elements for rapid deployments as well as significant ResF and equipment depth.
There is no reduction in the number of RegF 100/0 tank squadrons, recce squadrons and rifle and CS companies. There are more deployable battalion HQs and bde HQs to help look after less than full battalion level rotations such as training missions to the Ukraine and operational ones to Latvia (from 12 manoeuvre bn HQs to 20 and from 3 manoeuvre bde HQs to 8 (including 36 and 39 Regt which are "bde HQs Lite")).
CS and CSS functions in the same way.
For me, the benefit of the hybrid structure is that every ResF company, squadron or battery comes under the command of a RegF leadership structure which is accountable for managing its training and has sufficient personnel and equipment available to train itself and it's reserve component on. That is essentially not available in a 10/90 battalion as it stands with the current RegF RSS cadre. Tweaking that alone won't help.
We literally just saw the Ukrainians launch an offensive with light mechanized Bdes, yes plural, across a narrow front to isolate1 st Guards Tank Army. What comes out in videos is not the whole picture.
... and a greater degree of risk during periods when they operate beyond mutual support of other elements of the force.Just for clarification - I am not arguing against Corps-Division-Brigade-Battalion-Company-Platoon coordination. The Ukrainians are obviously co-ordinating at all those levels. My belief is that the platoons of the Battalion are operating over much wider frontages and penetrating much deeper when they get the opportunity. They are still under higher control but are operating with a greater degree of local autonomy.
... and a greater degree of risk during periods when they operate beyond mutual support of other elements of the force.
There's always a balance to these things.
I think you’re seeing a nation having to make due by virtue of extreme circumstances rather than any kind of coherent plan to make high risk choices.
Maybe we do really, really suck. I have no idea how many Reservists are in the South Alberta Light Horse, King's Own Calgary Regiment, Loyal Edmonton Regiment and Calgary Highlanders but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it's not enough to fill all the positions that FJAG's proposed plan would require.
So to my mind either the plan needs to change, or something needs to be done to significantly increase the number of Albertans that are willing to join the Reserves.
CFRG still labours under the delusion that we're an employer of choice and we can be extremely picky about who we take on even as a potential candidate.I regularly travel through various airports and other high volume transportation nodes and see lots of ads for jobs in alot of different organizations.
The CAF? Not so much.
CFRG seems to be a gatekeeper, not a gate opener, sadly.
Why don't we do what other 'crazy outside the box innovation leaders' do and just ask them?
For example, I regularly travel through various airports and other high volume transportation nodes and see lots of ads for jobs in alot of different organizations.
The CAF? Not so much.
CFRG seems to be a gatekeeper, not a gate opener, sadly.
I know the QORof C tried something similar about 20 years ago with moving Buff's Coy out to Scarborough. Like most things, it was a great I initiative that would have seen great promise with 10 to 15 years of buy in.Related - I don't know the current state of play but both the Highlanders and the Eddies sought permission to establish remote companies and platoons in communities that expressed interest in hosting them. They were turned down.