Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

There are few umbrellas that look that intact in Southern Alberta, as I recall

Windfinder.com - Wind and weather report Pincher Creek Airport

Windfinder.com - Wind & weather report Pincher Creek Airport for kitesurfing, windsurfing, surfing and sailing

www.windfinder.com

As I said, sometimes you just have to hunker down.

To be honest - porches and gazebos are more popular out here. Protection costs money.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting thought experiment.
RCAF C17 delivers a TEU-40 Sea Can to Alert.
Sea Can contains Kratos XQ-58 and launch system.

Valkyrie has a one-way range of 5600 km

Southern bound of target set
Amur River, Himalayas, the Caucasus, the entirety of Europe from Istanbul to Gibraltar.

Specifications[edit]​

Data from Kratos Defense Data sheet [20]

General characteristics

• Capacity: 600 lb (272 kg) internal, 600 lb (272 kg) external
• Length: 30 ft (9.1 m)
• Wingspan: 27 ft (8.2 m)
• Empty weight: 2,500 lb (1,134 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 6,000 lb (2,722 kg)

Performance

• Cruise speed: 476 kn (548 mph, 882 km/h)
• Range: 3,000 nmi (3,500 mi, 5,600 km) approximate
• Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (14,000 m)

 

[KevinB]

Interesting thought experiment.
RCAF C17 delivers a TEU-40 Sea Can to Alert.
Sea Can contains Kratos XQ-58 and launch system.

Valkyrie has a one-way range of 5600 km

Southern bound of target set
Amur River, Himalayas, the Caucasus, the entirety of Europe from Istanbul to Gibraltar.

View attachment 83368



View attachment 83371View attachment 83372

It really doesn’t offer what you think it does.

For extreme long range fires, you will want a hypersonic reentry vehicle. Which I think isn’t a goal for the CAF. I’d love to get into a deeper conversation on why I don’t think that system is practical but it does jump into classified stuff and not for an open board.


For the CA, I think you are best served by:

81mm Mortar: 5.5km
120mm Mortar: 12km
155mm Arty: ~50km
MLRS/HIMARS ‘Pod’ Rocket: ~150km
MLRS/HIMARS ‘Pod’ Missile: ~500km

With the size of the CAF looking for longer range systems isn’t really in its wheelhouse.

I’m not counting the mid and short range OWUAS in the above FWIW, and Pod systems I using the generic MLRS/HIMARS Pod as an example not the only option, and I’m not adding AD, C/UAS, or BMD options to the above.

 

[ArmyRick]

It really doesn’t offer what you think it does.

For extreme long range fires, you will want a hypersonic reentry vehicle. Which I think isn’t a goal for the CAF. I’d love to get into a deeper conversation on why I don’t think that system is practical but it does jump into classified stuff and not for an open board.


For the CA, I think you are best served by:

81mm Mortar: 5.5km
120mm Mortar: 12km
155mm Arty: ~50km
MLRS/HIMARS ‘Pod’ Rocket: ~150km
MLRS/HIMARS ‘Pod’ Missile: ~500km

With the size of the CAF looking for longer range systems isn’t really in its wheelhouse.

I’m not counting the mid and short range OWUAS in the above FWIW, and Pod systems I using the generic MLRS/HIMARS Pod as an example not the only option, and I’m not adding AD, C/UAS, or BMD options to the above.

Do you think something like Spike NLOS could replace some of these systems? Precision strike (28 LBS warhead) can be delivered 32 KM.

I mention this because Canada has no political will or military will to have the army posses all those systems. Some politician or general will be like "Nope, 155 can do 81, 120 and 155 job" or something similar.

I also fear the ignorance of Canadians. I noticed some Canadians saw images of the HIMARS in Ukraine and immediately thought they were nukes.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do you think something like Spike NLOS could replace some of these systems? Precision strike (28 LBS warhead) can be delivered 32 KM.

I mention this because Canada has no political will or military will to have the army posses all those systems. Some politician or general will be like "Nope, 155 can do 81, 120 and 155 job" or something similar.

I also fear the ignorance of Canadians. I noticed some Canadians saw images of the HIMARS in Ukraine and immediately thought they were nukes.

At the simplest level, in my opinion, all projected systems do one thing, they deliver packets of energy to targets. Size of packet and distance delivered vary. All of them overlap in capabilities and effectiveness to degrees. A Russian squaddie running around a Ukrainian field can be eliminated with a nuke but Moscow is not going to be disadvantaged by a single bullet - unless it is particularly well placed.

I like lots of everything - like a tin of Allsorts.

 

[ArmyRick]

At the simplest level, in my opinion, all projected systems do one thing, they deliver packets of energy to targets. Size of packet and distance delivered vary. All of them overlap in capabilities and effectiveness to degrees. A Russian squaddie running around a Ukrainian field can be eliminated with a nuke but Moscow is not going to be disadvantaged by a single bullet - unless it is particularly well placed.

I like lots of everything - like a tin of Allsorts.

How do you reconcile "all sorts" with a government that pinches pennies when it comes to defence or even says no to many projects?

 

[FJAG]

It really doesn’t offer what you think it does.

For extreme long range fires, you will want a hypersonic reentry vehicle. Which I think isn’t a goal for the CAF. I’d love to get into a deeper conversation on why I don’t think that system is practical but it does jump into classified stuff and not for an open board.


For the CA, I think you are best served by:

81mm Mortar: 5.5km
120mm Mortar: 12km
155mm Arty: ~50km
MLRS/HIMARS ‘Pod’ Rocket: ~150km
MLRS/HIMARS ‘Pod’ Missile: ~500km

With the size of the CAF looking for longer range systems isn’t really in its wheelhouse.

I’m not counting the mid and short range OWUAS in the above FWIW, and Pod systems I using the generic MLRS/HIMARS Pod as an example not the only option, and I’m not adding AD, C/UAS, or BMD options to the above.

Boy. Here's a twist. Me agreeing more with @Kirkhill than you.

First re the systems Canada is best served by. For our field army I agree with all less the MLRS Pod missile. I'm already optimistic in holding that Canada could with a little effort form the core of a division. For divisional support a pod rocket system is adequate as the div will operate in a corps concept that supplies the higher level, deeper strike systems.

OTOH, Canada shouldn't only consider the needs of an expeditionary field army. It needs to consider defence of the homeland (in conjunction with the US). This includes systems that will deter aggression against the homeland which to me includes potential economic zones on and off the coast. This requires not only systems that can hit back against incursions but also the support bases of those forces whether at sea or at foreign ports. That, to me, requires a long range strike capability located within Canada. I'm not sure Alert is the answer for that; I'm not even sure whether it should be ground, air or sea based, but it needs the range.

 

[Kirkhill]

How do you reconcile "all sorts" with a government that pinches pennies when it comes to defence or even says no to many projects?

I don't? If the government is going to be unrealistic I see no reason not to expand my options to everything just this side of the fantastical.

I no longer expect anything from this government.

My playground includes all the toys currently available. And I hope that the next governments (plural and future) and the next army will be a lot different than the current one.

 

[Kirkhill]

It really doesn’t offer what you think it does.

For extreme long range fires, you will want a hypersonic reentry vehicle. Which I think isn’t a goal for the CAF. I’d love to get into a deeper conversation on why I don’t think that system is practical but it does jump into classified stuff and not for an open board.

I think it offers more than this - which is giving the Ukrainians a lot of aggro.

Mass	200 kg (440 lb)
Length	3.5 m (11 ft)
Wingspan	2.5 m (8.2 ft)
Warhead weight	50 kilograms (110 lb)[7]
Engine	MD-550 piston engine
Operational range	2,500 km (1,600 mi)[7]
Maximum speed	Around 185 km/h (115 mph)
Guidance system	GNSS, INS[8]
Launch platform	Rocket-assisted take-off

And Ukraine is messing with Russia despite having a lot fewer long range drones.

Ukraine’s new long-range drones threaten Russia’s northern oil and gas facilities

Ukraine has developed new long-range drones that can attack targets deep in Russian territory and are threatening both its oil and gas facilities ...

www.intellinews.com

And both Russian and Ukrainian drones are a lot less capable than drones like Valkyrie or Ghost Bat. Add in the ability of both craft to launch long range submunitions, including Electronic Decoys

The XQ-58 is designed to act as a loyal wingman that is controlled by a parent aircraft to accomplish tasks such as scouting, defensive fire, or absorbing enemy fire.[4] It features stealth technology with a trapezoidal fuselage with a chined edge, V-tail, and an S-shaped air intake.[3] The XQ-58 can operate as part of a swarm of drones, with or without direct pilot control. The XQ-58 can make conventional take-offs and landings or be launched from "nondescript launch modules", such as support ships, shipping containers, and semi-trailer trucks.[5][6]

Kratos officials have said the company could produce 250 to 500 Valkyries per year.[7] It can be produced at a unit cost of $4 million at an annual production rate of 50 aircraft, and possibly for less than $2 million if over 100 airframes are built per year.[8]

F35 production is 156 per year at circa 100 MUSD each (15.6 BUSD)

Lockheed vows steady F-35 production amid demand shifts

The Pentagon is reportedly considering a cut to next year’s order but international interest continues to rise.

www.defenseone.com

How Much Does An F-35 Cost?

The cost has fallen since launch, but still reached up to over $100 million.

simpleflying.com

15.6 BUSD invested in Valkyries at 2 MUSD, in the same ballpark as the price of a Tomahawk missile, buys you 7800 uncrewed delivery systems instead of 156 systems with a pilot on board. Unlike the Tomahawk the Valkyrie can RTB and swap payloads, effective against all surface targets and some aerial targets, potential as an ISR platform for sovereignty intercepts.

NOT A CURE ALL. NOT A SILVER BULLET. (Wanted to penetrate the tinnitus that afflicts some of us).

But three Batteries/Squadrons could pose an interesting set of problems for a Canadian opponent. (Make it 5 and you have one on each ocean, one for domestic flexibility and training and one for overseas deployment)





Payload could include a couple of MALD decoys -

Mass	MALD: 279 lb (127 kg) MALD‐J: 286 lb (130 kg) (est)
Length	9 ft 4+1⁄2 in (2.858 m)
Width	16.2 in (0.41 m)
Height	14.7 in (0.37 m)
Wingspan	5 ft 7 in (1.70 m)
Engine	Pratt & Whitney TJ‐150 turbojet 0.67 kN (150 lbf)
Operational range	MALD: 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km) MALD‐J: 486 nmi (559 mi; 900 km)
Maximum speed	Mach 0.9 (1,000 ft/s; 310 m/s)
Guidance system	GPS, INS
Launch platform	F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, A-10, B-1B, B-52, P-8A Poseidon, MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper

More problems for the other guy.

Again, not a silver bullet, not an either or procurement, but one of the many layers of the onion, part of the system of systems. (Am I clear yet?)

Layered with F35s, and P8s, and SkyGuardians, and Tomahawks and Standards, in conjunction with naval assets and an expeditionary army - with necessary protections.

One of many parts.

....

Of course one of those systems positioned in Point Pelee would present an entirely different target set for an independently minded Canadian government....

 

[KevinB]

Do you think something like Spike NLOS could replace some of these systems? Precision strike (28 LBS warhead) can be delivered 32 KM.

It’s a long range Anti-Tank/Anti-Vehicle system.
I think it’s a good system - but I didn’t include that sort of setup in my diatribe above

I mention this because Canada has no political will or military will to have the army posses all those systems. Some politician or general will be like "Nope, 155 can do 81, 120 and 155 job" or something similar.

I also fear the ignorance of Canadians. I noticed some Canadians saw images of the HIMARS in Ukraine and immediately thought they were nukes.

Agreed.

 

[quadrapiper]

For extreme long range fires, you will want a hypersonic reentry vehicle. Which I think isn’t a goal for the CAF. I’d love to get into a deeper conversation on why I don’t think that system is practical but it does jump into classified stuff and not for an open board.

Something that bleeding edge (and presumably ridiculously expensive) doesn't seem like a good idea. Let someone else with the budget (US, UK/EU, China) find all the problems first, figure out where it's actually useful, and so on, and then slot it into the mix (if it's, at that point, useful). Anything that expensive would probably drive the same sort of "this will replace X" as in ArmyRick's comment, except instead of a range of tubes, it's a certain number of F35s or the possibility of rocket artillery.

On top of whatever specific practical issues exist.

 

[KevinB]

Boy. Here's a twist. Me agreeing more with @Kirkhill than you.

I’m hurt

First re the systems Canada is best served by. For our field army I agree with all less the MLRS Pod missile. I'm already optimistic in holding that Canada could with a little effort form the core of a division. For divisional support a pod rocket system is adequate as the div will operate in a corps concept that supplies the higher level, deeper strike systems.

I like the idea of Canada being able to have some Corps assets, as the Army should IMHO be organized as a Cdn Corps.

Even if it is a 2 DIV Corps.

OTOH, Canada shouldn't only consider the needs of an expeditionary field army. It needs to consider defence of the homeland (in conjunction with the US). This includes systems that will deter aggression against the homeland which to me includes potential economic zones on and off the coast.

Agreed.

This requires not only systems that can hit back against incursions but also the support bases of those forces whether at sea or at foreign ports. That, to me, requires a long range strike capability located within Canada. I'm not sure Alert is the answer for that; I'm not even sure whether it should be ground, air or sea based, but it needs the range.

I discount ELR Strike from the Canadian Army, mainly as it’s not really an Army role.

Realistically that is an ICBM (surface or sub launched) or an Air or Sea Launched Cruise Missile. Canada has no bomber fleet, no ballistic submarines, so it’s really a Naval Surface Combatant that would be the delivery vehicle, and Canada already has Tomahawks for the CPF’s and the upcoming CSC. For other options there is the upcoming F-35 which will give the RCAF a potential for deep strike.

To me BMB and AD are valid programs, helping with both Canadian domestic security as well as NORAD.

As a non Nuclear Military, the point of having ICBM’s for Canada is pretty much nil, as I (speaking for America ) have nuclear ones down here, that can and will be used if the NA continent is externally threatened.

 

[FJAG]

I discount ELR Strike from the Canadian Army, mainly as it’s not really an Army role.

Probably right.

Realistically that is an ICBM (surface or sub launched) or an Air or Sea Launched Cruise Missile. Canada has no bomber fleet, no ballistic submarines, so it’s really a Naval Surface Combatant that would be the delivery vehicle, and Canada already has Tomahawks for the CPF’s and the upcoming CSC. For other options there is the upcoming F-35 which will give the RCAF a potential for deep strike.

Agreed - probably an RCAF or Navy role - even if land based.

To me BMB and AD are valid programs, helping with both Canadian domestic security as well as NORAD.

As a non Nuclear Military, the point of having ICBM’s for Canada is pretty much nil, as I (speaking for America ) have nuclear ones down here, that can and will be used if the NA continent is externally threatened.

I'm from a military era where Canada had access to nuclear weapons. I understand the country's rejection of that capability but do not agree with it. Deterrence requires the ability to convince an opponent that aggression will lead to failure. Against a nuclear opponent that means a nuclear strike or counterstrike capability. We currently rely on the US for that. It's probably enough but one can never count on anyone 100%. Cost-wise, I see numerous other capabilities that need filling before we invest in nuclear arms again. Even then I don't contemplate ICBMs as much as nuclear cruise-like missiles.

The capability I was contemplating in my previous post is more in the nature of a cruise missile/hypersonic missile/anti-ship missiles etc capacity with either a sufficient warhead or in sufficient numbers to destroy an opponent's support infrastructure.

 

[Kirkhill]

The capability I was contemplating in my previous post is more in the nature of a cruise missile/hypersonic missile/anti-ship missiles etc capacity with either a sufficient warhead or in sufficient numbers to destroy an opponent's support infrastructure.

This.

Which is why I like the Valkyrie type of solution. (ELR - Extremely Long Range?)

As is being demonstrated even a lot of individually ineffective systems can be effective if there are enough of them.
The Valkyrie is targeting a price point roughly similar to the Harpoon or the NSM - but with a massively enhanced range and the ability to carry submunitions while transporting a long range munition like the Harpoon. And it is reusable.

It, along with the Mk70 PDS would most likely be an RCAF system? RCN when seaborne?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Interesting thought experiment.
RCAF C17 delivers a TEU-40 Sea Can to Alert.
Sea Can contains Kratos XQ-58 and launch system.

Valkyrie has a one-way range of 5600 km

Southern bound of target set
Amur River, Himalayas, the Caucasus, the entirety of Europe from Istanbul to Gibraltar.

View attachment 83368



View attachment 83371View attachment 83372

What exactly would you be trying to do with that system in Alert? What are you striking?

 

[Kirkhill]

What exactly would you be trying to do with that system in Alert? What are you striking?

It is a point on the map. It is at the extreme limits of Canadian territory. It is North oriented. It is possible.
I could have put the point in Masset, or Cape Spear or Point Pelee.

What can you do with an aerial asset that has an extreme range of 5600 km and you don't care if it returns to base?
Why are platoons being issued with 60 km UAVs these days?

You could circle a point on a map for 60 km, or 5600 km, or you could drive it in one direction to one point and take a picture, or deliver a payload.

It is about providing alternatives and leaving things up to the imagination. Some of it can be left up to the other chap's imagination.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

What targets are you trying to strike at 5,600 km with a Canadian system and in what context? Like really? Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

What we need are systems that can strike in the 30 km to 120 km range band in support of tactical operations at the Brigade level. They need to be able to destroy or neutralize high payoff targets - lots of them - with a very timely sensor to shooter link. They need to be able to displace quickly.

A platoon in a stability operation might find a 60km range UAS useful. Some USMC platoon marooned on a island in Pacific might also like a long-range UAS. Platoons in conventional operations, though, need something to see over the next hill or around the corner.

Anyhoo.

 

[quadrapiper]

What targets are you trying to strike at 5,600 km with a Canadian system and in what context? Like really? Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

What we need are systems that can strike in the 30 km to 120 km range band in support of tactical operations at the Brigade level. They need to be able to destroy or neutralize high payoff targets - lots of them - with a very timely sensor to shooter link. They need to be able to displace quickly.

A platoon in a stability operation might find a 60km range UAS useful. Some USMC platoon marooned on a island in Pacific might also like a long-range UAS. Platoons in conventional operations, though, need something to see over the next hill or around the corner.

Anyhoo.

Wonder what a day's conventional operations translates to as far as UAS travel, since it presumably won't be all straight-line flying.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If Canada was serious, it would have ground based systems that could reach out to the limits of our economic zones. They would supplement and help protect the ship and air based systems.

Albert Head offers a nice launching point and already DND Property.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Even if it is a 2 DIV Corps.

A 2 x div corps is pretty common. Another div can always be plugged in if it becomes available; the heavy lift is getting to the point of having a corps.