what if you were the power to be

[FormerHorseGuard]

after all the complaining about the tanks being retired, here is your chance to state your ideas

rules are
1) must buy  enough for 3 sqns for RCD, LSH, 12 RBC, plus enough for res training 4 sqn in total
2) pick your method of transport to area of operations, air, sea, land
3) pick your model and state why you  think it would be the best
4) money is unlimited after all this is the internet
5) then think of how you would do it when you look today's Canadian Forces lack of aircraft, lack of ships

this is not an easier thing to balance, do not forget politics, offending other nations, and of course sending all the money  out of Canada for overseas buys. Do not think there is a company in Canada that  could build tanks and make a porfit of it.

so let us see your choices

 

[Bomber]

I'll bite

CV 90's, all variants upto and including the CV 90-120.  1500 vehicles total, so you could equip the reg mech inf as well.

 

[Bomber]

Put a plant out west this, like they planed with the BV's only this time do it for real and make CV's

 

[Infanteer]

I agree with Bomber's plan.  8)

 

[Tebo]

100% agree with CV90. Canadian tech exists as well.   Task enough Canadian companies in the contruction of a CV90 like vehicle and do it in house.   Investment in our industry.   Eitherway, there should be much political support once a 'peace enforcment' mission turns into war and the enemy starts killing off Canadian boys sections at a time.

Those unfamiliar with the CV90 may look to this website: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/.   Let us hope the total occupation and use of our country by a beligerant nation must not occur before we take actions similar to Sweden.

 

[Black Watch]

strykers or cv90

 

[ChopperHead]

I think the STORMER 30 made in the UK would be great. The Stormer 30 fulfils a variety of military and peacekeeping functions, providing reconnaissance, fire support, escort duties, armour in advance and withdrawal.   The vehicle has tank killing capability and the cannon can defeat the best armoured LAV'S.
Oh I almost forgot to add that they can be loaded into a C-130.



Kyle

 

[ChopperHead]

On another note I dont see what would be wrong with buying Russian equipment Im not sure here But I do belive that russian made vehicles can be bought for alot cheaper then buying from say the US or Britan I supose it may not be the most advaced or anything but hey you get what you pay for.
Im sure we could probably pick up some T-90's to replace the Leo's for probably about what the MGS will cost maybe Im completely out to lunch here but I think Im pretty close. And Personaly I'd rather have a tank beside me rather then a glorified LAV.





Kyle.

 

[mover1]

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type98.asp

Type 98. Chinese tanks would be the way to go. Logistically it would be the easiest to maintain and cost effective (We could outsource our supply and repairs to WAL-Mart). Parts and spares cost a minimum (Power packs were $4.99 now we can get 3 for $4.37 ) and it has all the good things from all the tanks in the world put unto one huge knockoff product.

Logistically we could supply all three regiments with these vehicles and have one regiments worth in a European or Asian location so we can ship them out to where ever quicker than from Canada.

I think it would be a good buy. But then again what do I know.

Th lack of ships and aircraft. Well thats another story. The navy is already looking at new supply ships and is not very practical to ship a tank by air. A little fore thought, having  a  deployment plan, equipment in a forward location, and an annual deployment excercise.We could have the equipment in theater even before the ground troop finished dagging.

Aside from the phsycological factor are tanks relevant? But that was discussed in anothe thread.

 

[Gramps]

I like the Merkava because its a f**king  sports car not a tank.

 

[Spr.Earl]

I'd make Light Inf.,with Para's,with LAV's along with Light Armour as what we have now but I would still keep our 109's and tank's ,yes we have the new gun but no gun tractor for it.

Now some mud gunners are going to become Mortar Men!
Big F'n mistake, we will alway's need short and medium range Herbies!!!.

Also make heavy Inf. along with medium Arty (109's).,Eng (AVLB's ,Badger's ) along with the Tank's.
Look at our past wer did it before.

Two Heavy battle Groups with two Light Battle Groups and both are inter-changeable with in limits.
We can and could do it,if the power's that be thought about it and if they bought some bloody air lift capability or a decent ship.I think we could sustain all 4,two light and two heavy.
Hey thats all we got.
We have the talent in the C.F, but it's up to the CDS now where we go from here.

But I stil believe we stiil need TANK's and TRACKED ARTY!!!

Just my own thoughts.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

OK, I'll bite:

• Cease the DFS unit experiment now
• Cancel all work on MGS
• Retire ADATS.  Sell all but nine systems.  Remaining nine for air defence only.
• Reconfigure all regular armoured regiments with 2 x sabre sqns, 1 x LRAAW (TOW) sqn and 1 x Coyote sqn
• Purchase 90 x CV-90s - off the shelf - as an interim vehicle
• TOW to the Armour Corps.  Infantry PYs to be used to round out rifle companies.  Look at reactivating the 4th coy in each bn.
• Return mortars to the infantry and look at 120mm rather than 81mm
• Return pioneers to the infantry
• Javelin for the infantry
• VBL (or similar) for recce units (armour reserve and infantry)
• M777 for the gunners - all the gunners.  Retire the LG1 and C3
• Invest in the US future rapid effects vehicle to replace CV 90
• Lease (with a maint package) 6 x C-17s
• Replace the Hercs - one for one
• Retain a smaller number of Griffons as utility aircraft.  Sell what's left.
• 1 x sqn of Predator UAVs (aside from those in the guns)
• 1 x sqn of medium lift helicopters (Chinook, Stallion, etc.)
• 1 x sqn of attack aviation (AH-1Z, AH-64D, Tiger, etc.)
• SOG - 3 x light infantry bns, SF bn (JTF-2), support battalion, deployable (separate) HQ
• Buy enough ammunition so that each soldier in the Army - the whole Army - fires a personal weapon and (if applicable) his/her weapon system live every year

OK, I'll stop - I'm making all this up on the fly and am getting light-headed...  You asked!  ;D

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

that  last one makes some sense........do not pass it up to Ottawa. it would take 3 generals, and a whole pile of full colonels and some half colonels plus a full mess hall staff making donuts and coffee for 6 months to a year to supply  them with the food and treats for their meetings and  a whole pile of clerks to type up the reports and make copies to supply  the rest of the NDHQ staffers in planning and purchassing, plus various SSO arty, armour, Inf and airforce. Only to have them say no way this is too simple and maybe too cost effective. Bits of it might pass but the cabinet minister would kill it...not his ideas

 

[Fishbone Jones]

• Return pioneers to the infantry

TR,
Return assault troops to the armoured?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

That was a given! 

 

[Unknown Factor]

TR,
Return assault troops to the armoured?

Why does it always come back to this? - I love you guys but in order for the machine to work a certain reality must be accepted, the past is the past, the future is now - we have to re-configure the whole army so that the machine works.

An Army as small as ours can't be held back by a command structure that is organized to command a virtual Army simular to that of the US.  Potentially every single change that is made has merit but until Officer Training requires an officer to train within all branches of the Cbt Arms the utilization and flexability of the combat team will never be totally utilized (and this includes Lt. Forces).  Every TF Comd, Brigade Comd and plug/play Comd I've worked for undoubtably knows his stuff but regardless of which branch he represented always favored his own flavor.  I personally would like to see a Officer Command qual within the Army, one which requires service and study of all Cbt Arms, because without it none of this is ever going to work as staff studying is proving to be not as effective. - Cheers!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

You do know that this happens, don't you?  Virtually all officer training about the troop leader/platoon commander level requires a fairly substantial knowledge of the other arms and services.  The Combat Team Commander's course actually assesses on the officer's ability to effectively employ all the sub-units under his command.  Moreover, joint staff training (at the Maj level) requires a fairly detailed knowledge of both the AF and Navy.  I'm never (hopefully) going to dismount on the objective, but I sure as hell know what happens there (not that we do that anymore, mind you).

Did you read my original wish list (or, for that matter, the question which prompted it)?  The question was armour-related and was answered in that vein - although I expanded a bit to include some infantry-related points.  Frankly, I don't see your point or where your problem is.  Because I like having an assault troop in Recce Sqn?  So what?  How does that reflect my knowledge of how the rest of the Army works?

My point is that the "reconfiguration" in its current form is broken and that the "solutions" being offered are not financially or operationally effective.  If you have ideas to the contrary, lets hear 'em.

 

[Unknown Factor]

You do know that this happens, don't you?   Virtually all officer training about the troop leader/platoon commander level requires a fairly substantial knowledge of the other arms and services.   The Combat Team Commander's course actually assesses on the officer's ability to effectively employ all the sub-units under his command.  

I am quite aware that this "happens", as I am quite aware that not one of them are actually integrated within the "others" Cbt Unit for any length of time.  To say that one has to have substantial knowledge is without quarel, mind you knowledge does not transpire to proper utilization of those within your command either.  Mind you I am not picking on the Armoured here, I am picking on every Cbt Arms trade including my own.  I am mearly saying that what an officer is capable of accomphishing "virtually" - (such as JANUS) does not transpire within the context of operations, mainly due to the fact that every soldier, regardless of rank - when placed under preasure will almost always refer back to the basics, meaning that even the 'Major' with all of his knowledge will not utilize the neccesary course of action but rather the safer one, the one that he knows.

So to get back to what I was saying, in my opinion if the Army is going to become more integrated within the Cbt Arms it would only seem prudent that they develop Officers towards command of all elements rather than with a specific Cbt Arms trade.  This by no stretch of the imagination suggests that Officer training in Canada in insufficent but rather too late to be developing leaders for Combined Arms.  As well and good that most peoples intentions are, they will always take care of their own, remove the trade and I'll give you a leader.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'll admit that I'm confused as to (1) what brought this discussion on and (2) how you can generalize so dramatically, given that we haven't conducted real combat team operations in a very long time (OK, never).  If you have experience to the contrary, that's fine - so do I.

I'll restate my position; my post was designed to address the original question - which had an armour slant.  Want me to pontificate about the infantry?  I can - ad nauseum - but would quickly be put in my place by those with far more detailed knowledge about the subject.

Frankly, you're expecting an awful lot.  Essentially what you're saying is that an officer - particularly a senior officer - should have an intimate knowledge of all the combat arms and be interchangable between the various arms. "A jack of all trades, but master of none".  I would suggest that such a proposal isn't very realistic given the training time required - soldiers are already complaining that the officers don't spend enough time within units.  Moreover, the level of knowledge required may well be unattainable (by us normal humans anyway).

Again, we have digressed from the point of the thread quite dramatically - and I fail to see what prompted it (perhaps the reference to assault troops? or the fact that I think TOW should belong in armoured regiments?).  I stand by my little "pulled out of my a*s" list in the absence of a proposal to the contrary.

 

[Unknown Factor]

Again, we have digressed from the point of the thread quite dramatically - and I fail to see what prompted it (perhaps the reference to assault troops? or the fact that I think TOW should belong in armoured regiments?).   I stand by my little "pulled out of my a*s" list in the absence of a proposal to the contrary.

I agree, and perhaps this is not he place to discuss the intracacies of leadership, my point is that you can buy and restructure the entire Army but without addressing the lack of functionality within command the bun fight will continue as to who runs or gets what.  So though it is great to want new equipment and try to place specific requirements I'm only stating that all to often we ignore the common difficulty within the Army and that is to actually have commanders that do employ all elements under their command correctly.  But you got to admit you are dressing up 'old ideas' in new clothes.  Oh and please, I clearly stated that I am concerned with all Cbt Arms, I am not picking a side.