Canada's tanks

[GR66]

TBH it should not just be a Tank Project -- it really should be 1 Canadian Armoured Division Project...
Tanks, IFV, AEV, ARV, ABV, AVLB, Armored Ambulance, SPA, SPAA etc.

Frankly, anyone who thinks we're going to see any significant increase in our tank force...or a tracked IFV anytime in the near future are going to be extremely disappointed.

The CAF has too many other major priority projects going forward that honestly are more important than growing the Army to be able to field a Division(s).

The RCN's fleet replacement (including the just announced patrol submarine RFI and the eventual Kingston-Class replacement) will take vast amounts of money and procurement effort in addition to major recruiting increases.

For the RCAF the F-35's, P-8's, MRTT's, Helo replacements, AEW aircraft, RPAS and NORAD modernization will similarly take massive amounts of money and effort.

Both the above groups of projects have direct impacts on out ability to defend North America as well as to ensure that North America remains able to project force into either Europe or the Far East that outweigh the immediate need to grow the deployable Army.

As far tanks go I see us keeping what we have going as long as we can and when we finally do replace them it will be a single Regiment again with the goal of supporting and maintaining the single squadron deployed to Latvia.

 

[PrairieFella]

Frankly, anyone who thinks we're going to see any significant increase in our tank force...or a tracked IFV anytime in the near future are going to be extremely disappointed.

The CAF has too many other major priority projects going forward that honestly are more important than growing the Army to be able to field a Division(s).

The RCN's fleet replacement (including the just announced patrol submarine RFI and the eventual Kingston-Class replacement) will take vast amounts of money and procurement effort in addition to major recruiting increases.

For the RCAF the F-35's, P-8's, MRTT's, Helo replacements, AEW aircraft, RPAS and NORAD modernization will similarly take massive amounts of money and effort.

Both the above groups of projects have direct impacts on out ability to defend North America as well as to ensure that North America remains able to project force into either Europe or the Far East that outweigh the immediate need to grow the deployable Army.

As far tanks go I see us keeping what we have going as long as we can and when we finally do replace them it will be a single Regiment again with the goal of supporting and maintaining the single squadron deployed to Latvia.

Aka shut up and take it army

It sucks to be in the least sexy service sometimes haha.

 

[KevinB]

Frankly, anyone who thinks we're going to see any significant increase in our tank force...or a tracked IFV anytime in the near future are going to be extremely disappointed.

The CAF has too many other major priority projects going forward that honestly are more important than growing the Army to be able to field a Division(s).

The RCN's fleet replacement (including the just announced patrol submarine RFI and the eventual Kingston-Class replacement) will take vast amounts of money and procurement effort in addition to major recruiting increases.

For the RCAF the F-35's, P-8's, MRTT's, Helo replacements, AEW aircraft, RPAS and NORAD modernization will similarly take massive amounts of money and effort.

Both the above groups of projects have direct impacts on out ability to defend North America as well as to ensure that North America remains able to project force into either Europe or the Far East that outweigh the immediate need to grow the deployable Army.

As far tanks go I see us keeping what we have going as long as we can and when we finally do replace them it will be a single Regiment again with the goal of supporting and maintaining the single squadron deployed to Latvia.

Adults would be able to do more than a few things at once.
It is either simple incompetence at best, or intentional sabotage that Canada has let it's military get to this point with equipment -- it isn't like there are pretty solid data points as to equipment best before dates.

 

[GR66]

Adults would be able to do more than a few things at once.
It is either simple incompetence at best, or intentional sabotage that Canada has let it's military get to this point with equipment -- it isn't like there are pretty solid data points as to equipment best before dates.

 

[FJAG]

As far tanks go I see us keeping what we have going as long as we can and when we finally do replace them it will be a single Regiment again with the goal of supporting and maintaining the single squadron deployed to Latvia.

And therein lies the problem in the way Canada is doing things.

 

[suffolkowner]

Frankly, anyone who thinks we're going to see any significant increase in our tank force...or a tracked IFV anytime in the near future are going to be extremely disappointed.

The CAF has too many other major priority projects going forward that honestly are more important than growing the Army to be able to field a Division(s).

The RCN's fleet replacement (including the just announced patrol submarine RFI and the eventual Kingston-Class replacement) will take vast amounts of money and procurement effort in addition to major recruiting increases.

For the RCAF the F-35's, P-8's, MRTT's, Helo replacements, AEW aircraft, RPAS and NORAD modernization will similarly take massive amounts of money and effort.

Both the above groups of projects have direct impacts on out ability to defend North America as well as to ensure that North America remains able to project force into either Europe or the Far East that outweigh the immediate need to grow the deployable Army.

As far tanks go I see us keeping what we have going as long as we can and when we finally do replace them it will be a single Regiment again with the goal of supporting and maintaining the single squadron deployed to Latvia.

Im not so sure we're making the decisions anymore.
8 MRTT
5? AEW
12? SSK
Isnt there a USMCA negotiation going on right now about something

 

[DBNSG]

Im not so sure we're making the decisions anymore.
8 MRTT
5? AEW
12? SSK
Isnt there a USMCA negotiation going on right now about something

The friend list also included P-8's purchased at least 6 years before we were going to even look at buying.
The friend list also saw 88 F -35's bought after his Nibs claimed it was a dud.
The friend list also saw us actually buy 11 MQ-9B's after studying Drones for twenty years.
The Liberals are at the back of the Bus and there is an American accent driving it now.
When will we see an Arctic army task group (CDN Airborne Regt ) to supplement Alaska's 11 Airborne Division?

 

[KevinB]

The friend list also included P-8's purchased at least 6 years before we were going to even look at buying.
The friend list also saw 88 F -35's bought after his Nibs claimed it was a dud.
The friend list also saw us actually buy 11 MQ-9B's after studying Drones for twenty years.
The Liberals are at the back of the Bus and there is an American accent driving it now.
When will we see an Arctic army task group (CDN Airborne Regt ) to supplement Alaska's 11 Airborne Division?

The drivers is from Minnesota we never figured you’d notice

But in all seriousness, certain pressures have been exerted to induce action.

It won’t be the CAR, that name isn’t going to fly with a Liberal government, and not sure the Conservatives would want the baggage real or imagined either.
Parachute Reg’t is too British - and so you’re probably just going to see the various 3rd BN’s LIB’s get assigned that task then reformed into something like an Airborne Bde. In true CA fashion it would probably be another HQ for even less troops.

I suspect that some pressure will also be brought to bear to make 1CMBG (and probably 5) into some sort of mirror/parallel to an ABCT

 

[IKnowNothing]

It doesn't mean one is a vassal to adopt other nationals equipment -- it often means one is being practical and a good steward of the countries tax dollars.

Being completely interoperable in terms of equipment doesn't make you a vassal. You can be lead nation in a Multinational Division North with Abrams and Bradleys just as well as with Leopards and CV90s. Either way you're dependent on other nations for key elements of your supply chain (although arguably with GDLS you're less foreign dependent than with the European vehicles). The difference is that the US supply chain has much, much greater depth than the European one.

Merely adopting the equipment wasn't the premise of the post I quoted, it proposed adopting the equipment AND abandoning our primary lead/solo tasking to have our contributions be swallowed part and parcel into US formations.
There are arguments both ways. Going American certainly offers logistical benefits at both the industrial and operational levels- but not without drawbacks. The operational benefit only exists if we're co-deployed with Americans, which binds us to them, as not taking advantage of that synergy would be stupid on the part of NATO. Given the scale of the relationship, we pretty quickly stop being an independent player in the the alliance and start being the US's little buddy. Putting a Maple Leaf on the map goes out the window. I'm not going to argue against it being a big step up from the status quo, and a probably an optimum solution for the Army, but I don't think it's the best Geopolitical course for the country.

If we're wistfully debating what a serious and forward looking GoC/CAF could have done post Afghanistan (or post Russia into Georgia really) to solidify our place in NATO and the world, I think taking the lead to fully standardize and organize a heavy mechanized division with the Dutch/Danes/Norwegians/Latvians would be a better ticket to keep our own seat at the adults table. In a world where we're serious enough to do that, whose to say that the resulting supply chain doesn't end up pretty robust?

I totally disagree, as a G7 Nation - with the size of Canada and the CA even at it's current strength - you should have at least 2 Divisions - potentially even a 3rd.
Quite realistically Canada should be able to field an "advance" Division to Europe, with 2 of it's three maneuver Bde's Flyover Personnel.
Of course that would mean reforming the CA, and incorporating the PRes into the actual force structure.

Have =/= sustainably field. 2 is one, one is none etc. I'm a wholesale believer in the various napkins that kickout a heavy and a light division. I just think that pragmatically, if we're looking at both optimizing a NATO wide orbat AND providing a somewhat sustainable contribution to the heavy Russia fight that committing 100% of our heavy force on day 1 with zero depth behind it isn't the best way of contributing that division.

 

[MilEME09]

When will we see an Arctic army task group (CDN Airborne Regt ) to supplement Alaska's 11 Airborne Division?

The name Canadian Airborne regiment will probably never return as it has a tainted legacy. I could see them reviving 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion from WW2.

 

[Maxman1]

The drivers is from Minnesota we never figured you’d notice

But in all seriousness, certain pressures have been exerted to induce action.

It won’t be the CAR, that name isn’t going to fly with a Liberal government, and not sure the Conservatives would want the baggage real or imagined either.
Parachute Reg’t is too British - and so you’re probably just going to see the various 3rd BN’s LIB’s get assigned that task then reformed into something like an Airborne Bde. In true CA fashion it would probably be another HQ for even less troops.

I suspect that some pressure will also be brought to bear to make 1CMBG (and probably 5) into some sort of mirror/parallel to an ABCT

Perhaps 1st Parachute & Reconnaissance Battalion? Have the original idea behind the CAR, being a temporary posting that troops are rotated through for only a year or two rather than an ad hoc fourth regiment (so an "old guard" can't form), but carved in stone this time so a future CO or MND can't redesign it in their image.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Adults would be able to do more than a few things at once.
It is either simple incompetence at best, or intentional sabotage that Canada has let it's military get to this point with equipment -- it isn't like there are pretty solid data points as to equipment best before dates.

It's going to be a money thing, when the new government gets in and takes a look at the books, spending is going to come to shuddering stop. I suspect the Kingston's to be retired without replacement. The CPC will have no say in staying the P8, F35, CSC and Sub buy I suspect and will have retain the Latvia commitment. All other spending will stop or slow down.

 

[dapaterson]

"Wait, you're saying if we call them Light Forces we don't have to buy armoured vehicles?"

 

[Rifleman62]

It is either simple incompetence at best, or intentional sabotage that Canada has let it's military get to this point with equipment....

Yes.

 

[FJAG]

The name Canadian Airborne regiment will probably never return as it has a tainted legacy. I could see them reviving 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion from WW2.

IMHO, something like 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Para) would be entirely adequate and descriptive enough.

I saw the Queen's Own Rifles, Black Watch and Canadian Guards shelved due to a small cutback and desire to build a "unique" new regiment and consolidate the rest into three "super" regiments.

The guns replaced the title 1 Airborne Battery (RCA) by giving the title E Battery (Para) to E Bty in 2 RCHA and, other than a few traditionalists who opened their veins in anguish, the functionality of the battery as an airborne sub-unit continued on just fine.

Personally, I think we need more para capable troops than we have now and, IMHO, we should concentrate all light battalions in 2 Bde in Pet and at least one full bn, preferably two, should be para battalions. Some select combat and combat support enablers should also be para capable.

 

[Underway]

Personally, I think we need more para capable troops than we have now and, IMHO, we should concentrate all light battalions in 2 Bde in Pet and at least one full bn, preferably two, should be para battalions. Some select combat and combat support enablers should also be para capable.

Of the equipment, doctrinal and formation failures in the Ukraine war, using para and air mobile units (as para or airmobile units) are probably top 2. All the air mobile units from both sides are being rerolled into proper mechanized formations. Para should be reserved for SOF and that's it. Because air mobile units are dead before arrival in that kind of air denial environment.

 

[FJAG]

Of the equipment, doctrinal and formation failures in the Ukraine war, using para and air mobile units (as para or airmobile units) are probably top 2. All the air mobile units from both sides are being rerolled into proper mechanized formations. Para should be reserved for SOF and that's it. Because air mobile units are dead before arrival in that kind of air denial environment.

I do not for one minute see using para battalions as "paras" in a Ukrainian-like European conflict. Just because Ukraine is the big war with all the focus right now, does not mean that there aren't other types of conflict Canada needs to be prepared, in some way , to participate in.

I see a para bn with limited roles, such as quick reaction forces in austere locations in Canada and small scale intervention forces in low level conflicts (other than Europe). Just as importantly I see them as a training and development feeder cadre of personnel towards special operations forces, and finally, as a supporting 3rd tier force for tier 1 and 2 special forces when additional, less costly and less skilled, manpower is needed. Its a skill that needs to be maintained and practiced or be lost forever.

Being para does =/= being solely employed in the para role. It does = having a light force that has the ability to be used as para in situations that are appropriate for para insertion while fully understanding that in all probability they never will be used operationally that way.

 

[MilEME09]

IMHO, something like 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Para) would be entirely adequate and descriptive enough.

I saw the Queen's Own Rifles, Black Watch and Canadian Guards shelved due to a small cutback and desire to build a "unique" new regiment and consolidate the rest into three "super" regiments.

The guns replaced the title 1 Airborne Battery (RCA) by giving the title E Battery (Para) to E Bty in 2 RCHA and, other than a few traditionalists who opened their veins in anguish, the functionality of the battery as an airborne sub-unit continued on just fine.

Personally, I think we need more para capable troops than we have now and, IMHO, we should concentrate all light battalions in 2 Bde in Pet and at least one full bn, preferably two, should be para battalions. Some select combat and combat support enablers should also be para capable.

2 bde would also make sense since the QoR is our only ARes jump infantry which could act as a feeder unit of augmentee's to a jump battalion. Benefit to is the QoR is the highest strength ARes unit in the country and is capable of a large amount of support to a reg force jump unit.

 

[Maxman1]

IMHO, something like 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Para) would be entirely adequate and descriptive enough.

I saw the Queen's Own Rifles, Black Watch and Canadian Guards shelved due to a small cutback and desire to build a "unique" new regiment and consolidate the rest into three "super" regiments.

The guns replaced the title 1 Airborne Battery (RCA) by giving the title E Battery (Para) to E Bty in 2 RCHA and, other than a few traditionalists who opened their veins in anguish, the functionality of the battery as an airborne sub-unit continued on just fine.

Personally, I think we need more para capable troops than we have now and, IMHO, we should concentrate all light battalions in 2 Bde in Pet and at least one full bn, preferably two, should be para battalions. Some select combat and combat support enablers should also be para capable.

One reserve jump company per brigade, like we have with the Queen's Own in 32?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I do not for one minute see using para battalions as "paras" in a Ukrainian-like European conflict. Just because Ukraine is the big war with all the focus right now, does not mean that there aren't other types of conflict Canada needs to be prepared, in some way , to participate in.

I see a para bn with limited roles, such as quick reaction forces in austere locations in Canada and small scale intervention forces in low level conflicts (other than Europe). Just as importantly I see them as a training and development feeder cadre of personnel towards special operations forces, and finally, as a supporting 3rd tier force for tier 1 and 2 special forces when additional, less costly and less skilled, manpower is needed. Its a skill that needs to be maintained and practiced or be lost forever.

Being para does =/= being solely employed in the para role. It does = having a light force that has the ability to be used as para in situations that are appropriate for para insertion while fully understanding that in all probability they never will be used operationally that way.

We saw Para/air mobile being used in the war, early on. They were decimated when they could not be reinforced or relieved. Where you do see the VDV used now is as the "fire brigade" to stiffen defenses and to conduct difficult assaults. They are basically high quality unit of which I doubt many have any jump experience now.