tomahawk6 said:Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?
daftandbarmy said:I'm assuming that this is a genuine question, so I'm going with 'yes'.
Baz said:Related questions:
I'm assuming we could still get a brigade group out the door?
Could we sustain a brigade group?
MilEME09 said:That said public comments have been made that with current deployments and DOMOPs we are stretched thin, so it is unlikely we could deploy, or deploy quickly a brigade sized element with full kit
tomahawk6 said:Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?
At any time, there can be up to 915 CAF members deployed on Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada%u2019s largest current international military operation. This includes:
approximately 240 sailors onboard a frigate, operating with NATO
540 soldiers leading a NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia
135 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and approximately 5 CF-188 Hornet aircraft participating in NATO enhanced Air Policing
Enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia
In June 2017, the CAF deployed about 540 Canadian Army members to Latvia. They are leading a NATO battlegroup comprising military members from several nations, including: Albania, Canada, Czech Republic, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain
This battlegroup works as part of the Latvian Land Forces Infantry Brigade. It is based at Camp Adazi, Latvia.
NATO has deployed four such battlegroups to the Baltics and Poland. These battlegroups demonstrate the strength of the NATO alliance, and aim to prevent conflict and protect stability in the region.
tomahawk6 said:I was thinking adding a battle group to a future US brigade rotation to Korea.
tomahawk6 said:Could the CF deploy a battalion for NATO or other short term/6 month deployments like Korea or SA or Poland ?
Short answer to both questions: it depends.Baz said:Related questions:
I'm assuming we could still get a brigade group out the door?
Could we sustain a brigade group?
tomahawk6 said:I was thinking adding a battle group to a future US brigade rotation to Korea.
tomahawk6 said:There has been no peace treaty just essentially a ceasefire. The UN mandate remains. Besides it would be good training and might egender good will between countries.
Given how POTUS45 seems to be asking for Korea to pony up more money for American presence there and the U.S. administration's push on NATO to spend more, I wouldn't assume the bit in yellow at all if I were involved in Canadian planning for such a deployment.tomahawk6 said:My guess is that if a Canadian unit was part of a rotation to Korea the US would pay the bill ...
Infanteer said:Considering that in 2011, we essentially had:
Bde HQ and part of a Sigs Sqn (for the TF HQ)
1x Bn (to form the BG)
Leadership and about 1/3 of the troops of 1x Bn (to form the OMLT)
1x Coy from a third Bn (to form FP for PRT)
2x Armd Sqns (1 Tank and 1 Recce)
1/3 of an Arty Regt
1/3 of an Engr Regt
A chunk of a Svc Bn for the NSE
I'd say that Kandahar is a good example of us deploying nearly a Brigade on expeditionary operations.
tomahawk6 said:My guess is that if a Canadian unit was part of a rotation to Korea the US would pay the bill and maybe the Canadians might be authorized to use US tanks and Brads. Too bad you couldn't include reserve forces.
Brihard said:Do we care about things like HLTA, determinate roto lengths, etc, or are we talking a situation where the balloon has gone up somewhere and we're all in for the long haul? I'm assuming if we need to deploy a brigade (and in doing so break most of the army), it's probably a major scrap and we aren't worried about whether the troops get to frig off to New Zealand for R&R three months in.
Come to think of it, such a conflict would probably be a relatively short, max effort push than one of our perpetual 'long wars'. It would probably also mean that whatever army we're left with at the end would be getting rebuilt, retrained, and reconfigured in light of whatever lessons were learned. It would be interesting to hear from the pros what the sustainment choke points would be in this kind of situation versus the 'perpetual battlegroup' deployments.