Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Southern littorials- does this include the great lakes. Mackenzie delta and other areas?

Great question. When does the Arctic become a Marine environment? And when is an Arctic Lake an Inland Sea?

The Pacific, in Canada, is almost unique in that it is Ice Free - except when Alpine Glaciers come down to the Sea.

Much of the rest of the Arctic has a Maritime aspect to it. The Great Lakes, although heavily populated experience enough ice to block navigation. The Gulf of St Lawrence freezes and supports haulouts for harp seals. Our entire northern shore line freezes for much of the year.

So what are the best tools for operating in that part of Canada where Pick Up trucks, LAVs and Leos can't go?

The Ski Doo, the Quad, the Argo, the Sherp, solve some problems. MOSVs solve some problems, Helicopters and planes solve some problems. RHIBs solve some problems. Jet boats solve some problems. CB90 type boats solve some problems.

I think the AOPS, Patrol Centres and Armouries can also solve some problems.

Comms are essential. Navigation is essential. Small arms are adequate. ISTAR assets are essential. Air Defence would be the first big ticket weapons priority now - available on very short notice and broadly distributed.

 

[RangerRay]

Great question. When does the Arctic become a Marine environment? And when is an Arctic Lake an Inland Sea?

The Pacific, in Canada, is almost unique in that it is Ice Free - except when Alpine Glaciers come down to the Sea.

Much of the rest of the Arctic has a Maritime aspect to it. The Great Lakes, although heavily populated experience enough ice to block navigation. The Gulf of St Lawrence freezes and supports haulouts for harp seals. Our entire northern shore line freezes for much of the year.

So what are the best tools for operating in that part of Canada where Pick Up trucks, LAVs and Leos can't go?

The Ski Doo, the Quad, the Argo, the Sherp, solve some problems. MOSVs solve some problems, Helicopters and planes solve some problems. RHIBs solve some problems. Jet boats solve some problems. CB90 type boats solve some problems.

I think the AOPS, Patrol Centres and Armouries can also solve some problems.

Comms are essential. Navigation is essential. Small arms are adequate. ISTAR assets are essential. Air Defence would be the first big ticket weapons priority now - available on very short notice and broadly distributed.

Airmobile may be the way to go. Expensive but that’s how BC Wildfire Service gets into inaccessible areas of the province.

Initial attack crews

Learn about BC Wildfire Service Initial Attack crews. Initial Attack crews are small, quick-response teams designed to suppress new wildfires before they grow.

www2.gov.bc.ca

 

[Kirkhill]

Airmobile may be the way to go. Expensive but that’s how BC Wildfire Service gets into inaccessible areas of the province.

Initial attack crews

Learn about BC Wildfire Service Initial Attack crews. Initial Attack crews are small, quick-response teams designed to suppress new wildfires before they grow.

www2.gov.bc.ca

It may be the highest cost per attack but how does it compare in terms of maintaining a standing attack capability? For example, suppose there were no air attack capability, only ground attack by truck, boat and permanently emplaced assets. How much would fire defence cost under those circumstances?

 

[KevinB]

Airmobile may be the way to go. Expensive but that’s how BC Wildfire Service gets into inaccessible areas of the province.

Initial attack crews

Learn about BC Wildfire Service Initial Attack crews. Initial Attack crews are small, quick-response teams designed to suppress new wildfires before they grow.

www2.gov.bc.ca

Biggest issue the CAF has is the fact it doesn’t have significant rotary wing assets, and most they have aren’t an ideal platform (cough Griffon cough).

 

[KevinB]

It may be the highest cost per attack but how does it compare in terms of maintaining a standing attack capability? For example, suppose there were no air attack capability, only ground attack by truck, boat and permanently emplaced assets. How much would fire defence cost under those circumstances?

One also needs to factor in the significantly larger losses due to lack of early response.

Some of the terrain is impossible to reach via other means - and you can’t build fire fighting bunkers all over the mountains as cool as it would be

 

[Kirkhill]

Biggest issue the CAF has is the fact it doesn’t have significant rotary wing assets, and most they have aren’t an ideal platform (cough Griffon cough).

Yah, yah. It could be better.

I will still take something over nothing and short legs over no legs.

Are the procedures for supporting a ground force by air at 300 km significantly different than supporting the same ground force by air at 1000 km?

Even with the Griffons and the small force of Chinooks, Twotters, Hercs and C17s we are not without means to act at some levels. Just like we do have some small boat assets, inflatables, ribs, rhibs, jet boats, small landing craft and pontoons.

We can build capabilities and TTPs based on the equipment we have - regardless of what you think of the equipment.

Wooden tanks were a thing. The formed the bases for a number of the world's tank armies.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Last time I saw them they were in CMBG and issued out for adventure training. If it were up to me they’d be issued 1 per man to each infantry unit in the Army… probably need a bit of white spray paint to be fair.

That's what I spent several winters doing in Arctic Norway. You can move a battalion on skis about 5X as fast as on snowshoes, or on foot....

 

[foresterab]

It may be the highest cost per attack but how does it compare in terms of maintaining a standing attack capability? For example, suppose there were no air attack capability, only ground attack by truck, boat and permanently emplaced assets. How much would fire defence cost under those circumstances?

This is a common discussion with IA resources and frankly...truck attack is more normal than helicopter based attack for budget if nothing else. Specialized skills such as helicopter based rappel and para-jumpers are even rarer due to a) changes in helicopter capacity/lift from the 1970/1980's b) increased road development and c) triage of value reporting.

The trade off of not having these assets is basically a balancing act between spending lots of money to hit fires small vs. waiting for the fire to come to a value at risk and then fighting it. The northern areas of YT/NWT/SK/MB/ON/PQ and Parks Canada often allow fires to burn due to a lack of values to protect and the fire is assumed to be a natural cycle. This tends to be very low cost fire fighting which might results in a fire that might only be monitored by a daily patrol mapping the perimeter growth and/or more recently satellite tools like MODIS. The downside is that if you don't hit that fire and it starts to come towards your value at risk....now you've got a major problem in an area with limited response. Think of it like a beach defense scenario....if you can pick the landing craft off in the water it's way easier than allowing an army to land, establish a bridgehead and then try to repulse them. The downside is now you need a means of monitoring all the beaches...

The other big challenge is we're dealing with a somewhat accepted issue with wildfires that "belongs" for lack of a better term. But when we're talking the CAF who are tasked with ensuring the sovereignty of the Nation you are not in a position to accept that we've allowed Red Force X to occupy Baffin Island (for example) while we decide if it's worth mobilizing or not and then trying to figure out how to get there. You need that ready, full time force, there ready for the unknown while having a plan to add resources to support the initial response.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is a common discussion with IA resources and frankly...truck attack is more normal than helicopter based attack for budget if nothing else. Specialized skills such as helicopter based rappel and para-jumpers are even rarer due to a) changes in helicopter capacity/lift from the 1970/1980's b) increased road development and c) triage of value reporting.

The trade off of not having these assets is basically a balancing act between spending lots of money to hit fires small vs. waiting for the fire to come to a value at risk and then fighting it. The northern areas of YT/NWT/SK/MB/ON/PQ and Parks Canada often allow fires to burn due to a lack of values to protect and the fire is assumed to be a natural cycle. This tends to be very low cost fire fighting which might results in a fire that might only be monitored by a daily patrol mapping the perimeter growth and/or more recently satellite tools like MODIS. The downside is that if you don't hit that fire and it starts to come towards your value at risk....now you've got a major problem in an area with limited response. Think of it like a beach defense scenario....if you can pick the landing craft off in the water it's way easier than allowing an army to land, establish a bridgehead and then try to repulse them. The downside is now you need a means of monitoring all the beaches...

The other big challenge is we're dealing with a somewhat accepted issue with wildfires that "belongs" for lack of a better term. But when we're talking the CAF who are tasked with ensuring the sovereignty of the Nation you are not in a position to accept that we've allowed Red Force X to occupy Baffin Island (for example) while we decide if it's worth mobilizing or not and then trying to figure out how to get there. You need that ready, full time force, there ready for the unknown while having a plan to add resources to support the initial response.

Fires in places and fires in spaces?

Fires where people are are fires in places. The people and their property need to be defended. But there are roads there. The roads bring in trucks to defeat the fires. But. The roads also brought in the people who started the fires and the people who have the property that necessitates a defence.

Fires where people are not are fires in spaces. There are no people, and very little property, to be defended. There are no roads to bring in trucks to defeat the fires. But. There are no roads to bring in people who start fires and most high value property seems likely to have its own fire defences.

 

[RangerRay]

It may be the highest cost per attack but how does it compare in terms of maintaining a standing attack capability? For example, suppose there were no air attack capability, only ground attack by truck, boat and permanently emplaced assets. How much would fire defence cost under those circumstances?

No idea, but in terms of getting into places with no road or trail access quickly, nothing beats heli-attack and rap-attack (although rap-attack’s safety protocols don’t make them much faster than heli-attack doing a hover exit.

I suppose that if the fire crews didn’t have helicopters, the cost of fighting the same fire when it got close to a road or a beach would be a lot more than if a 3 person airmobile initial attack crew got to the fire when it was small and low intensity. A big factor in using helicopters over vehicle is speed, as well as accessibility. By the time that fire got close enough to a road, it would probably be a project fire requiring unit crews, camps, command structures, heavy equipment and the logistical tail that would require.

In terms of military applications, I was throwing airmobile out there as a suggestion since much of the province is accessible only by mountain goat. I know the Army likes to think troops are pack mules, but you are going to break a lot of them humping 200 lbs of kit up and down heavily forested mountains to set up OP’s.

My $0.02.

 

[daftandbarmy]

In terms of military applications, I was throwing airmobile out there as a suggestion since much of the province is accessible only by mountain goat. I know the Army likes to think troops are pack mules, but you are going to break a lot of them humping 200 lbs of kit up and down heavily forested mountains to set up OP’s.

My $0.02.

The other part of it is to select and train (hard) your troops so they can cover long distances through rough terrain with heavy loads and not even think twice about it.

If you let people think they can be effective in their roles even though they can't operate away from the pavement, or carry a ruck further than from the bus stop to the armoury, then you're not doing anyone a service.

Again, the troops will always be up for these kind of efforts and this is mainly a leadership challenge.

Fat, risk averse, unskilled, smug and chateau-borne leaders will always get what they lead

 

[RangerRay]

The other part of it is to select and train (hard) your troops so they can cover long distances through rough terrain with heavy loads and not even think twice about it.

If you let people think they can be effective in their roles even though they can't operate away from the pavement, or carry a ruck further than from the bus stop to the armoury, then you're not doing anyone a service.

Again, the troops will always be up for these kind of efforts and this is mainly a leadership challenge.

Fat, risk averse, unskilled, smug and chateau-borne leaders will always get what they lead

But you have to agree…there’s a difference between training to make tough, resilient soldiers, and treating them literally like rented mules…

 

[daftandbarmy]

But you have to agree…there’s a difference between training to make tough, resilient soldiers, and treating them literally like rented mules…

Fully paid and pension earning mules, of course

"Marius' mules" « IMPERIUM ROMANUM

The Roman army has evolved many times over the course of history. The equipment (except armour) of Roman soldiers was originally, as was the case in all armies of the then world, on carts or mules/donkeys. Gradually, however, there was a need to improve military mobility, shorten the entire...

imperiumromanum.pl

 

[KevinB]

The other part of it is to select and train (hard) your troops so they can cover long distances through rough terrain with heavy loads and not even think twice about it.

If you let people think they can be effective in their roles even though they can't operate away from the pavement, or carry a ruck further than from the bus stop to the armoury, then you're not doing anyone a service.

Again, the troops will always be up for these kind of efforts and this is mainly a leadership challenge.

Fat, risk averse, unskilled, smug and chateau-borne leaders will always get what they lead

GWOT also taught us that it’s makes no sense to clap out folks carrying unreasonable loads when resupply can be done via Aviation assets (helicopter or GPS directed bundles).

 

[foresterab]

Fires in places and fires in spaces?

Fires where people are are fires in places. The people and their property need to be defended. But there are roads there. The roads bring in trucks to defeat the fires. But. The roads also brought in the people who started the fires and the people who have the property that necessitates a defence.

Fires where people are not are fires in spaces. There are no people, and very little property, to be defended. There are no roads to bring in trucks to defeat the fires. But. There are no roads to bring in people who start fires and most high value property seems likely to have its own fire defences.

I really like your statement there "Fires in Place and Fires in Spaces".

Small fires in bad places can have terrible impacts but unfortunately large fires in isolated areas get low attention. Then folks wonder why bad things happen when what is normal everywhere else hits them in turn...

For much of the southern portions of provinces and even middle portions it's a great way to sum up the situation. Unfortunately then you get to the north...small, isolated communities, limited infrastructure, and lower cost impact (by sheer numbers) but high cultural/societal impacts for any event. This where the RCAF has been called in many times to evacuate communities in part due to lift capacity but also due to the ability to fly off of instruments/no vis conditions and deal with issues such as smoke.

Unfortunately regardless of where it is located high value property is rarely protected in my opinion and often is only found out about due to a critical emergency. A topic worth a few beers...

 

[foresterab]

No idea, but in terms of getting into places with no road or trail access quickly, nothing beats heli-attack and rap-attack (although rap-attack’s safety protocols don’t make them much faster than heli-attack doing a hover exit.

I suppose that if the fire crews didn’t have helicopters, the cost of fighting the same fire when it got close to a road or a beach would be a lot more than if a 3 person airmobile initial attack crew got to the fire when it was small and low intensity. A big factor in using helicopters over vehicle is speed, as well as accessibility. By the time that fire got close enough to a road, it would probably be a project fire requiring unit crews, camps, command structures, heavy equipment and the logistical tail that would require.

In terms of military applications, I was throwing airmobile out there as a suggestion since much of the province is accessible only by mountain goat. I know the Army likes to think troops are pack mules, but you are going to break a lot of them humping 200 lbs of kit up and down heavily forested mountains to set up OP’s.

My $0.02.

There are two issues that air attack can greatly assist with though I should have mentioned.
1) An aerial perspective can be critical for observation of not just what the fire is doing but also other values. This initial assessment is the basis of all triage decisions and tactic development. Also can be critical for post fire investigation on causes etc. Does not have to be helicopter but eyes in the sky help you realize that you're about to burn into a change on conditions and don't hit the left flank that will become the new head.

2) Safety. Even though I have 80% cell coverage in my district it's still common to need helicopters to work as repeaters for handheld radio comms back to HQ, especially in mountain conditions. It's also a set of eyes in the sky than can be critical on tense working condition days to get timely evacuation notices. Lastly...it really sucks to hear the command "All machines, punch buckets now and evac at helipad X". But it can and does happen and more than a few tight situations were saved by air evac that trucks would not allow.

Trucks on the other hand allow for much greater flexibility in gear and cargo transport. Need to carry a jerry can + hose + Crew + +++++ it can go in the bed of the truck and away you go at a much lower cost/easier logistical chain. But trucks don't like swamps, or mountains, or sharp rock and often a longer walk is a smarter call than a stuck vehicle with no alternatives.

To put this in Army terms it's very similar issues to airborne units (low supply, light arms, high training needs) vs. main force (full supply, heavy arms, can be lower training needs for basic function). Time and place for each capacity but no silver bullet that says this the right tool everywhere.

 

[daftandbarmy]

GWOT also taught us that it’s makes no sense to clap out folks carrying unreasonable loads when resupply can be done via Aviation assets (helicopter or GPS directed bundles).

Travel light, freeze at night, win the fight

 

[RangerRay]

There are two issues that air attack can greatly assist with though I should have mentioned.
1) An aerial perspective can be critical for observation of not just what the fire is doing but also other values. This initial assessment is the basis of all triage decisions and tactic development. Also can be critical for post fire investigation on causes etc. Does not have to be helicopter but eyes in the sky help you realize that you're about to burn into a change on conditions and don't hit the left flank that will become the new head.

2) Safety. Even though I have 80% cell coverage in my district it's still common to need helicopters to work as repeaters for handheld radio comms back to HQ, especially in mountain conditions. It's also a set of eyes in the sky than can be critical on tense working condition days to get timely evacuation notices. Lastly...it really sucks to hear the command "All machines, punch buckets now and evac at helipad X". But it can and does happen and more than a few tight situations were saved by air evac that trucks would not allow.

Trucks on the other hand allow for much greater flexibility in gear and cargo transport. Need to carry a jerry can + hose + Crew + +++++ it can go in the bed of the truck and away you go at a much lower cost/easier logistical chain. But trucks don't like swamps, or mountains, or sharp rock and often a longer walk is a smarter call than a stuck vehicle with no alternatives.

To put this in Army terms it's very similar issues to airborne units (low supply, light arms, high training needs) vs. main force (full supply, heavy arms, can be lower training needs for basic function). Time and place for each capacity but no silver bullet that says this the right tool everywhere.

I defer to your far greater experience in fire suppression. I have always been involved in the periphery.

I missed your earlier reply before I replied. Much better stated than mine!

 

[Skysix]

Air Defense would be the first big ticket weapons priority now - available on very short notice and broadly distributed.

This weapon system and an ASEA plus thermal sensor system mounted on various platforms (BVS10, littoral boats, even containerised on trucks) might be a start

This Is China's Beastly New Air Defense Vehicle

Short-range air defenses are now top of mind, and China is moving fast in this space as highlighted by its new Type 625E system.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Skysix]

Double post deleted