C3 Howitzer Replacement

[FJAG]

Sure and when the reserve Bty has to defend Trenton from your surprise FPV strike how to I ensure they actually all showed up? Current system does not align to that structure. Read what I wrote above, we are tethered to a structure that doesn’t work.

We're teetering close to making this a ARes restructure thread.

Under our current system, the GiC can place any individual, unit or element of the ResF on active service with the stroke of the pen or may be called out on service. If that happens reservists either show up or go to jail. We have the tools as it is. Do we have the will?

What we do not have in the CA is a uniform approach to blending RegF and ResF elements into one organization. The artillery has had some brilliant successes with this (4 AD is one of them) and some failures. The infantry is not so good at it and has had some dismal failures (10/90 is one example but not the only one). Afghanistan proves that integration can take place. The problem is making it work during peacetime.

 

[GR66]

Well actually we form a replacement unit, as if it’s a LSCO all 3 Bns are likely fighting.

Again semantics. Organize the AD Batteries however you wish. Depth is required for sustainment in the face of combat losses. Two batteries is not depth.

An FPV drone could indeed destroy a parked plane. However, if you read what I wrote, that scenario would involve flying a drone into the middle of Canada, so I assume you’re talking about something much much larger. The FPV drones in Ukraine are averaging an 5-10 k range with repeaters, and teams of 10-20 planning and executing. Unless you mean it’s being flown from the states or much closer in which case we’ve had yet larger breaches of national security. Your example is far fetched is what I’m saying, and would required an AD Bty on every base with ROEs to engage and destroy every drone within a given range. Let’s keep this to reality.

I don't consider the possibility of an enemy preemptively attempting to cripple our strategic airlift or ASW assets in the opening stages of a conflict as fantasy. The cost benefit of a small team using short range FPVs to take out transport, AAR and/or MPA assets would be huge.

Absolutely our airfields should have permanent CUAS capabilities to deal with potential drone incursions into their airspace and we should have the assets available to beef up the capability in times of increased threat. These assets should also be available for domestic and foreign deployment in other threat environments as well.

Sure and when the reserve Bty has to defend Trenton from your surprise FPV strike how to I ensure they actually all showed up? Current system does not align to that structure. Read what I wrote above, we are tethered to a structure that doesn’t work.

That's more an argument to change the structure rather than ignore the capability requirement.

Unmanned systems, like the video you showed, are having an effect. However much like the video you showed some people are having their perspectives heavily skewed because of the success bias of the videos, the use of these videos as propaganda, and the funding nature of these units making showing their success a critical point.

No argument that there is success bias and also that counter-measures will improve to meet the threats, however our allies seem to be moving much faster at adopting both their own unmanned technologies and their counter-measures that we are. Do we know something they don't?

Beyond that I agree with what @FJAG says: inability is not the same as not wanting to. But I don’t think we need an AD Bde, we need probably a division with 3 shooting Bty’s and CUAS pushed lower.

You're both correct that much/most of the blame can be put on the politicians that control the purse strings for the CAF, but there have been plenty of senior CAF leaders that have chosen to allow certain capabilities to be lost/atrophied rather than make tough organizational choices in the past as well as plenty of opportunities to beat the drum much harder about the crisis that slow-rolled the CAF into the poor state in which it currently finds itself.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Domestically you have in many places civy employees protecting airports from birds. Build on that to be able to protect from UAV's as well. You could hire civy's to patrol airfields tasked with both bird and UAV control. That gives you at least 8-12hrs of limited coverage and at least some sort of response capability without a massive investment. If the threat is escalated, have some short term Class B's and teach them how to use the anti-UAV devices, to bolster the capability.
You can do the same overseas, using civy staff like we used to in the Cold War era.

 

[markppcli]

Again semantics. Organize the AD Batteries however you wish. Depth is required for sustainment in the face of combat losses. Two batteries is not depth.

I agree I’m just pointing out the specific example you used is wrong, and we have no depth across the CAF. We have the regular army, and once that’s destroyed the Army is essentially without combat power (ie it has no fires, no armour, ect), so making AD the hill to die on for that is a bit absurd. We need depth everywhere but we aren’t going to fund that.

I don't consider the possibility of an enemy preemptively attempting to cripple our strategic airlift or ASW assets in the opening stages of a conflict as fantasy. The cost benefit of a small team using short range FPVs to take out transport, AAR and/or MPA assets would be huge.

I’m not suggesting a premptive strike isn’t a possibility, I’m merely looking at the realities of FPV employment, and suggesting that it’s an unlikely first strike system. If some one wanted to sabotage our strategic assets that would be fairly low on the list of options. Getting hired as a base cleaner and throwing a grenade seems more likely.

Absolutely our airfields should have permanent CUAS capabilities to deal with potential drone incursions into their airspace and we should have the assets available to beef up the capability in times of increased threat. These assets should also be available for domestic and foreign deployment in other threat environments as well.

Cool what’s your mitigation plan for a CIWS killing a bird and lobbing 15000 rounds into down town Winnipeg ?

That's more an argument to change the structure rather than ignore the capability requirement.

Capability drives structure drive requirements. They’re linked.

No argument that there is success bias and also that counter-measures will improve to meet the threats, however our allies seem to be moving much faster at adopting both their own unmanned technologies and their counter-measures that we are. Do we know something they don't?

Don’t disagree that our Allies are moving faster, but I don’t see anyone making 1/4 of their combat formations AD either.


@FJAG concur that it can be done, my point was more that blended Reg / Res AD batteries are not a solution if we’re truly worried about Russians flying to Canada, getting their hands on some RPG 7 rounds (or buying a 3D printer and the necessary explosives), buying drones, fitting those drones with fused RPG rounds, moving into position, and flying a bomb onto a base they can walk onto.