CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[FJAG]

Usual snark....

My point is that we are positioning a force forwards with lots of time to react. My expectation would be that we have heavy(ish) equipment available and a theater that would seem to be a good fit for heavy(ish) gear. Consequently I might have expected the movement of LAVs along with the Leos to new warehouses in Latvia so that those new air transports could flyover to drop into the LAVs.

Instead we are going to supply a new buy of MRZRs to sit in warehouses and supply light troops to the theater. As much of a fan as I am of light role troops I just find it strange.

If the LAVs that we have aren't going to be used in Latvia where are they going to be used? And if our domestic troops are going to be LAV based isn't that going to continue to be a drag on deployment - both with respect to reaction time and areas of deployment?

...

Why wouldn't the forward force be an entirely prepositioned LAV based force with flyover troops? Why wouldn't the domestic force be a lighter force, or at least have a larger light component, that could be rushed anywhere, including Latvia if necessary? We have already conceded that there is a role for light forces on the Russian front.

...

The less said about TAPVs the better.

I pretty much agree with you on this.

I expect what is behind the way it is being done is pure numbers. It will take all six mech battalions to keep a combined battalion fed with 6 month rotos without killing everyone involved.

That left three light battalions as spares and therefore available to "bulk out" the brigade with flyover exercises. To turn them into a flyover mech (or combined arms) battalion would have required the placing of a battalion's worth of kit in Latvia and reassigning training LAVs in Canada from some of the mech battalions to the light ones. It strikes me that was a step that the army, for whatever reason, did not want to take.

While I think it is a poor decision from the Latvian brigade's point of view to add in a light battalion, I think it is a good decision for the light battalions as it will give them some valuable exercise experience in Europe and may finally lead to a proper equipping program for them. I personally think that we need to have several light battalions from a defence of the homeland point of view. That said giving them a European focus may lead to acquiring the wrong equipment for the Canadian role (which IMHO should have a greater northern focus)

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree that it is good for the light force development and that a light force would be a good idea for the homeland.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Usual snark....

My point is that we are positioning a force forwards with lots of time to react. My expectation would be that we have heavy(ish) equipment available and a theater that would seem to be a good fit for heavy(ish) gear. Consequently I might have expected the movement of LAVs along with the Leos to new warehouses in Latvia so that those new air transports could flyover to drop into the LAVs.

Instead we are going to supply a new buy of MRZRs to sit in warehouses and supply light troops to the theater. As much of a fan as I am of light role troops I just find it strange.

If the LAVs that we have aren't going to be used in Latvia where are they going to be used? And if our domestic troops are going to be LAV based isn't that going to continue to be a drag on deployment - both with respect to reaction time and areas of deployment?

...

Why wouldn't the forward force be an entirely prepositioned LAV based force with flyover troops? Why wouldn't the domestic force be a lighter force, or at least have a larger light component, that could be rushed anywhere, including Latvia if necessary? We have already conceded that there is a role for light forces on the Russian front.

...

The less said about TAPVs the better.

The Light Battalion is kept at high-readiness, validated at Battalion level with a US IBCT at JPMRC or JRTC depending on the year. It has reinforcing the eFP as a critical task that will be rehearsed, along with pre-positioned equipment to enable its use there. This allows them to meet the NTM windows. They may also get called upon for the Arctic and Roto 0s which would of course necessitate some down-stream changes. Something else might have to give but the managed readiness plan can allow for that to some extent with the next battalion in line moving up in readiness if the high-readiness light battalion is deployed.

There will be plenty of Cdn mechanized forces in Latvia once all the pieces are in place. All six LAV battalions will cycle through over a three-year period. Those other LAVs (and tanks) you worry about (and we are short) will be used in Canada to train the next rotations and also be potential reinforcements.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The existing eFP BG is adding a Canadian tank squadron. That eFP BG (which is mech) has a Canadian BG HQ, a Canadian LAV Coy, a Canadian Admin (CSS) Coy and a composite/multinational Combat Support Coy in addition to all the sub-units provided by other troop contributing nations. Then there is all the other Canadian CS and CSS going into the Bde-level units.

Have some sub-units been cut or will they be used to reinforce the Danish Bn/ our LIB?

Canadian Tank Squadron
Polish Tank Squadron
Spanish Tank Troop
2x Italian Tank Troops
Canadian Inf Coy
Spanish Inf Coy
Italian Inf Coy
Slovakian Inf Coy

That BG seems unwieldy to fight as a Bn.

 

[Kirkhill]

Have some sub-units been cut or will they be used to reinforce the Danish Bn/ our LIB?

Canadian Tank Squadron
Polish Tank Squadron
Spanish Tank Troop
2x Italian Tank Troops
Canadian Inf Coy
Spanish Inf Coy
Italian Inf Coy
Slovakian Inf Coy

That BG seems unwieldy to fight as a Bn.

How about if it looked like this?

Canadian Tank Squadron
Canadian Inf Coy

Italian Inf Coy
2x Italian Tank Troops

Spanish Inf Coy
Spanish Tank Troop

Polish Tank Squadron
Slovakian Inf Coy


The Slovakians are apparently going home.

Essentially you are looking at Canadian Square Combat Team, an Italian Combat Team, a Spanish Combat Team and a Polish Tank Squadron.

Four combat elements.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Its not a full four-troop squadron, so its not a "square combat team." In future years there will also be additional assets.

The eFP BG and eFP Bde will employ their assigned elements according to their estimate of the situation.

 

[MilEME09]

I personally think that we need to have several light battalions from a defence of the homeland point of view. That said giving them a European focus may lead to acquiring the wrong equipment for the Canadian role (which IMHO should have a greater northern focus)

Light battalions on the home front? sounds like a good mission task for the Ares oh wait that is another thread....... Seriously though to reduce strain on the reg force we could look into heavier ARes augmentation for the light infantry units. Each CBG has multiple infantry units, if each could force generate a platoon, say every 2-3 years. Each CBG would then generate a infantry coy, scaling up to each Div fielding a ARes combined Infantry battalion. I know crazy initiative that would be doomed to fail without proper guidance, and training, but with the current two year deployment cycle, we need to do something, especially when manning is an issue to not burn out the Reg F.

 

[KevinB]

I’m still befuddled at the 6 month deployment period.

 

[Kirkhill]

...who, if anyone, is thinking about defence of the homeland.

But I am constantly assured that there is no threat to the homeland....

 

[MilEME09]

I’m still befuddled at the 6 month deployment period.

there is talk of 9 months now for combat arms, CSS in latvia there is talk of it being a 1 year posting

 

[Kirkhill]

Its not a full four-troop squadron, so its not a "square combat team." In future years there will also be additional assets.

The eFP BG and eFP Bde will employ their assigned elements according to their estimate of the situation.

As usual I stand corrected.

So span of control is not an issue then. Selbstverstaendlich.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't want to minimize the span of control faced by the current eFP BG - they have way too many sub-units of way to many types. Some of that will be alleviated by the shift to an eFP Bde structure.

 

[YZT580]

there is talk of 9 months now for combat arms, CSS in latvia there is talk of it being a 1 year posting

if that happens you can look for replacing each posted detachment with new recruits as soon as their current hitch is up unless that is an accompanied posting which it isn't. No one's family can tolerate having one parent away for a year at a time.

 

[KevinB]

if that happens you can look for replacing each posted detachment with new recruits as soon as their current hitch is up unless that is an accompanied posting which it isn't. No one's family can tolerate having one parent away for a year at a time.

So make it a 3 year attached… With options to stay for 6-9-12.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

My understanding is it’s a Latvia-specific UOR purchase, around 100 vehicles, close to off the shelf. Mobility for light forces to move troops and kit around. The bigger picture project to buy a fleet of vehicles for light forces CAF wide is going to take longer to deliver.

Someone will correct me with I’m wrong.

108 vehicles to be exact in two different configurations, cargo and personnel, plus 10 light trailers. Further info from the RFI (Request for Info) issued by DND back on 20 Nov 2023:

Light Tactical Vehicle

1. Background
1.1 In support of Canada’s contribution to NATO Advanced Force Projection (aFP) in Latvia,as part of Operation REASSURANCE, Canada will procure Tactical Mobility Platformvehicles (TMPs) to equip a deployed Light Forces (LF) Battle Group (BG) starting Fall2024. This accelerated procurement is named Light Tactical Vehicle (LTV).

1.2 The LTV will follow an accelerated procurement process to acquire up to a total of 108TMP vehicles and 10 light trailers. Delivery timeline will be considered a high priority to meet the NATO commitments with Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in Fall 2024. The LTV procurement is independent from the Light Forces Enhancement (LFE) project, which will also procure TMPs at a later date.

Timelines are as follows:

2.3
c) LTV Bid Solicitation February 2024
d) LTV Contract Award May 2024
e) LTV Initial Operating Capability (IOC) August 2024
f) LTV Full Operating Capability (FOC) Fall 2025

Further info:

2.6 The LTV requirements for TMP-Personnel and TMP-Cargo can be met with a single vehicle that can be easily reconfigured or with two TMP variants sharing the same base chassis and powertrain.

2.7 The TMP vehicle will be able to carry two (2) to four (4) CAF soldiers in the cargo variant, four (4) to nine (9) soldiers in the personnel variant, their weapons and effects, and combat supplies to sustain them for 72 hours on operation. The light trailer will be used to carry any other loads as required. The Project also plans to acquire Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) elements to operate and maintain the fleet.

For those wishing more details the complete RFI can be found here.

 

[McG]

So our contribution is to be a Light Battalion in LTVs, reinforced by a Square Combat Team of LAVs and Leos, a battery of M777s and some other new enablers (GBAD, EW, UAS, LAMs) together with Griffons. Canada will also be supplying armoured logistics AHSVSs and command and control.

The LAVs and the TAPVs will....?

And a composite engineer squadron. And staff for various multinational support units.

 

[FJAG]

I’m still befuddled at the 6 month deployment period.

Towards the end of the podcast I think that there was a nod to the army recognizing the problem and looking at alternative processes.

My preferred choice is:

a) a core of the current eFP and the brigade headquarters and a CMTC (Fwd) det, and a strong logistics element that's posted for 3 odd years; and

b) a frequent flyover contingent for Ex Oak Resolve onto a prepositioned a mech battle group with a second tank squadron, a second gun battery, an engineer squadron, and more logistics.

 

[IKnowNothing]

108 vehicles to be exact in two different configurations, cargo and personnel, plus 10 light trailers. Further info from the RFI (Request for Info) issued by DND back on 20 Nov 2023:



Timelines are as follows:



Further info:



For those wishing more details the complete RFI can be found here.

Interesting choice on the weight cutoff- looks like the Flyer 72 / M1288 are not wanted. DAGOR vs. ISV as preferred choices?

 

[Ludoc]

Towards the end of the podcast I think that there was a nod to the army recognizing the problem and looking at alternative processes.

My preferred choice is:

a) a core of the current eFP and the brigade headquarters and a CMTC (Fwd) det, and a strong logistics element that's posted for 3 odd years; and

b) a frequent flyover contingent for Ex Oak Resolve onto a prepositioned a mech battle group with a second tank squadron, a second gun battery, an engineer squadron, and more logistics.

At the risk of making it super obvious who I am in real life:

I can not stress enough, how much sense this makes. Going from Wx to Latvia for long stretches twice a year (our current way of operating) is a stupid plan.

Checking our seacans, hoping our locks haven't been cut, and then doing a scavenger hunt across base IOT find all of our equipment because someone decided to reallocate our equipment gets old real quick. Being able to properly look after our equipment would be nice.

Due to the way radios and the crypto world work we transferred equipment from here to there with the understanding that, although it is on the Latvian account, it belongs to us and needs to be available to us when we go over. That has worked out so far but it will take one bad handover before it is a fight between us and the Sig Sqn about who owns what and how many radios we can have.

Having someone to shepherd our TSRs along would be great. Having the same fights every six months because there is a new BG/NSE in place and needing to re-explain the same requirements we communicated to the roto before them and roto before that is not efficient.

To be clear, all the people over seas are good people and want to help. But supporting CMTC is not their main priority. Nor should it be, they are up to their ears in work trying to support themselves. Posting even, just a few people from here over there would make a huge difference.

 

[Fabius]

The podcast is a good snapshot of what the Canadian Army is focusing on for Latvia. Overall I think it’s an okay plan, not great but maybe the best we can do given current constraints.

I am uneasy though because overall I think the Canadian Army is going to become or continue to be very myopic out to the mid 2030s. I think we will see three largely separate armies emerge similar to the Afghanistan era. We will have a fairly well equipped and modern army in Latvia, a second force in the Canadian based regular army with the largely documented deficiencies in equipment and finally our current reserve army with minimal to no additional changes to equipment or structures.

It will work for the single mission in the immediate term but it won’t fix any of our actual systemic underlying weaknesses.