Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Brad Sallows]

Admin coy types can do it, though?

 

[FJAG]

Quick and probably obvious question in relation to Force 2025. I've come across these two military symbols in Force 2025 documentation:



To me the one on the left is motorized recce and the one on the right is motorized infantry. I've seen the former in Force 2025 in relation to the recce platoon in a mech battalion and the other in relation to Force Protection organizations.

The point though is that we have typically not used the "motorized" modifier when dealing with e.g light battalions and recce elements whether motorized or not. Is there a reason why these are showing up now? Do they have some hidden meaning that only Freemason's know about?

 

[McG]

I suspect it emphasizes that the represented entity has integral highway capable vehicles and that it is not light. But …

The Force 2025 work seems to be full of misleading symbols (tracked SP mortars) and symbols that NATO discontinued as far back as the 1990s. I would not put too much weight into the nuanced doctrinal meaning of any icon in the 2025 org charts.

 

[Kirkhill]

That would work....

Right up until the point where you need to walk from A to B with all your stuff and, by the time you get to B, you only have Infantry types ...

Kinda like how 29 RA aren't real Commandos and 7 RHA aren't real Paras?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Kinda like how 29 RA aren't real Commandos and 7 RHA aren't real Paras?

Until they beat everyone at boxing, rugby and any one of a dozen other sports, yes

 

[Fabius]

Given we haven't defined what exact tasks we expect the FP things to do I suspect the only real rational behind the motorized symbol is that we know they won't be based in LAVs.

 

[KevinB]

Given we haven't defined what exact tasks we expect the FP things to do I suspect the only real rational behind the motorized symbol is that we know they won't be based in LAVs.

Well I for one wouldn't bet against LAV's, GDLS needs to keep the line running and all that

 

[Kirkhill]

If LAVs then Bison aka LAV-L - an amphibious, air-portable Deuce and a Half (payload of 5248 lbs) that is lightly armoured - Just don't confuse it with an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

 

[KevinB]

If LAVs then Bison aka LAV-L - an amphibious, air-portable Deuce and a Half (payload of 5248 lbs) that is lightly armoured - Just don't confuse it with an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

View attachment 68764View attachment 68766

To me Amphibious should not require 30min plus of prep work...

 

[Kirkhill]

To me Amphibious should not require 30min plus of prep work...

Fair enough. Make it better. Spend less money on making the thing heavier and more on making it more broadly utilitarian. An 8x8 Jeep (GP-General Purpose).

 

[KevinB]

Fair enough. Make it better. Spend less money on making the thing heavier and more on making it more broadly utilitarian. An 8x8 Jeep (GP-General Purpose).

Armored Vehicles never get lighter...
Entities are not willing to accept the risk.

You'd need to start with a new platform - and have a certain level of armor in some places (or soft skin). I think however that the ship has said for soft skin Military vehicles outside of special purpose and low vis items for SOF.

 

[Kirkhill]

An amphibious Deuce and a Half.

And how much armour plate is there on this?



It is a matter of prioritizing.

 

[KevinB]

Why Amphibious?
Hostile crossings are an absolute massacre in something slow like a LAV/AARV - why people have Engineers and AVLB’s or Modular Bridging.

Domestically a tracked amphibious system will do better in Canadian terrain - as wheeled systems hate bogs - unless they are exceptionally light.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why Amphibious?
Hostile crossings are an absolute massacre in something slow like a LAV/AARV - why people have Engineers and AVLB’s or Modular Bridging.

Domestically a tracked amphibious system will do better in Canadian terrain - as wheeled systems hate bogs - unless they are exceptionally light.

Hostile crossing is not on the agenda.

I am suggesting that if we are stuck with the GDLS catalogue then I would be getting the militia something that moves stuff by road as quickly as possible (wheeled - which GDLS makes). Something which can go at least as far off the highway as any civilian vehicle. Something which can protect the contents from sun, wind, rain, sleet, snow and the occasional hunter's bullet and shot gun blast. And something which doesn't need Engineer Squadron to cross a puddle when it runs out of dry land.

Would I prefer a Bv? Yup.

But GDLS doesn't make a Bv. Although they do make a nice knock off from Singapore.


PS - and if the Army does decided to steal them again and use them overseas they will offer a bit more protection than an unarmoured Navistar or a Mack.

 

[KevinB]

I don’t think the CAF needs more LAV’s.
Maybe the old DDGM turned GDLS plant needs to expand its portfolio.

GDLS makes a bunch of items the CAF could actually use more effectively than more LAV’s.

I’m sure if they ran an AJAX line, the CaF would have at least 3 Heavy Brigades worth in short order.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don’t think the CAF needs more LAV’s.
Maybe the old DDGM turned GDLS plant needs to expand its portfolio.

GDLS makes a bunch of items the CAF could actually use more effectively than more LAV’s.

I’m sure if they ran an AJAX line, the CaF would have at least 3 Heavy Brigades worth in short order.

This AJAX?

Shaken and stirred: British Army’s Ajax troubles cast a long shadow

General Dynamics’ land systems operation in Spain has already built half of the hulls for the British Army’s Ajax armored cavalry program, even as the future of the vehicle is threatened by noise and vibration problems.

www.defensenews.com

 

[KevinB]

I’d argue teething pains. Remember the ruckus about the Bradley…

 

[Kirkhill]

I’d argue teething pains. Remember the ruckus about the Bradley…

I'd rather wait until their not pouring the Brits out the back.

Have you got anything in a nice CV90 you can offer?

 

[KevinB]

I'd rather wait until their not pouring the Brits out the back.

Have you got anything in a nice CV90 you can offer?

Well, if you where allowed to look at another dealership across the street, it’s right next to the Blackhawks and Apaches…

 

[Pewpews521]

speaking of resources, i think the CAF is living in a pipe dream right now for wanting two RFL2 rifle coy's coming out of 38,39,and 41 CBG to support ops. unless there is some major changes going on over the next few years getting two platoons out of the reserves will be a hard battle, let alone two

Australian M113 APC drivers and crew commanders during Vietnam used to be armoured corps. I don't think they do anymore.

They don’t do that anymore, except in the reserves where the armoured run the Bushmaster PMVs in the reinforcing battle group