FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,307
- Points
- 1,160
I've just received a copy of the above and have now read the thing in detail and I'm actually quite pleased with many "fine print" issues raised within it.
It appears that the target level for readiness and the MRP are changing so that a brigade will be the level to train towards (including as a brigade in an allied division) and a brigade will be held in a ready state for contingencies for a year rather than immediately used for deployments. It is only after the "ready" year has completed that elements of the brigade will do MTST and deploy. If I'm reading that right, then that's big. In addition, the paper suggests that symmetric force structure vis a vis brigades is not necessarily going to continue. There is an emphasis on the medium force but with a much stronger emphasis on light and heavy enhancements than in prior years. Couple that with commitments to tank life extension, long range precision fires, anti-tank systems, GBAD, and light force equipment enhancements and once again you are talking a much more capable force at either end of the spectrum assuming those are achievable goals (there are lots of cautions about the realities of finances).
There are some positive aspects to enhancement of the ARes as well albeit my big bugbear - a force equipped, organized and trained for expansion rather than mere augmentation - isn't there. Baby steps.
Divestment is in there and I don't like it too much. I think we could make better use of such equipment as hand-me-downs/ reserve-in-storage status but at least the divestment seems to be tied to a cycle that mandates new replacement equipment as a prerequisite. We'll see how that works out. The divestment at least is tied to "old equipment" rather than "old capabilities".
I think this could go further especially, as per the ARes, but all-in-all it seems to signal an interesting direction that builds capabilities more in line with a complex environment that has peer conflict included in it. Still far too many buzzwords for my liking.
Interested in other folks comments about this document
It appears that the target level for readiness and the MRP are changing so that a brigade will be the level to train towards (including as a brigade in an allied division) and a brigade will be held in a ready state for contingencies for a year rather than immediately used for deployments. It is only after the "ready" year has completed that elements of the brigade will do MTST and deploy. If I'm reading that right, then that's big. In addition, the paper suggests that symmetric force structure vis a vis brigades is not necessarily going to continue. There is an emphasis on the medium force but with a much stronger emphasis on light and heavy enhancements than in prior years. Couple that with commitments to tank life extension, long range precision fires, anti-tank systems, GBAD, and light force equipment enhancements and once again you are talking a much more capable force at either end of the spectrum assuming those are achievable goals (there are lots of cautions about the realities of finances).
There are some positive aspects to enhancement of the ARes as well albeit my big bugbear - a force equipped, organized and trained for expansion rather than mere augmentation - isn't there. Baby steps.
Divestment is in there and I don't like it too much. I think we could make better use of such equipment as hand-me-downs/ reserve-in-storage status but at least the divestment seems to be tied to a cycle that mandates new replacement equipment as a prerequisite. We'll see how that works out. The divestment at least is tied to "old equipment" rather than "old capabilities".
I think this could go further especially, as per the ARes, but all-in-all it seems to signal an interesting direction that builds capabilities more in line with a complex environment that has peer conflict included in it. Still far too many buzzwords for my liking.
Interested in other folks comments about this document