Topic: CF Transformation & the Operational Commands (Merged)

[Infanteer]

Infanteer, we are too small (and too fragmented) to have joint - force generation structures within the CF.

Are you saying we need MORE officers?    GO!!! will be knocking on the door pretty quickly....

It's not Prairie, it West.

My bad.  Western Command makes more sense.

LFAA still must exist unless you want to saddle MARLANT with militia force generation responsibility.

Well, neither should have responsiblity; it should be the unified regional command responsible for generating joint forces in its area.  FWIW, Reserve issues seem to be a mess no matter who has control of it.

I don't think you fully understand the force generation puzzle that exists within the army, navy and airforce.

Well, it definately is a puzzle - that's for sure....

Why have component Command under Canada Com and CEFCOM?  Isn't that an additional level of HQ that is not required?

That would be an additional level of HQ that would be required.  I would assume that these service based components would provide unique advice and background to a unified command that employs CF forces.  No point having CEFCOM commanded by a bunch of Air Force guys and undertaking a Naval Task Force mission with which they have no experience.  My thinking is that Component Command for both CEFCOM and CANADACOM wouldn't neccesarily be large and they could form the basis for deployed TF headquarters (we are still calling the NCE, right?).  CEFCOM/CANADACOM would have small standing NCE's that could be plugged into with force generated assets when situations arise.

I still maintain that having competing territorial/functional and service based organizations is inefficent at best.

[Gunner]

Are you saying we need MORE officers?    GO!!! will be knocking on the door pretty quickly....

I'll give GO!!! a heart attack yet. 

Well, neither should have responsiblity; it should be the unified regional command responsible for generating joint forces in its area.  FWIW, Reserve issues seem to be a mess no matter who has control of it.

I think you are narrowly defining force generation as the provision of force packages for employment.  This is not the broad definition of force generation.

That would be an additional level of HQ that would be required.  I would assume that these service based components would provide unique advice and background to a unified command that employs CF forces.  No point having CEFCOM commanded by a bunch of Air Force guys and undertaking a Naval Task Force mission with which they have no experience.  My thinking is that Component Command for both CEFCOM and CANADACOM wouldn't neccesarily be large and they could form the basis for deployed TF headquarters (we are still calling the NCE, right?).  CEFCOM/CANADACOM would have small standing NCE's that could be plugged into with force generated assets when situations arise.I still maintain that having competing territorial/functional and service based organizations is inefficent at best.

The three ECS are responsible for commanding the force generation aspects of the army, navy and airforce for employment by CEFCOM, CANADA COM, SOFCOM, etc and providing advice to the CDS.  Comd CEFCOM (engr army guy) will have command of a Naval Task Force while it operates in the Persian Gulf.  Remember that the Naval Task Force or Army Task Force, or Air Task Force, or Task Force Maple Leaf (Joint) will be under OPCON of some strategic or operational force in theatre.  When you deployed with 1 PPCLI to Bosnia, you were under OPCOM to Comd TFBH and OPCON to Comd MND SW.  CEFCOM would still have a requirement for an NCE deployed with the deployed assets. In the immortal words of the intelligentsia, you can't suck and blow at the same time.  NDHQ has learnt this error with the DCDS organization and the CDS is trying to rectify it with  the new Commands. 

[MCG]

we are too small (and too fragmented) to have joint - force generation structures within the CF.

Could we atleast plug the helicopters into the enviroments for which they provide tactical support (land & sea)?

I also wonder: if we cannot have structures, can we have one FORGENCOM (which would include component staffs but no component commands)?

[Gunner]

MCG,

I believe this is the way the CDS is pushing us toward this (or something of similar nature).  Even though we are the "CF", I believe that the army, navy and air force have maintained too much independence and need to be brought into the CF fold.   Unification was done to reduce costs and overlapping resources however it did not go far enough in terms of forcing the army, navy and airforce working together in a joint atmosphere.  Decisions were not always made with the good of the CF in mind by each of the ECS's.  We are such a small military and our ability to interoperate is minimal.  The army purchases radio's that can't talk to the air force, the air force spends huge amounts of money on CF18s without being capable of supporting land forces, and the navy has traditionally been forcused on ASW and has limited ability to support the army when it needs to go somewhere.  Too many rice bowls that need to be over turned and refocussed on interoperability.  This is a good thing for the army who has shouldered the majority of international deployments and it is good for the CF.

My 2 cents.

[Good2Golf]

Could we atleast plug the helicopters into the enviroments for which they provide tactical support (land & sea)?

I also wonder: if we cannot have structures, can we have one FORGENCOM (which would include component staffs but no component commands)?

MCG, as of 1 Feb 06, 427 SOAS will be OPCOM to CANSOFCOM...that's a huge change to the SOA status quo!  That's as plugged in as it will ever get.

Cheers,
Duey