# Canada needs US permission to make 250 LAV III monuments



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2014)

This from Global News:


> .... Now the LAV IIIs, having fulfilled their Afghan duty, will take on a new role in Canada – as monuments.
> 
> Global News has learned the federal government is using up to 250 replicas LAVs to remember the sacrifices of the Afghan mission.
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2015)

As the LAV III get upgraded to 6.0, the old hulls and turrets can be recycled into monuments.  Hopefully the US ITAR rules don't get in the way.



> *Canadian military monument program needs U.S. approval: document
> Plan to honour Canada's Afghan mission stalled as green light sought from State Department*
> Dean Beeby
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-military-monument-program-needs-u-s-approval-document-1.3040982


----------



## ringo (26 Apr 2015)

Just what we need 250 monuments, better sell them for scrap and give the money to the vets.


----------



## Eland2 (26 Apr 2015)

I find it disturbing that a sovereign country like Canada has to get permission from the United States before it can dispose of its own military hardware. I'm also surprised to see so many LAVIII's have come back from Afghanistan and are so worn out they can't even be refurbished and rehabilitated. I appreciate the fact that armoured vehicles do take quite the pounding in combat deployments, and that many of the hulls involved likely had irreparable metal fatigue and battle damage.

250 hulls is what, just a little over one third of the LAVIII fleet that was in service at the time the Afghanistan mission started? I'm all for honouring the sacrifices made by those who fought in Afghanistan, although I wonder if the memorials could be built more cheaply and with fewer complications.


----------



## McG (26 Apr 2015)

It may be cheaper to make monuments than to demilitarize the hulls and turrets.


----------



## GnyHwy (26 Apr 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> 250 hulls is what, just a little over one third of the LAVIII fleet that was in service at the time the Afghanistan mission started? I'm all for honouring the sacrifices made by those who fought in Afghanistan, although I wonder if the memorials could be built more cheaply and with fewer complications.



We could build them out of cardboard.  Maybe stone?  Do a price check on stone replicas. 

Don't fret.  Our bean counters have the finances well under control.


----------



## q_1966 (26 Apr 2015)

I like the stone idea, maybe a mix of stone as well as steel monuments across Canada


----------



## Loachman (26 Apr 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I'm also surprised to see so many LAVIII's have come back from Afghanistan and are so worn out they can't even be refurbished and rehabilitated. I appreciate the fact that armoured vehicles do take quite the pounding in combat deployments, and that many of the hulls involved likely had irreparable metal fatigue and battle damage.



The new LAVs have a "double V" hull, which dissipates the blast from mines/IEDs much better, plus some other improvements. It is cheaper to build new hulls than to strip old hulls,  cut the bottoms off, weld new bottoms on, and re-assemble.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Apr 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It may be cheaper to make monuments than to demilitarize the hulls and turrets.


 :nod:



			
				Eland2 said:
			
		

> I find it disturbing that a sovereign country like Canada has to get permission from the United States before it can dispose of its own military hardware.


The plus side of buying American is that it's quicker & easier than building 100% Canadian.  This, however, is the down side - American _technology_ = American rules.


----------



## Eland2 (26 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :nod:
> The plus side of buying American is that it's quicker & easier than building 100% Canadian.  This, however, is the down side - American _technology_ = American rules.



True, although I've often wondered if buying American kit, beyond the convenience factor is the form of tribute we have to render unto them for defending us.
If small countries like Sweden with one third or less of our GDP can design and build their own tanks and fighter jets, there seems to be little reason why Canada couldn't do the same.


----------



## expwor (26 Apr 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> True, although I've often wondered if buying American kit, beyond the convenience factor is the form of tribute we have to render unto them for defending us.
> If small countries like Sweden with one third or less of our GDP can design and build their own tanks and fighter jets, there seems to be little reason why Canada couldn't do the same.



Although I'm not an expert, not by a long shot, nor proclaim to be I suspect that it is a way to control other countries' foreign policies.
If a country bought American made defence technology the Americans can then restrict it's use, making sure the country that bought their technology doesn't get involved in a conflict not in American interests
I certainly believe Canada could build it's own military technology.  Just look at the Avro Arrow, or even nearer history, the CanadArm
But making our own military technology is very very expensive compared with buying American technology or building under licence American technology
Just a thought

Tom


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Apr 2015)

The entire ITAR legislation is in the final process of being overhauled to significantly reduce the number of items on the list.  They are scaling back on what is considered 'controlled' to significant military items and taking off all the nuts, bolts and other random items that are part of larger assemblies.  I guess it was a push from US arms manufacturers that found it was hurting their exports, because no one wants to deal with the bureaucracy, especially when a big chunk of it is commercially available or dual use items.

Will take a while though to get the list knocked down after it's passed though; millions of part numbers need to be vetted, but makes it easier for new items when they get catalogued.  We also have a Canadian exemption in the legislation, so we actually have it easier then other countries.

Something to be said though to using common equipment with our allies; nice to be able to pull into an American depot and ask nicely for parts to fix our broken gear, and their experienced techs are also really skilled, as they specialize in specific systems.  On the navy side anyway, the USN is like a pretty awesome big brother with all the cool tools that is happy to help when you need it, so no complaints on my end.

Buying Canadian would have made a lot more sense 50 years ago; unfortunately our manufacturing industry is completely gutted, and we just don't buy the volume to make it really worth while for the most part for designing weapon systems.  Makes more sense for small companies to specialize in components; if we ever get the F-35, there is a lot of made in Canada specialized bits and pieces that could go on there.  Just my  :2c:, but I think we need to stop pretending we still have the skill sets and equipment required to build another Arrow.  It would require a massive reinvestment, and I personally think we get better bang for our buck buying foreign and making sure the through life maintenance is done in Canada as much as practicable.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2015)

We buy fighters every 40-50 years, trucks every 30, tanks every 40-50 and ships every 50+. We'd be paying triple or quadruple the prices to maintain these industries, effectively making them just workfare companies that can only survive on government dollars.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Apr 2015)

I can't speak for the other industries, but there are any number of other countries who a constantly building new ships.  They change out a small percentage of the fleet on a continual basis over time thereby keeping the industry up and running and keeping the fleet fresh with new gear and technology as they evolve.  It's stupid to do feast and famine as we tend to do.  Setting up industry again and again is expensive.


----------



## Eland2 (26 Apr 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We buy fighters every 40-50 years, trucks every 30, tanks every 40-50 and ships every 50+. We'd be paying triple or quadruple the prices to maintain these industries, effectively *making them just workfare companies that can only survive on government dollars*.



Do you think the US military-industrial complex is any different? If the Americans didn't have a need to maintain a lock on Middle Eastern oil, they could easily get by with a military that's half as big as the one they have now and keep their nukes in reserve as the big stick they can pull out to remind everyone who's boss.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Apr 2015)

ITAR was the best thing that could happen for NORINCO, basically knocked the US companies out of the market. I was told that grip screws for my Sig were ITAR controlled items, I guess AQ never heard of duct tape and not having grip screws would foil their plans. Mind you I found the same stupidity trying to export Landrover parts to the US, different duty for the same nut if it was associated with a steering part or a brake part.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Apr 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Do you think the US military-industrial complex is any different?


I think the U.S. is quite different when it comes to the number of units they would have to make for its own military, compared to the number of units Canada would have to make for its military.  Bigger #'s = economies of scale = spreading the cost of building over more units


----------



## cupper (27 Apr 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ITAR was the best thing that could happen for NORINCO, basically knocked the US companies out of the market. I was told that grip screws for my Sig were ITAR controlled items, I guess AQ never heard of duct tape and not having grip screws would foil their plans. Mind you I found the same stupidity trying to export Landrover parts to the US, different duty for the same nut if it was associated with a steering part or a brake part.



Some of the restrictions under ITAR are based on laws or regulations for importing into the country in question, and not taking them out of the US. Some gun parts are restricted for importation into Canada because of this, which is asinine. I brought a set of backup sights back home for a friend, which were listed under the ITAR regs. The packaging even had the warning and listed the relevant US regulations. But the kicker was that the same thing could be purchased in Canada, albeit at a much higher price.


----------



## Mike5 (28 Apr 2015)

Interesting question posed in the thread above -- how do countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, with smaller GDP then Canada, manage to sustain a domestic military equipment industry?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Apr 2015)

Mike5 said:
			
		

> Interesting question posed in the thread above -- how do countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, with smaller GDP then Canada, manage to sustain a domestic military equipment industry?



Fear.

Surprise.

Ruthless efficiency.

A fanatical devotion to the Pope.


----------



## Loachman (28 Apr 2015)

They buy a lot of stuff too - whole vehicles and aircraft, parts, materials.

The US buys stuff from us, as well. Even they do not make everything themselves.


----------



## Robert0288 (28 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fear.
> 
> Surprise.
> 
> ...



And nice red uniforms...  We got those already.


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fear.
> 
> Surprise.
> 
> ...



So… What your saying is that we should be expecting the Spanish Inquisition? But no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> So… What your saying is that we should be expecting the Spanish Inquisition? But no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.



I'm OK with it, IF they bring the comfy chair to torture me with.   :nod:


----------



## geo (7 May 2015)

With respect to adding 250 military monuments.... I would to wonder....  do we need another 250? That someone will have to service in perpetuity?
Each town and city has it's cenotaph & monument... Spend the money on the vets & programs to educate our school kids.


----------



## Loachman (7 May 2015)

"Servicing"? A coat of paint every ten years? That would come out of the municipal budget, not DVA. There is no connection between the two.

Monuments _*are*_ part of education. Monuments connect people to their histories. Municipalities also maintain museums for that purpose, which cost more in salaries, utilities, and building maintenance than a coat of paint every ten years. Monuments are outdoor museum exhibits that tend to be seen by more people.


----------



## Pampers (7 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fear.
> 
> Surprise.
> 
> ...



Oh, you got me with a mouthfull of coffee.  Spat it everywhere.

Well played.


----------



## geo (8 May 2015)

I might have oversimplified things a little bit but, considering that some citzens have to deal with postponed retirement, reduced government health services, delays in treatment, and the like, I think placing the 250 LAVIIIs in semi private historical collections is a better / wiser use of resources.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 May 2015)

What I don't understand is why, Canada, needs permission from the USA to create hollowed out monuments of the LAVIII? The LAV-III was designed and manufactured right here in our own backyard by the Canadian Division of General Dynamics Land Systems. Bunch of Bologna if you ask me.

For people wanting to know more about the LAV Monument project and the funding as well as long-term upkeep; here's the website:

http://lavmonument.ca/en/index.html


----------



## geo (8 May 2015)

Although the LAV / mowag family of vehicles was developed in a number of countries, esp Switzerland & Canada, some of the ideas & components that made it into the final production model, come from the USA (turrets & RWS). Also, general dynamics, an american firm, is the new owner of GM diesel.
If we want to continue having access to US arms & equipment, then we must comply & ask for their blessing...


----------



## Robert0288 (8 May 2015)

The metal itself might be ITAR.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jun 2015)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> The metal itself might be ITAR.



Seems some sort of decision has been made:



> Dear Friends,
> 
> You and your guests are warmly invited to join the ‪#‎MakeFrederictonFirst‬ team and our Minister of Veteran's Affairs, The Honourable Erin O'Toole CD, for the dedication of the site for the Memorial LAV at the Oromocto Cenotaph at 9AM Friday 19 June 2015.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seems some sort of decision has been made:


And the government is making a similar announcement in Toronto this morning ....


> The Honourable Erin O’Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, with Canada Company, will deliver remarks at the Canadian Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV III) Monument Program announcement.
> 
> The Canadian Light Armoured Vehicle Program will recycle and repurpose up to 250 LAV IIIs used by Canadian troops in Afghanistan that can no longer be used in combat into monuments across the country. The 250 LAV IIIs will be provided to qualifying communities.
> 
> ...


----------

