Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[FJAG]

WRT our LAVs - Upgrade the M242 25mm to the 30x 173mm Mk44 Bushmaster II? Will it fit or does it need a whole new turret?

IMHO, a new turret based on a Moog RIwP system that allows fleetwide tailored and retailorable solutions would be highly desirable. Not only would it provide a standardized turret system to solve a variety of needs, but it would also provide more internal space for additional ammunition or personnel in the vehicle. An added bonus would be that the system is vehicle agnostic and could be used on more vehicles than the LAV - Maybe finally a use for TLAVs.

With the recent ACSV purchase the long-term retention of the LAV fleet is a given. The next stage should be to upgrade the fleet to meet a wider capability than it has such as SHORAD and ATGM.

And to make @KevinB happy, to add a tracked IFV capability to the army which could also be fitted with the same RIwP systems - maybe rift off the Bradley chassis.

 

[suffolkowner]

IMHO, a new turret based on a Moog RIwP system that allows fleetwide tailored and retailorable solutions would be highly desirable. Not only would it provide a standardized turret system to solve a variety of needs, but it would also provide more internal space for additional ammunition or personnel in the vehicle. An added bonus would be that the system is vehicle agnostic and could be used on more vehicles than the LAV - Maybe finally a use for TLAVs.

With the recent ACSV purchase the long-term retention of the LAV fleet is a given. The next stage should be to upgrade the fleet to meet a wider capability than it has such as SHORAD and ATGM.

And to make @KevinB happy, to add a tracked IFV capability to the army which could also be fitted with the same RIwP systems - maybe rift off the Bradley chassis.

London will need something to do after ACSV

 

[FJAG]

London will need something to do after ACSV

Agreed. And switching the fleet to RIwP turrets would be useful and relatively inexpensive. I'd also like to start them on something tracked albeit I'm not fond of their tracked version of the LAV. OTOH Ajax/Ares seems to be maturing (the Brits seem to finally be happy with it in the field) and if you get rid of its strange turret and replace it with the RIwP ... maybe that would be the solution. Four battalions (for two armoured brigades) should do as a starter.

 

[suffolkowner]

Agreed. And switching the fleet to RIwP turrets would be useful and relatively inexpensive. I'd also like to start them on something tracked albeit I'm not fond of their tracked version of the LAV. OTOH Ajax/Ares seems to be maturing (the Brits seem to finally be happy with it in the field) and if you get rid of its strange turret and replace it with the RIwP ... maybe that would be the solution. Four battalions (for two armoured brigades) should do as a starter.

they can switch the turrets and then get working on the LAV 800 a hybrid drive common hull powertrain that can be wheeled and tracked

 

[FJAG]

they can switch the turrets and then get working on the LAV 800 a hybrid drive common hull powertrain that can be wheeled and tracked

Yeah. I haven't been able to put my finger on it because of the scarcity of information on it, but I don't think a common hull to accommodate tracked or wheeled configuration is as common as they would have you believe. There is a world of a difference in the hull configuration, suspension and the drive train/final drive even if a common engine can be used.

I know the LAV 6.0 has become a pig in weight, but the real reason behind a tracked IFV and something like the LAV6.0 is supposed to be its armoured protection to make the tracked IFV a more combat capable machine. A tracked system and IFV requirements means more weight which means bigger engine and a bunch of knock on effects.

Personally I'd prefer to see a purpose built tracked IFV like Ajax/Ares or Puma and similar systems.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yeah. I haven't been able to put my finger on it because of the scarcity of information on it, but I don't think a common hull to accommodate tracked or wheeled configuration is as common as they would have you believe. There is a world of a difference in the hull configuration, suspension and the drive train/final drive even if a common engine can be used.

I know the LAV 6.0 has become a pig in weight, but the real reason behind a tracked IFV and something like the LAV6.0 is supposed to be its armoured protection to make the tracked IFV a more combat capable machine. A tracked system and IFV requirements means more weight which means bigger engine and a bunch of knock on effects.

Personally I'd prefer to see a purpose built tracked IFV like Ajax/Ares or Puma and similar systems.

I remain intrigued by the possibilities. It might not make sense for larger militaries with large platform numbers but for smaller ones with smaller appetites or budgets?
How much of the design constraints could be alleviated by hybrid drive? I remain surprised at the lack of uptake.
Is it armour that the LAV 6 and 700 are lacking or mobility?
In my industrial applications I cant say that my tracked machines were more heavily powered than my wheeled ones , if anything the reverse. I wonder if this is a carryover from previous lighter wheeled variants

I would love to see a breakdown of the powertrain layout for the wheeled/tracked Stryker/Boxer

 

[FJAG]

In my industrial applications I cant say that my tracked machines were more heavily powered than my wheeled ones , if anything the reverse. I wonder if this is a carryover from previous lighter wheeled variants

It's that a tracked assembly weighs more than a wheeled assembly for the same sized vehicle and that the amount of armour needed for an IFV application is thicker and heavier than one for a medium application APC. That additional weight leads to the need for a heavier-duty engine.

How much of the design constraints could be alleviated by hybrid drive? I remain surprised at the lack of uptake.

I'm generally a fan of the concept of hybrid drives in civilian applications (I'm against pure EVs). But I do have reservations in a military environment. I recognize its advantages but I think these don't compensate for a heavy, complex and volatile battery brings to a vehicle that's liable to be engaged in combat and generally subject to rough handling. Watching T72s brew up and toss their turrets because someone thought it was a great idea to store powder bags and high explosives inside in an autoloader in the hull makes me wonder how much minor battle damage to a hybrid will result in a catastrophic stored energy release that turns a repairable/recoverable veh casualty into a total write-off.

We've already gone from vehicles that a driver with a tool bag could fix to ones that need a service centre with high priced electronic diagnostic systems. We need to simplify kit wherever possible.

 

[suffolkowner]

It's that a tracked assembly weighs more than a wheeled assembly for the same sized vehicle and that the amount of armour needed for an IFV application is thicker and heavier than one for a medium application APC. That additional weight leads to the need for a heavier-duty engine.


I'm generally a fan of the concept of hybrid drives in civilian applications (I'm against pure EVs). But I do have reservations in a military environment. I recognize its advantages but I think these don't compensate for a heavy, complex and volatile battery brings to a vehicle that's liable to be engaged in combat and generally subject to rough handling. Watching T72s brew up and toss their turrets because someone thought it was a great idea to store powder bags and high explosives inside in an autoloader in the hull makes me wonder how much minor battle damage to a hybrid will result in a catastrophic stored energy release that turns a repairable/recoverable veh casualty into a total write-off.

We've already gone from vehicles that a driver with a tool bag could fix to ones that need a service centre with high priced electronic diagnostic systems. We need to simplify kit wherever possible.

I guess i wasnt thinking hybrid in that sense just electric drive.

 

[FJAG]

I guess i wasnt thinking hybrid in that sense just electric drive.

Like a direct-power diesel electric or like a battery-storage petrol electric?

I've always liked the former but have doubts about anything that involves large storage batteries. I think pure EVs or ones designed for significant pure electric operation are a very good option for recce motorcycles and very light weight recce vehicles but an unnecessary complication for anything heavier.

 

[suffolkowner]

Like a direct-power diesel electric or like a battery-storage petrol electric?

I've always liked the former but have doubts about anything that involves large storage batteries. I think pure EVs or ones designed for significant pure electric operation are a very good option for recce motorcycles and very light weight recce vehicles but an unnecessary complication for anything heavier.

The first. It is proven technology for ages and should free up lots of design considerations. One might need something for "quiet" mode batteries or an APU

best I could find so far on the boxer

Boxer Armoured Vehicle — Details and Variants - Think Defence

The ARTEC Boxer is a wheeled or tracked armoured vehicle, this article describes its capabilities, modules and variants

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

 

[MilEME09]

To stick with GD, if we want tracked, let's Frankenstein this. Give me the M10 Booker chassis, then let's stick the LAV MSHORAD turret into it, or the LAV 6 Recce suite.

 

[FJAG]

To stick with GD, if we want tracked, let's Frankenstein this. Give me the M10 Booker chassis, then let's stick the LAV MSHORAD turret into it, or the LAV 6 Recce suite.

The M10, like the AJAX, are derivatives from the GD ASCOD series. I'm not sure how many degrees of separation there are between these cousins, but it shows that GD has some expertise in the field of tracked vehicles at this class level.

Personally I think we need to stay with and foster the growth of GD as a permanent supplier of CA kit because it has the only domestic plant capable of manufacturing at the scale we need.

IMHO, we need two fleets, a heavy tracked armoured fleet, and a medium wheeled fleet (and yes, yes, I know, the LAV 6.0 is bordering on heavy). I think that our medium wheeled fleet, assuming its all, on the road again, is large enough at roughly two mech brigades. I think we need an equal number of tracked IFVs and their support vehicles to equip three armour brigades (one prepositioned in Latvia and two at home for training and sustainment). It's the building of that fleet that could keep GD here occupied for a decade easily.

 

[suffolkowner]

The M10, like the AJAX, are derivatives from the GD ASCOD series. I'm not sure how many degrees of separation there are between these cousins, but it shows that GD has some expertise in the field of tracked vehicles at this class level.

Personally I think we need to stay with and foster the growth of GD as a permanent supplier of CA kit because it has the only domestic plant capable of manufacturing at the scale we need.

IMHO, we need two fleets, a heavy tracked armoured fleet, and a medium wheeled fleet (and yes, yes, I know, the LAV 6.0 is bordering on heavy). I think that our medium wheeled fleet, assuming its all, on the road again, is large enough at roughly two mech brigades. I think we need an equal number of tracked IFVs and their support vehicles to equip three armour brigades (one prepositioned in Latvia and two at home for training and sustainment). It's the building of that fleet that could keep GD here occupied for a decade easily.

I question whether we would ever commit to such a plan at any scale. Although we may need to support GDLS London more on our own in the future and that may drive purchase decisions. Will a new government make up with the Saudis?

The ASCOD/AJAX/BOOKER seem to be about 10 tonnes heavier than the LAV series although the Boxer is very plump. And while our LAV 6 is 450hp the 700/Piranha/Boxer are 711/600/720 and the ASCOD/AJAX/BOOKER are 720/800/1000

 

[Maxman1]

Personally I'd prefer to see a purpose built tracked IFV like Ajax/Ares or Puma and similar systems.

Or better yet, a  proven tracked system like the Bradley or CV90.

 

[FJAG]

Or better yet, a  proven tracked system like the Bradley or CV90.

Neither of which is GD product. The aim is to get a product that will keep our one main ground systems manufacturer online for decades to come. All systems have a Day One before they are "proven."

 

[Maxman1]

Neither of which is GD product. The aim is to get a product that will keep our one main ground systems manufacturer online for decades to come. All systems have a Day One before they are "proven."

The M10 Booker is a GD product. If we really wanted, we could try to get that or a variant built in London.

As well, there's the return of investment in sinking R&D to design an all new IFV versus buying one that already exists, especially for a niche order that would likely.only be used by us.

 

[FJAG]

The M10 Booker is a GD product. If we really wanted, we could try to get that or a variant built in London.

Not to pooh, pooh the M10, but it's one of the last things I'd buy well after a long list of other capabilities are satisfied.

 

[quadrapiper]

IMHO, we need two fleets, a heavy tracked armoured fleet, and a medium wheeled fleet (and yes, yes, I know, the LAV 6.0 is bordering on heavy).

Is the "two fleet" concept only inclusive of armoured (to one degree or another) vehicles?

Thinking of the various ATV- and Jeep/pickup-like, lightweight recce, etc. vehicles, and all things Arctic.

 

[Dana381]

It's that a tracked assembly weighs more than a wheeled assembly for the same sized vehicle and that the amount of armour needed for an IFV application is thicker and heavier than one for a medium application APC. That additional weight leads to the need for a heavier-duty engine.

I question that? A wheeled assembly on say an 8x8 needs four differentials, 8 CV axles and more complicated suspension/steering. It also needs driveshafts between the axles. The whole underside of the vehicle ends up being taken up by the driveline. This in turn requires the vehicle to be larger for the same internal volume.

Tracks are heavy if made of steel which most military vehicles are. However a tracked vehicle needs only one drive axle and one differential As they drive from one end only. The differential is usually attached to the transmission so the power pack is quite a compact unit. the bogey suspension is simple and realativly light. This allows much of the belly of the vehicle to be used for other things like driver compartment or ammo storage. Allowing the vehicle to have a lower profile.

I think heavier vehicles use tracks for lower ground pressure and we think backwards thinking the tracks make the vehicle heavier.

So in short if you were to design a vehicle with a specified internal volume and a specified armour thickness in two versions, one tracked and one wheeled I believe the tracked version would be smaller and thus lighter.

I am not an engineer so I could very well be wrong.

 

[suffolkowner]

I question that? A wheeled assembly on say an 8x8 needs four differentials, 8 CV axles and more complicated suspension/steering. It also needs driveshafts between the axles. The whole underside of the vehicle ends up being taken up by the driveline. This in turn requires the vehicle to be larger for the same internal volume.

Tracks are heavy if made of steel which most military vehicles are. However a tracked vehicle needs only one drive axle and one differential As they drive from one end only. The differential is usually attached to the transmission so the power pack is quite a compact unit. the bogey suspension is simple and realativly light. This allows much of the belly of the vehicle to be used for other things like driver compartment or ammo storage. Allowing the vehicle to have a lower profile.

I think heavier vehicles use tracks for lower ground pressure and we think backwards thinking the tracks make the vehicle heavier.

So in short if you were to design a vehicle with a specified internal volume and a specified armour thickness in two versions, one tracked and one wheeled I believe the tracked version would be smaller and thus lighter.

I am not an engineer so I could very well be wrong.

I think theres a lot of truth to this too and jives with my equipment experience where the tracked vehicles werent necessarily heavier IMO. Usage drove wheeled vs tracks