Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,946
- Points
- 1,160
Fear gains consent to do unspeakable things.
rmc_wannabe
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 9,853
- Points
- 1,310
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,400
- Points
- 1,040
Categorization of formations is independent of what the owners choose to call them.
If it's on softskin wheels, it's "motorized".
If it's under armour - tracked or wheeled - in the F ech, it's at least "mechanized".
With increasing numbers of tanks, it's "mixed/combined" leading to "armoured".
Decades of wargame nerds can't be wrong.
If it's on softskin wheels, it's "motorized".
If it's under armour - tracked or wheeled - in the F ech, it's at least "mechanized".
With increasing numbers of tanks, it's "mixed/combined" leading to "armoured".
Decades of wargame nerds can't be wrong.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,860
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 17,766
- Points
- 1,160
In a wartime setting so do coastal artillery and AD units.
Let's simply say that a HIMARS launcher, its rocket and crew is a lot lower capital cost than an F35, and its hourly operating expense a tiny fraction of an F35s. Even six distributed launchers would cost a lot less.
Your arguments sound like the noise coming out of the air forces at the turn of the century about how artillery is obsolete because precision fast-air air delivered munitions will solve all problems - how's that working out in Ukraine?
I think its pure arrogance to dismiss a part of a layered, interlocking defence system so summarily. Especially when the services all have troubles keeping 50% of their respective fleets serviceable and ready. If nothing else, having shore-based antiship and air defence resources - fully integrated into a regional joint operations centre - helps reduce the need to cover certain static coastal areas with ships and engage more contacts simultaneously. It leaves much cheaper and persistent resources to cover specific choke points or vulnerable infrastructure while ships and air resources are left to make much more use of their range and agility.
I like the idea of Rocket Artillery/ Air Defence set up especially along the three Coast lines we have.In a wartime setting so do coastal artillery and AD units.
Let's simply say that a HIMARS launcher, its rocket and crew is a lot lower capital cost than an F35, and its hourly operating expense a tiny fraction of an F35s. Even six distributed launchers would cost a lot less.
Your arguments sound like the noise coming out of the air forces at the turn of the century about how artillery is obsolete because precision fast-air air delivered munitions will solve all problems - how's that working out in Ukraine?
I think its pure arrogance to dismiss a part of a layered, interlocking defence system so summarily. Especially when the services all have troubles keeping 50% of their respective fleets serviceable and ready. If nothing else, having shore-based antiship and air defence resources - fully integrated into a regional joint operations centre - helps reduce the need to cover certain static coastal areas with ships and engage more contacts simultaneously. It leaves much cheaper and persistent resources to cover specific choke points or vulnerable infrastructure while ships and air resources are left to make much more use of their range and agility.
I would like to see us gain a proper Radar and air defence set up along All four side of Canada with a system in place to deal with any one off threats that may be encountered along with a a bit of a fighting chance if the mass launch of missiles comes inbound.
