Taken as read. We have a licence to produce some 84mm rounds
www.gdotscanada.com
If we can't get the AT4 licence, either from Saab or you (another Swedish American venture, just like that Boeing Saab trainer) then we will have to buy more M4 CG84s.
See! Occasionally it happens.
You first need pull out of the Convention - that is named for wait - oh yes the capital city...
Agreed. Again.
Fortunately that word "mines" is one that lawyers love to argue over.
Apparently a toe-popper is a mine but an anti-tank mine isn't. Nor is a Claymore. Nor an off-route mine - which could be a LAM parked beside an enemy highway. Lots of wiggle room to exploit.
One thing our politicians share with the Chinese. They will never admit error and repeal a law. On the other hand they will amend it to mean the exact opposite.
We're ahead.
Again licensing issues need to be worked out.
Dollars and cents and political advantage. Negotiable I would think.
GM has their LUVW which is a "real" Milverado - unlike the earlier CA ones.
Happy enough to take it. Cheap, usable and keeps Canadians employed. Some might even be inclined to volunteer to drive them for the VP Guard Corps.
More agreement!
I put them on the same footing as the GM vehicle A readily available 80 percenter.
Keep both sides happy.
Have GM build ISVs and militarized Pickups.
Have Ford and Roshel build militarized Pickups and Senator style PMVs.
And let all of them continue to play with their designs the same way that Colt plays with theirs.
I would like to see a BAE plant for both CV-90 and BvS-10's
Happy with that too.
I intentionally left Big Army stuff off my wish list because that has enough advocates.
I am advocating for the kit that could reduce risk at home at least cost.
How are you coming along with that Californian Drone Attack warning?
The BvS-10 fits my bill as an oversnow vehicle. I would like to see Foremost be reissued the contract for 800 or so they were promised back in the 80s.
I too would like to see the CV90 built here but, again, that is Big Army expeditionary stuff.
Not sure that is the best option for a GPMG these days.
Happy to take advice.
Cheap, easily produced in large quantities in an existing calibre that a citizen can learn to use quickly.
Yuck - GAU-19 all the way for a .50 (way more reliable than the M3/GAU-21 - and longer barrel life)
Fine. Sold.
Not sold on the M230LF, I'd be more interested in the Mk44 Bushmaster II for LAV swapping, or looking at a split of M61 Vulcan, and 35mm RM/Oerlikon
OK with the Mk44 and the Oerlikons for the Big Army. More than happy. Pairing those with NASAMS seems like a good GBAD basis for the Army, and one that they could bring to the domestic theater if necessary.
My fascination with the M230 stems from its history with the Apache and its rapidly developing popularity as a modern trench-sweeper. Simple to use, many rounds for many applications, relatively light so applicable to light vehicles, UGVs and ground installations and the US is producing lots of them. The 1500 to 2000 m range makes them useful in the close defence role and if the ill-inclined get their hands on them then they can't do too much damage beyond that range and can be easily out-ranged by what the professionals have in stock.
Likewise
You will need a lot of other enablers for the cell phones too -- as well as a slew more radios, and their enablers.
I would leave that to
@PuckChaser and others to guide.
Seen. But let's not over complicate things. Secure comms may not be as necessary as clear comms
At 3.5% none. While equipping a ground force isn't exactly cheap (at least one with modern equipment) it is pennies on the dollar compared to Air Force and Navy stuff).
And thus my advocacy for this spending in the absence of demonstrable support from the serving side.
We have spent so long scrabbling for pennies we seem to have lost sight of how to effectively prioritize in the face of inter-service competition.
www.ctvnews.ca
