Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft (Saab Globaleye)

[ytz]

Yes, and the issue is as we have seen repeated again and again and again is that the CA will buy 1/2 of what is needed, the line closes, and then the fleet rusts out.
One may also look at the CA's current Logistics truck program and wonder who on earth spec'd it.

The new DIS and the new procurement authority (DIA) are meant to address exactly this. Expect to see industrial base management like you have in the US. This is honestly partly why AEWC and CSEAD are both going to Global based platforms. It's not just about Canadian jobs directly. It's also assurance to industry that they will get a pipeline of work. This is, after all, exactly what the Americans and Europeans do.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't see this.

Sure. Can't make HIMARS in Canada. But we can make logistics trucks here. We can keep buying LAVs here. We can get GDLS to stand up an armoured tracked program. Etc. I think the proportion of what the CA can build in Canada is higher on a tonnage and dollar terms than the RCAF.

298 Lynx KF41s from Rheinmetall are about $5.5B CAD. I think you either grossly underestimate the cost of aircraft or exponentially overestimate the cost of land vehicles. We could fully kit out CA with vehicles and weapons for the same cost as just the F35 purchase.

 

[ytz]

Any may wonder if that is just throwing shit at the wall though.
5k LAV’s for what?
I mean that just seems to me like green welfare for GDLS London as opposed to an actual fielding plan based on requirements.

You're not entirely wrong. But good for the Goose, good for the Gander.

 

[KevinB]

You're not entirely wrong. But good for the Goose, good for the Gander.

I have been extremely biased against wheeled combat vehicles for a lot of roles based on my own experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seeing AAR's from other conflicts.

I think there is a definite role for wheeled APC's, but I am not a fan of them for the European theatre in a LSCO, or potential LSCO..
I also think that the LAV family passed the LAV 2.0 design is grossly overweight for the ideal roles for those vehicles.

I would like to see the "European focused" Division have tracked systems for most of the A vehicles.
I would like to see tracked BsV-10 type vehicle for an Arctic force for both domestic and potential expeditionary usage.
Leaving Wheeled for Domestic - and potentially operational usage in other theaters.
But the entire appeal of the LAV to me was Hercules capability -- something the LAVIII and beyond has lost.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have been extremely biased against wheeled combat vehicles for a lot of roles based on my own experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seeing AAR's from other conflicts.

I think there is a definite role for wheeled APC's, but I am not a fan of them for the European theatre in a LSCO, or potential LSCO..
I also think that the LAV family passed the LAV 2.0 design is grossly overweight for the ideal roles for those vehicles.

I would like to see the "European focused" Division have tracked systems for most of the A vehicles.
I would like to see tracked BsV-10 type vehicle for an Arctic force for both domestic and potential expeditionary usage.
Leaving Wheeled for Domestic - and potentially operational usage in other theaters.
But the entire appeal of the LAV to me was Hercules capability -- something the LAVIII and beyond has lost.

 

[FJAG]

So much to unpack.

The army is in on it. They are just... as armies are, slower. Their big difference is they have to completely reinvent how they expect to be fighting when moving to the Divisional model. And then fit the equipment into that. That takes time.

There is a preliminary question. Will the army be required at some point to field an expeditionary division?

If yes, or a high likelihood of yes, then the army will have to design such a division and its theatre support organization from scratch and, in all probability have a second such division available as a sustainment and replacement force.

The 2nd preliminary set of questions are: what are the army related threats to the homeland? How will we organize to fight them? How will we sustain that force?

These all need to be answered long before we start buying equipment and organizing industry to sustain that. And I won't get into the recruiting and training stream here.

I am hoping that the Army will reinvent itself as a full LSCO force and look to a Corps operational formation as the peacetime minimum.

It has to. I don't think the two (or better yet three) mechanized divisions for expeditionary ops will be very large (excluding the theatre support elements, I put the 2 divisions at around 25,000 all ranks in total with half being ARes. Yes. I know. That's heresy.

I would like to see the "European focused" Division have tracked systems for most of the A vehicles.

I would like to see tracked BsV-10 type vehicle for an Arctic force for both domestic and potential expeditionary usage.

Leaving Wheeled for Domestic - and potentially operational usage in other theaters.

Ditto

I am hoping that the Army will reinvent itself as a full LSCO force and look to a Corps operational formation as the peacetime minimum. With the ability to deploy Divisions with enablers across the globe. Which will require varied Divisions, and grossly improved CSS, and C6ISR.

I agree with with full scale LSCO but that doesn't mean fully tracked/mechanized. Expeditionary yes but Homeand will be quite different but still LSCO - just a different LSCO.

We can keep buying LAVs here.

Not if they are infantry section carriers. 6 battalions are more than enough. SEV vehicles like mortar carriers, anti-armour and AD, yes.

One may ask how many LAV does Canada really need.

Enough to round out six battalions (2 brigades) at most. I see them with roles that span the Homeland and expeditionary. (and again, 50% ARes)

We can get GDLS to stand up an armoured tracked program.

Absolutely. They have ASCOD to work off of as long as they avoid the Ajax issues. It wouldn't hurt to have a second manufacturer of armoured vehicles here. German or Korea might be interested in a facility if it meant long term manufacturing and maintenance. Or, heaven forbid, Canada sets up our own heavy tracked vehicle manufacturer.

 

[KevinB]

Well while your ship may have sailed on the E-7, it is rising from the ashes down here.

In An Ironic Turn Of Events, White House Wants To Raid Navy E-2 Account To Pay For USAF E-7s

The Pentagon had tried to cancel the E-7 and augment the E-2 fleet instead, then Operation Epic Fury happened.

www.twz.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

Well while your ship may have sailed on the E-7, it is rising from the ashes down here.

In An Ironic Turn Of Events, White House Wants To Raid Navy E-2 Account To Pay For USAF E-7s

The Pentagon had tried to cancel the E-7 and augment the E-2 fleet instead, then Operation Epic Fury happened.

www.twz.com

It will be interesting to see what NATO buys.

 

[Good2Golf]

You're not entirely wrong. But good for the Goose Eagle, good for the Gander.

It will be interesting to see what NATO buys.

FanDuel says GlobalEye.

 

[HavokFour]

FanDuel says GlobalEye.

The tree's are whispering GlobalEye too.

NATO plans to replace AWACS with Saab GlobalEye jets, sources say

NATO plans to replace its ageing fleet of U.S.-built AWACS surveillance aircraft with a Swedish alternative, four sources told Reuters, in a move that could ‌jar with President Donald Trump, who has urged allies to buy more U.S. defence equipment.

www.reuters.com

 

[Nvlgzr]

Well while your ship may have sailed on the E-7, it is rising from the ashes down here.

In An Ironic Turn Of Events, White House Wants To Raid Navy E-2 Account To Pay For USAF E-7s

The Pentagon had tried to cancel the E-7 and augment the E-2 fleet instead, then Operation Epic Fury happened.

www.twz.com

Northrop and Boeing must have bought a load of Trump Crypto

 

[Nvlgzr]

Northrop and Boeing must have bought a load of Trump Crypto

After reading the article I realized this was probably more about USAF not liking USN aircraft taking over what was primarily aUSAF role.

 

[Maxman1]

After reading the article I realized this was probably more about USAF not liking USN aircraft taking over what was primarily aUSAF role.

It's also not suitable for the role. The E-2 is meant for carrier operations, so it doesn't have the same range or endurance or capabilities as the E-7.

 

[Kirkhill]

You're a 100% right. But honestly, I have some real questions on whether the CA understands the threat and opportunity here. I think the RCN absolutely does. And possibly personality driven by people like Topshee (navy version of Kenny). But gut feel just says the CA is way too leisurely (or maybe bureaucratic) to understand that they need to really make hay now. I wonder if the risk aversion is a factor. Or maybe just so preoccupied with CA Mod that they can't seem to land procurement proposals on the Minister's desk.

The one saving grace though is that so much of CA procurement can be done domestically. Or at least has numbers large enough to justify domestic assembly. That's ultimately what will push things through for y'all.

The Air Force and Navy deal with platforms that give Majors and Lt Commanders the ability to influence events thousands of kilometers away with handfuls of people.

The army struggles to influence events beyond a cannon's throw with thousands of people.

 

[Kirkhill]

So much to unpack.

There is a preliminary question. Will the army be required at some point to field an expeditionary division?

If yes, or a high likelihood of yes, then the army will have to design such a division and its theatre support organization from scratch and, in all probability have a second such division available as a sustainment and replacement force.

The 2nd preliminary set of questions are: what are the army related threats to the homeland? How will we organize to fight them? How will we sustain that force?

These all need to be answered long before we start buying equipment and organizing industry to sustain that. And I won't get into the recruiting and training stream here.

It has to. I don't think the two (or better yet three) mechanized divisions for expeditionary ops will be very large (excluding the theatre support elements, I put the 2 divisions at around 25,000 all ranks in total with half being ARes. Yes. I know. That's heresy.


Ditto

I agree with with full scale LSCO but that doesn't mean fully tracked/mechanized. Expeditionary yes but Homeand will be quite different but still LSCO - just a different LSCO.

Not if they are infantry section carriers. 6 battalions are more than enough. SEV vehicles like mortar carriers, anti-armour and AD, yes.

Enough to round out six battalions (2 brigades) at most. I see them with roles that span the Homeland and expeditionary. (and again, 50% ARes)

Absolutely. They have ASCOD to work off of as long as they avoid the Ajax issues. It wouldn't hurt to have a second manufacturer of armoured vehicles here. German or Korea might be interested in a facility if it meant long term manufacturing and maintenance. Or, heaven forbid, Canada sets up our own heavy tracked vehicle manufacturer.

Before the Army gets a new sword I think it is likely to be given a shield.

That GBAD-CUAS posting by Noah for Base Defences is going to come out of 2 Div's budget, No?

How big a sword are you going to be able to afford after that?

We are not used to buying shields. We got to debate which sword and how many.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Air Force and Navy deal with platforms that give Majors and Lt Commanders the ability to influence events thousands of kilometers away with handfuls of people.

The army struggles to influence events beyond a cannon's throw with thousands of people.

Yet the Army is the only entity that can take and hold terrain. When you're serious about an area, you deploy land forces.

Thats an apples to watermelons comparison.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yet the Army is the only entity that can take and hold terrain. When you're serious about an area, you deploy land forces.

Thats an apples to watermelons comparison.

That is true.

How many times has the Canadian Government seen fit to commit the Canadian Army to seizing (as opposed to holding) land in the last 160 years? And how long have they employed an active territorial defence? In my view they have committed a few thousand for 20 years or so in Germany with 4 CMBG (the longest engagement) and hundreds of thousands for 4 or 5 years twice (at great political cost and never doing that again).

Other countries have armies designed to secure their home turf from their neighbours. We have been clear that we have no such need, at least since 1940.

Meanwhile, we have been able to show the flag with ships and squadrons and offer to launch American bombs and missiles from them if necessary. We didn't even need munitions of our own.

 

[brihard]

That is true.

How many times has the Canadian Government seen fit to commit the Canadian Army to seizing (as opposed to holding) land in the last 160 years?

A few ops over a couple years in Kandahar. Small areas barely larger than points on a map, with bubbles of control fading to contestability fading further to influence as you radiate out. But I wouldn’t say any of the offensive ops resulted in ‘control’ larger than say a single village around a fob, and the roads between those FOBs were still a contested nuisance.

 

[Kirkhill]

A few ops over a couple years in Kandahar. Small areas barely larger than points on a map, with bubbles of control fading to contestability fading further to influence as you radiate out. But I wouldn’t say any of the offensive ops resulted in ‘control’ larger than say a single village around a fob, and the roads between those FOBs were still a contested nuisance.

By contrast, even a single NASAMS battery, armed with AIM-120 AMRAAMs would influence a bubble with a 50 km radius (750 to 800 km2). The NASAMS battery in Washington DC is manned by a few dozen soldiers. It is not a complete defence but it is a noteworthy, and likely welcome, addition to local defences.

It moves the capabillities of a frigate inland.

 

[PuckChaser]

That is true.

How many times has the Canadian Government seen fit to commit the Canadian Army to seizing (as opposed to holding) land in the last 160 years? And how long have they employed an active territorial defence? In my view they have committed a few thousand for 20 years or so in Germany with 4 CMBG (the longest engagement) and hundreds of thousands for 4 or 5 years twice (at great political cost and never doing that again).

Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cyprus, Golan Heights, like 5 different African UN missions, Latvia, Europe (UNIFIER), a bunch of SOF missions and probably a few more I dont have off the top of my head.

Anytime a land force is on the ground it holds terrain. Naval and Air power have great influence but only for fleeting (no pun intended) moments of time. Different tools for different jobs and there shouldn't be a bun fight over what's more important. Theres plenty of money to go around.