Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[suffolkowner]

IOC 2033 means first delivery in 2031. And that means a contract signed before Trump is out of office.

But more than anything, I can't see the government giving a $10B contract to anybody and not insisting that this either be assembled in Canada or have substantial Canadian content, or both. The only way GDLS is going to sell us Abrams is if they are putting them together with Canadian steel in London, ON.

The only reason we're getting F-35s is because the contract was signed. If it wasn't, I would bet money on us talking about Gripen induction right now. Unfortunately for the CA, they don't have signed deals and political capital has been spent on things like HIMARS.

I was more doubting the availability of the m1e3 to us in the shorterm

 

[FJAG]

Honestly Id rather see German or Korean. We're going to be using our tanks in E Europe where it will be far easier to sustain Leopards or K2s since there are factories right there in Germany and Poland respectively. Abrams homefront logistics are irrelevant since we get to the point where we're using tanks instead of ships, satellites and planes to defend the homeland, we have some major fucking problems.

The location of forward plants is irrelevant because they will be early targets when things matter and whatever capacity survives will be filling the orders of their home countries.

What one needs is proper manufacturing facilities here in Canada. The ability to develop our own parts usage and manufacturing policies. A healthy stock of spare parts on the shelf when day one arrives. And a solid supply chain from the manufacturer right up to the front line MRT.

You can achieve that with any item, be it a tank, an SP howitzer or a rifle. But you need to be able to manufacture all the components not merely assemble them. If you aren't manufacturing a certain item, then you better have lots of spares on the shelves. Unfortunately we have stopped thinking like that. See @ytz and budget above.

I like the continuous production of LAV rumours, I'd go so far as to extend that to tanks too.

Agree 100%. I've been arguing for low rate and continuous vehicle production for years. Trucks are a good example. They really don't change much from year to year and you can freeze your model at a 2010 one without the need to buy a new 2027 model. The 2010 will still run. Engine blocks need to be accounted for but basic chassis. No biggy.

Fully agree we need to build tanks here and low rate production would work for that. It's the only way you can get tanks in the volume we really should have them in. It's not that one needs a massive assembly line when we're talking about Canada-sized low rate. We have the capability to produce most of the components so it's more bespoke assembly. One thing that we don't have anymore is barrel production. That's something to invest in when you consider how quickly modern long-range munitions chew up the EFCs.

I must admit, Noah's timelines worry me - a lot. I've seen can kicking down the road many times. This sure feels like it other than the GDLS ACSV bit. Incidentally, what exactly is this "ALAV?" Can't find the term used online. By the way I'm fine with more ACSVs and even a few hundred turretless LAV infantry section carriers with RWS guns and ATGMs, but no more pseudo IFVs please. Let's put our money into building eight to ten battalions worth of CV90 or a Redback here and issue the current LAV turreted ISV's to the second tier forces.

@FJAG maybe you should hold off on further revisions to Unsustainable At Any Price and do a defence industry equivalent.

Interesting thought. I'm just at the end of my first redraft and only touch on it lightly. I'm certainly not deep into that subject.

I do know that just about anything is possible in the manufacturing side as long as an investor has a form of guarantee that there will be a continuing profit stream to make the initial investment worth the effort. Canada's systemic procurement system does pretty much the opposite.

Just as an example, the Abrams M1E3 strikes me as a great opportunity to take a massive risk with a high potential. Send someone to kick the tires on the prototype for a month or two and commit to several hundred to be built in Canada - as is - no Canadianizing. Manufacturers always run a low rate production set of their new gear to work out the manufacturing kinks. That could be done in London with assistance from Lima which isn't that far away.

Let's say a 44-tank regiment each year for seven years followed by a 14-tank squadron every year thereafter as well as refurbishment and factory level maintenance and parts for two decades would make it a worthwhile investment for GDLS. IP, foreign sales and barrels remain the sticking points but as I said - great risk with potentially big rewards. - - - If you fund it; they will come. - - - But I am a dreamer and have been fooled before.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There's a whole lot of problems.

1) Our security clearance process and apparatus was never designed for the volume of people we need cleared now with the restrictions on clearances we have today.

2) Canadian industry were cheapskates and never really invested in secure facilities. They mostly just fobbed off the hard stuff to the Americans. This is now coming back to bite them and the country as a whole.

3) Defence as an institution didn't have a strong mandate, or the resources to really develop the defence industrial base. This is changing now (that's why we have DIA). But like so many things in this country, can't undo in months what the country f'd up for decades.

1) How did they handle the 2-3K shipbuilders at Irving and Seaspan? They must have had to deal with volume issues 7ish years ago?
2) Lol, I've always said Canadians are the cheapest people in the world - bar none.
3) Sadly true

 

[PuckChaser]

Industrial Regional Offsets on steroids, here come the LSVWs!!!!

‘Buy Canadian’ policy comes into effect, changing rules for federal procurement

The federal government’s ‘Buy Canadian’ policy takes effect today and Ottawa says it will fundamentally change the way it purchases goods and services.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fully agree we need to build tanks here and low rate production would work for that. It's the only way you can get tanks in the volume we really should have them in. It's not that one needs a massive assembly line when we're talking about Canada-sized low rate. We have the capability to produce most of the components so it's more bespoke assembly. One thing that we don't have anymore is barrel production. That's something to invest in when you consider how quickly modern long-range munitions chew up the EFCs.

I've thought for a number of years now that these guys based in south-west Ontario would be a natural fit in taking on something like barrel production. They are a CDN based company, with a large footprint in the US as well.

About Us | Zekelman Industries

Discover the rich history and commitment to excellence at Zekelman, the premier manufacturer of domestic steel pipe and tube since 1877.

www.zekelman.com

 

[ytz]

Industrial Regional Offsets on steroids, here come the LSVWs!!!!

‘Buy Canadian’ policy comes into effect, changing rules for federal procurement

The federal government’s ‘Buy Canadian’ policy takes effect today and Ottawa says it will fundamentally change the way it purchases goods and services.

www.ctvnews.ca

Told y'all.

 

[Kirkhill]

The location of forward plants is irrelevant because they will be early targets when things matter and whatever capacity survives will be filling the orders of their home countries.

What one needs is proper manufacturing facilities here in Canada. The ability to develop our own parts usage and manufacturing policies. A healthy stock of spare parts on the shelf when day one arrives. And a solid supply chain from the manufacturer right up to the front line MRT.

You can achieve that with any item, be it a tank, an SP howitzer or a rifle. But you need to be able to manufacture all the components not merely assemble them. If you aren't manufacturing a certain item, then you better have lots of spares on the shelves. Unfortunately we have stopped thinking like that. See @ytz and budget above.

Agree 100%. I've been arguing for low rate and continuous vehicle production for years. Trucks are a good example. They really don't change much from year to year and you can freeze your model at a 2010 one without the need to buy a new 2027 model. The 2010 will still run. Engine blocks need to be accounted for but basic chassis. No biggy.

Fully agree we need to build tanks here and low rate production would work for that. It's the only way you can get tanks in the volume we really should have them in. It's not that one needs a massive assembly line when we're talking about Canada-sized low rate. We have the capability to produce most of the components so it's more bespoke assembly. One thing that we don't have anymore is barrel production. That's something to invest in when you consider how quickly modern long-range munitions chew up the EFCs.

I must admit, Noah's timelines worry me - a lot. I've seen can kicking down the road many times. This sure feels like it other than the GDLS ACSV bit. Incidentally, what exactly is this "ALAV?" Can't find the term used online. By the way I'm fine with more ACSVs and even a few hundred turretless LAV infantry section carriers with RWS guns and ATGMs, but no more pseudo IFVs please. Let's put our money into building eight to ten battalions worth of CV90 or a Redback here and issue the current LAV turreted ISV's to the second tier forces.

Interesting thought. I'm just at the end of my first redraft and only touch on it lightly. I'm certainly not deep into that subject.

I do know that just about anything is possible in the manufacturing side as long as an investor has a form of guarantee that there will be a continuing profit stream to make the initial investment worth the effort. Canada's systemic procurement system does pretty much the opposite.

Just as an example, the Abrams M1E3 strikes me as a great opportunity to take a massive risk with a high potential. Send someone to kick the tires on the prototype for a month or two and commit to several hundred to be built in Canada - as is - no Canadianizing. Manufacturers always run a low rate production set of their new gear to work out the manufacturing kinks. That could be done in London with assistance from Lima which isn't that far away.

Let's say a 44-tank regiment each year for seven years followed by a 14-tank squadron every year thereafter as well as refurbishment and factory level maintenance and parts for two decades would make it a worthwhile investment for GDLS. IP, foreign sales and barrels remain the sticking points but as I said - great risk with potentially big rewards. - - - If you fund it; they will come. - - - But I am a dreamer and have been fooled before.

If that then ships.

 

[lenaitch]

Just saying. In every discussion on any defence production, somebody is always saying, "Look at this big space we have here...."

Want to know a real constraint to defence production that every CEO in Canada and half the leadership at DND is worried about? The lack of cleared personnel and secure facilities. Look up what it take to certify a building as a SCIF. Then imagine that for any space project at Top Secret we need the entire assembly hall cleared to Level II or III. The same is true for places working on the F-35. And we probably need at least Level II for building these tanks. This is actually a very real problem the government is working on right now. Not one bureaucrat I've come across has ever worried about, "Where would we put this giant factory?"

Interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of the infrastructure. Trying to modify a plant that produces a lot of relatively light things into one that produces really heavy things. Flooring loading for cranes, final product, etc. Re-tooling essentially means making a different version of the same thing.

 

[ytz]

Interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of the infrastructure. Trying to modify a plant that produces a lot of relatively light things into one that produces really heavy things. Flooring loading for cranes, final product, etc. Re-tooling essentially means making a different version of the same thing.

Re-tooling a plant is a problem money can solve. But money can't solve security certification. And those are the problems that industry worries about. It's legitimately limiting how fast money can flow to industry in Canada. Prior to 2025, the issue was money. Today? The issue isn't money. It's policy. It's personnel. It's access to technology. Etc. Money will rain down on anybody who has capacity.

 

[FJAG]

I've thought for a number of years now that these guys based in south-west Ontario would be a natural fit in taking on something like barrel production. They are a CDN based company, with a large footprint in the US as well.

Back in the 50s Sorel Industries built our howitzers including barrels. An M777 barrel or the 155mm L52 from the Rh-120mm from Rheinmetall are way different types of cats. Even the M777 L33s built at Watervliet are pretty complex pieces of kit requiring complex machinery which equals you need to supply more than Canada. That's a large investment for a small volume and then there's the whole IP issue. It's like the Avro Arrow. The talent for that isn't here anymore.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Back in the 50s Sorel Industries built our howitzers including barrels. An M777 barrel or the 155mm L52 from the Rh-120mm from Rheinmetall are way different types of cats. Even the M777 L33s built at Watervliet are pretty complex pieces of kit requiring complex machinery which equals you need to supply more than Canada. That's a large investment for a small volume and then there's the whole IP issue. It's like the Avro Arrow. The talent for that isn't here anymore.

With their US operations I thought that they could try to supply both Canada and the US.

 

[FJAG]

With their US operations I thought that they could try to supply both Canada and the US.

Sure they could, but this whole thread is about nationalizing critical defence products, especially expendables - and it may sound silly but barrels are getting more and more into the field of expendables when you are planning to reach out and touch someone at longer ranges and with many rounds.

We've always had spares but basically at peacetime stock levels.

 

[Cloud Cover]

So you are ready to assume MAGA cannot survive one man? That the extant system, now demonstrated to be grossly fallible, will magically not put another authoritarian kleptocracy into power?

I think (fear) MAGA is iterative, and that the current leader is the nicer version. There is a merger afoot of Turning Point and MAGA and that’s probably the pool from where their next leader will emerge. Assuming of course that there actually are further elections that are not Putinesque (where the winner received 143% of the vote).