Hardly existential. And was defeated by militia and some mounted police.
Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,861
- Points
- 1,210
highly unlikely, Ukraine has a lot of launchers, their problem is ammo
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,447
- Points
- 1,160
Good point.
This one was a real 'barn burner' in comparison
Rebellions of 1837–1838 - Wikipedia
We may have a very long coast but aren't there really only 4 areas to really be concerned about? I find it hard to envision any attack focusing on Labrador and the western approaches are blocked by Vancouver Island. So Port Hardy and Sooke would cover the west with Louisburg and St. Anthony guarding the east. For a naval attack nothing has really changed in 200 years at least from my point of view.
- Reaction score
- 11,218
- Points
- 1,160
Not with DLR but was a project director for three years on a computer/information management project and the last three years worked hand in hand with a guy who was at DLR.
We do. It's slightly different but it's definitely an issue that we've ignored with the delusion that our coastlines are too far away from hostile actors, that they are of little importance, and too long and costly to defend.
I don't think there is a plan for more because the open tap for additional spending is only a very recent thing while the LRPR project (in its various iterations) has been a line item in army procurement for almost five decades (two decades seriously) that's been kicked down the road repeatedly. It's only ever been in the range of two batteries worth during all that time mostly because in the army there have been competition for capital spending dollars which generally means try to keep costs reasonable regardless of actual needs. Two batteries of HIMARS are reasonable when the army's vision was we'll only ever need to deploy a single brigade in low level conflict.
The army has had credibility problems with cabinet for years with bifurcating projects with "add on" purchases.
I expect their strategic plan calls for a widely spread deployment on numerous islands. That's more feasible for them considering their climate zone. I'm still pondering how to do that in the north.
I think the key questions are: How many divs can/should the army be forming? How many does it deploy at one time? What are the needs for the homeland? I'm still pondering this but I'm pretty sure we need four divisions of 10,000 each rather than two of 20,000 each. The main difference between the way that I think and the way that the army thinks is that I consider these divisions as tactical force employment elements rather than as mere force generators. That means that I want a division that can be picked up and used as is rather than one where you cobble together a grouping from building block pieces.
Good lord, yes. For every nature of ammo we use.
And HEMTT.
There were a lot of advantages for going in with the wide line of off-the-shelf SMP variants that Oshkosh already has.
While the Expedtionary Force rightfully prioritises manoeuvre can the same be said of the DoC Force?
While it needs its manoeuvre elements perhaps it needs to prioritise positional warfare?
Long range air and coastal defences.
Infrastructure and VP CUAS.
Infrastructure and VP Security.
Emergency Response and Recovery.
Logistics.
Comms.
And, of course, surveillance and intelligence.
Not quite. A good chunk of our coastline is far from major population settlements and a good chunk of it is covered in ice for a large chunk of the year. A coastal battery is less important to us than robust maritime surveillance from air and space the aviation options to deliver a kinetic response. And a lot of the domestic defence focus is centered around the RCAF and RCN.
You're going by what was. Not what is or will be. Not only is procurement changing. But the CA and RCAF are planning major reorgs. There's joint doctrine being redone. And of course, defence policy is basically being developed on the fly while SSE and ONSAF become obsolete, but are still funded. In this environment, the smartest thing to do is make sure your project is just a signature away from buying something. The less complicated it is, the higher it gets prioritized. There's been open callouts to staff up proposals that are ready to go to RFP/tender. Especially because the government wants to meet 2%.
Then you should be able to understand the utter madhouse that every staff office is at the moment as the government basically flips years of austere practices on its head. What's getting staffed is what is ready to go. Change the numbers and you will have to start your TBS sub over. You may be army, but I am sure even most CA staff officers are smarter than that. I expect follow on orders for practically everything we're now buying after they IOC. Every single project is doing the above.
- Reaction score
- 7,141
- Points
- 1,360
Not quite existential, though, given (by some narratives) he was just an alienated Westerner representing a minority fucked over by Ottawa, wanting to do their own thing in peace. Sound vaguely familiar?
Also depends on whether they end up in government or not, right?Another pattern in Canadian history: that depends on whose votes you're Jonesing for
Gerry Adams - Wikipedia
That dude wanted to be left alone. Today's westerners are very much insistent they should be able to impose on other provinces. That's the difference.
- Reaction score
- 7,141
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 10,615
- Points
- 1,160
I see I see.
At least the 11 year old, 1 billion dollar project for the Light Armoured Vehicle Reconnaissance Surveillance System is on schedule and going well.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,082
- Points
- 1,260
That has not historically been the case. Historically, if CA needed more of an in-service major system (like fighting vehicles or artillery systems or EOD robots) then PSPC expected there would be a new competition which required the full effort of a new project and could deliver something different than the in-service platform. Maybe the defence investment agency will bring the cultural change needed to get PS procurement stakeholders on board with sole sourcing more of in-service systems when needed, but I would not make plans dependent upon this before progress is observed.
- Reaction score
- 36,402
- Points
- 1,090
Developmental platform vs off the shelf.
Ask the RCAF about developmental helicopters...
- Reaction score
- 10,615
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 17,981
- Points
- 1,160
I understand quite well and have a number of contacts still in the system. There are several DLR interviews that I've had on the books now for three months that keep being pushed back because folks are working flat out.
You are mistaking my thoughts about what should be part of an orderly development of the army as to numbers of systems with a presumption that I don't understand the reality of how things worked in the system as it has been with the previous government regime and with what's going on now.
What went on before was horse trading and attempts to stay relevant in an ugly environment. Believe it or not, I'm of the view that the RCN and RCAF parts of the capital investment scheme are the ones with the highest priority, have been relatively well thought out and implemented. From a DoC point of view, they need a few more key, and expensive, modules to be put into place.
The CA is very much an optional-use element from a DoC point of view, albeit it has many, as yet, untapped roles, and it also has a very high deterrence role in both its foreign deployment and DoC roles. That's if it's properly configured and structured and deployed. We're far from that and, IMHO, that's because the CA can't think beyond its three CMBGs. It continues to think small.
I expect you are right There may even be some projects capable of acceleration that can be added to the mix. But merely buying more stuff because we've already done the paperwork on it is of little value unless you have a concept of how you are going to implement its use with proper and sensible organizational changes, training programs and an overarching doctrine for its use.
That's the CA's biggest failing and weakness. It's doctrinal vision is some thirty years old and was born out of monetary starvation. It's current officer corps developed their expertise and approaches to warfare doing counterinsurgency warfare. It's post Afghanistan was limited and even it was defeated by lack of funding. There are some very bright folks in the CA's crowd who have a fairly robust understanding of the theories of modern warfare but there seems to be no cohesive plan forward other than to fill the hollowness and add on some capabilities. I keep waiting with bated breath for some glimmer of brilliance to peak out of CA modernization.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,861
- Points
- 1,210
like many its waiting for it's CD before getting out
Historically, we haven't had a government who has both publicly committed to meeting NATO targets and actually directed the various departments to make that happen. We literally have not seen this level of spending in 40 years.
And this is leading to weird results. The PM demands we move faster. Project Directors and Project Managers are literally being asked, "How much can you move up IOC and FOC?". Literally nobody serving today in uniform or the Public Service has seen this in their career. But TBS still follows standard timelines and governance rules. We'll see how this changes with the new agency (which is actually moving quite quickly, with briefs being prepared right now). So this leads to an obvious decision. Simply push what is on the books to get started. Worry about the growth portion later. And that is what you're seeing here.
Nobody wants to restart their TB Sub and go back 6 - 12 months. Far better to figure out a way to staff a supplemental order later. The PM says we need to go faster. All of the staff weanies are following that directive.
- Reaction score
- 4,956
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 15,811
- Points
- 1,160
For coastal defense using Anti-ship missiles mounted on trucks, you just need a series of surveyed pads connected to a road network. Your sensor net tells the Battery Commander where they need to relocate to. It will be the sensor net that tells it where and when to fire and then likley corrects for the last part of the flight.
It could possibly free up a ship for other tasks or give them a larger magazine depth to draw upon. Likely will never have to shot in anger, but that is part of a successful coastal defence, making the price of attacking to high.
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,365
- Points
- 1,110
Im hearing its dead and it aint coming back. It cant pass RAMD. The real trouble with that is the loss of 66 turreted platforms the RCAC desperately need.
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,094
- Points
- 1,010
They are literally the least desired postings beyond FN’s now. They are runnings 20-30% vacancy and posting GIS positions 5 or 6 times in those places- nevermind the front line positions.
No members are signing up for a military base.
