Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,076
- Points
- 1,160
Fear gains consent to do unspeakable things.
rmc_wannabe
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 9,997
- Points
- 1,310
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,510
- 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
- 41,522
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 18,004
- 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Your arguments sound like the noise coming out of the air forces at the turn of the century about how artillery is obsolete because precision fast-air air delivered munitions will solve all problems - how's that working out in Ukraine?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.
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.
Your arguments sound like throwing spaghetti at a wall to see what can justify buying more HIMARS. And nobody buys it. Least of all the folks writing the cheques.
Again. We buy airplanes and ships and satellites to deal with a whole lot of threats and provide a full spectrum of response options. And they can deal with the full spectrum of threats that a HIMARS can deal with (in a coastal battery role). The reverse is not true. How is a coastal battery going to check whether it's a hostile dark target or a ship in distress?
Do you see the Americans standing down ANG units to deploy HIMARS as coastal batteries everywhere? Why do you think the country with infinitely more resources than us isn't doing that?
You boys aren't going to have any luck trying to convince any GOFO or politician that you know sea and air control better than sailors and aviators. You can keep trying. It just makes y'all look more desperate and ridiculous.
To be fair. I've not heard a single actual serving green suit make this argument outside of an expeditionary ops scenario. Just this place.
I'm a sentiel if you need to talk to someone
You should offer that to the folks who are crashing out over the CA not buying enough HIMARS and apparently think CFD does Force Design based on opinions from here.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,853
- Points
- 1,260
A crack pipe.
Except you miss the issue of the fact that 1 CAD isn’t deploying, it’s an admin HQ. The Maneuver Div is supposed to be a deployable entity.
I’m curious as to how the RCAF justifies more than 1 Fighter Wing at this junction.
Since TAC Hel (non CANSOF) doesn’t do CSAR what is the point in putting them into a Fighter Wing…
They would be an Army branch if the CAF could be grown up about assets and funding.
You are acting like a drafting partner in all of this.
Tell us you have no clue about the Army without telling us…
I’m thinking of the actual Division content that has been in use with pretty much any combat capable army.
A Div is both a FG and FE entity, and because of that it is task oriented.
From my read the Manoeuvre Div (you can use the Cdn spelling if you're so hung up on names) is simply an administrative grouping on paper that is capable of generating a division sized TF.
By the way, 1 CAD isn't an admin HQ. They are an operational formation. Literally why the CAOC is in Winnipeg and why the Commander of 1 CAD is double hatted as the Cmdr CANR.
Training support. Pilots in the cold have a short life expectancy.
Geographic dispersion. But also, CAF fighter wings are normal sized by most standards. It's American fighter wings that are exceptionally large. Just like division sized army bases are mostly an American thing in NATO.
Correct. So whatever it's called on paper is largely irrelevant. They'll generate what they need to deploy to ensure the supported corps/theatre commander has what they need. Would you be happier if it was just called the Reg F Division? Or the Tier 1 group? Or the place we put our more expensive shit?
Last edited:
Bull. We couldn't begin to afford the numbers of aircraft and patrol vessels required to guard our coastlines but we do have the ability to guard the logical approaches because there are only a few of those. The U.S. can't do that, which is why they don't. All of their coastline is approachable and they have three of them with no obvious pinch points.
Rocket artillery is not the final or the only answer but it is a system that can be planned and surveyed for future activation if required: one piece of the puzzle. Whenever someone tries to imply that old technology or thinking have been supplanted by 'progress' I pause and remember that the reliance upon GPS exclusively for navigation has resulted in European airspace being closed because there were no ILS or NDB systems available for approach. There are numerous military pilots back in the F104 era who were extremely grateful that their employer had maintained GCA.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,236
- Points
- 1,260
Sure we could, but we choose not to.
The West including Canada has been allowed to live a social spending fantasy and ignore defence because the USA guaranteed our protection.
in how many decades? We have ordered new frigates but the last of them won't be delivered for 25 years. Nothing else is even on the books yet our local fleet is going to be totally gone in just a few years. Even if we wanted to spend the money quickly, the F35's can't arrive in any numbers sooner than they are now so whilst I agree with your premise that we have ignored our defense, planes and ships aren't going to plug the holes anytime soon. So my question is "What can be done in the meantime that isn't throwing money away"?
Maybe I missed this earlier, but what precisely are we talking about guarding our coastlines against? Amphibious landing? ELINT collection? Cutting undersea cables? Drone motherships blockading our ports? Or just ships being dicks? What’s the threat, and who? I’m no coastal defence SME but I know enough to know it’s no more monolithic than air defence.
If we’re talking about threats to our physical sovereignty by an overseas naval power, then it would seem to me that pretty much any such case will start with detecting existence and discerning intentions as far out as possible, and then making a decision to interdict and if necessary strike as early as possible. I don’t know what that looks like with any great certainty, but the ‘find and fix’ sounds like satellites and aircraft, ‘discern intentions’ is probably gonna be Five Eyes SIGINT, and ‘strike’ will depend on how far out the threat is and what it’s physically made up of.
Does Canada have any air-launched anti-ship missile capability at present?
If we’re talking about threats to our physical sovereignty by an overseas naval power, then it would seem to me that pretty much any such case will start with detecting existence and discerning intentions as far out as possible, and then making a decision to interdict and if necessary strike as early as possible. I don’t know what that looks like with any great certainty, but the ‘find and fix’ sounds like satellites and aircraft, ‘discern intentions’ is probably gonna be Five Eyes SIGINT, and ‘strike’ will depend on how far out the threat is and what it’s physically made up of.
Does Canada have any air-launched anti-ship missile capability at present?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,236
- Points
- 1,260
Buy what is available now, and start building what we will need in the future. I would lean on SK heavily and treat it like some kind of defence production Walmart.
If Canada is truly facing an existential threat it's time to put us on a war footing. No more subsidized childcare or dental, no more money for Timbuktu ect ect ect. Maybe we can look at those wants after our needs have been sorted out.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,875
- Points
- 1,210
Before even this, defense procurement and even day to day buying power of DND needs an over hall, how much better off would our procurement be for example if we didn't give back a billion plus a year, or took ten years to buy anything at all? The fact I, and my wifes grandfather are both qualified techs on the same pistol is hilarious and sad all at the same time.
