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

[Jarnhamar]

Can the HIMARS depress their rockets enough so they can hit dudes storming the beaches in Nova Scotia and Victoria?

 

[ytz]

Do you want an answer or do you just want to be argumentative?

5600 km allows for circling an area of interest 1000 km out for 3600 km and returning to base.

What is the range of the CP140? 9300 km?

The P8? 8300 km?

MQ-9B? 11,000 km?

You're the one who brought up the range. If you want to talk about endurance and cost of surveillance, then why would anybody need a cutting edge drone? An MQ-9 does just fine.

As to the value of satellite intelligence. Are you suggesting that a satellite alone can determine capability and intent? Or that it can supply an uninterrupted observation? Or that it can make itself known to the target and influence the target's activities?

Has anyone yet surrendered to a satellite? They have surrendered to "drones".

You can tell a whole lot from Space Based ISR and Pattern of Life analysis. There's a reason most maritime domain awareness is heavily focused on space assets these days. I'll just leave it at that.

And the Pacific isn't Ukrainian Black Sea coast. We aren't concerned about ships "surrendering". Sometimes ships need to get boarded for their suspected cargo. Like I said earlier, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Exactly why you can't understand what are usually issues of law enforcement and only think of them in military terms.

You keep talking about HIMARS. HIMARS as such don't interest me.

What interests me is what they can launch and what those things represent. Reducing costs, increasing capabilities and increasing ranges. And a vanishing gap between smart missiles and UAVs.

The calculus that was valid 5 years ago needs to be revisited.

And most of our big ticket programs began decades ago and delivery is not for another decade from now with life expectancies that can leave them in active service a century after they left the drawing board.

We get it bud. Clearly the CAF missed out when they didn't make you CDS.

 

[ytz]

Can the HIMARS depress their rockets enough so they can hit dudes storming the beaches in Nova Scotia and Victoria?

If you're swimming at a beach in Halifax or Victoria isn't punishment enough?

 

[Kirkhill]

 

[brihard]

Can the HIMARS depress their rockets enough so they can hit dudes storming the beaches in Nova Scotia and Victoria?

That would be the M30A2 Alternative Warhead pods we’re buying- 160,000 tungsten chunks per warhead to ruin your beach party. There’s great video from Ukraine of what that’ll do to troops in the open, light vehicles etc.

 

[Eaglelord17]

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.

Canada’s existential threat is and always has been America. Our strategy for dealing with them for the last 90 or so years has been to try and be as friendly and non-threatening as possible with deep trade relationships to make invasion damaging for them.

I am convinced the only way to truly make Canada safe from invasion is to be a nuclear state. Then we can truly be independent without having to worry about a big brother or two watching over us.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada’s existential threat is and always has been America. Our strategy for dealing with them for the last 90 or so years has been to try and be as friendly and non-threatening as possible with deep trade relationships to make invasion damaging for them.

I am convinced the only way to truly make Canada safe from invasion is to be a nuclear state. Then we can truly be independent without having to worry about a big brother or two watching over us.

I think a lot of countries are drawing similar conclusions.

POLITICO

European Politics, Policy, Government News

www.politico.eu

 

[Brad Sallows]

Aircraft have limited duration in the air and are at the mercy of the weather. They spend most of their time in a hangar at an airfield with miles of asphalt and cement that is regularly swept by those people not actively engaged in finding spare parts to keep some portion of the fleet fit to fly.

Once over the area of interest then they have to find the target of interest before they run out of gas.

This problem was largely solved by the time of the Battle of Midway, 1942, with cruder technologies and techniques.

Once again, sending a kill shot from land is preferable to using a round from the ship's magazine as the ship may need that round for its own survival before it can return to a port and replenish.

This is really reaching. If we're worried about single rounds of ammunition, we have much greater problems.

Just as artillery has several orders of magnitude of flexibility advantage over direct fire, air has several orders of magnitude of flexibility advantage over artillery. The whole point of technological advantages is to use them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Assuming you’re talking about shooting a PrSM LBASM

Overlooked in this entire sub-discussion is that if the threat is a fleet, you need to be able to overwhelm (saturate) their defences. One shot isn't going to be one kill, it's likely to be a splash somewhere between the launcher and the target.

 

[brihard]

Overlooked in this entire sub-discussion is that if the threat is a fleet, you need to be able to overwhelm (saturate) their defences. One shot isn't going to be one kill, it's likely to be a splash somewhere between the launcher and the target.

Yup. Which really is an argument for the new subs.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Yup. Which really is an argument for the new subs.

These subs can be a real game changer for us - and for those opposed us. To go from zero subs in the North Atlantic to possible 3 on station when needed frees up assets for our Allies.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yup. Which really is an argument for the new subs.

KSS III
6x 21" torpedo tubes - reloads on board
Tiger Shark 50 km range

10x launch tubes - single shot.
10x Hanmoo 4-4 500 km range

Engage incoming fleet with 10 rounds after approaching to within 500 km at 10 to 15 knots and return to Halifax or Esquimalt for reaload.

.....

Alternate COAs

Load CF18s and/or CP140s with Harpoons or NSMs after finding parts and certifying.

The Hornets won't be able to engage before the fleet is within firing range of us.

The Auroras would do better but they are few in number-weather permitting.

...

Battery of 8 HIMARS launching 16x 1500 km PrSM/LBASM in all weathers. Reload in 5 to 10 minutes. Repeat until the factory runs out.

.....

Buy Hanmoo 5 with 3000 km range and launch from shore.


.....

All of which is nonsense because we have never bought enough weapons for a war.

We have bought weapons to threaten one TU-95 or one Russian AGI ship at a time.

Might as well send a Mountie with his hands in his pockets and splash a warning shot from a battery in Shearwater.

 

[ytz]

The Hornets won't be able to engage before the fleet is within firing range of us.

 

[ytz]

Overlooked in this entire sub-discussion is that if the threat is a fleet, you need to be able to overwhelm (saturate) their defences. One shot isn't going to be one kill, it's likely to be a splash somewhere between the launcher and the target.

And ideally that attack is multi axis and multi-speed arriving simultaneously to overwhelm their AMD.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nudder airfield, nudder crew, nudder cost.

 

[KevinB]

KSS III
6x 21" torpedo tubes - reloads on board
Tiger Shark 50 km range

10x launch tubes - single shot.
10x Hanmoo 4-4 500 km range

I suspect after the first batch you will see Canadianization to Strike length VLS for Tomahawk, so 1.2k km range

Engage incoming fleet with 10 rounds after approaching to within 500 km at 10 to 15 knots and return to Halifax or Esquimalt for reaload.

.....

Alternate COAs

Load CF18s and/or CP140s with Harpoons or NSMs after finding parts and certifying.

Keep in mind you will shortly have F-35 and P-8’s. New airframes will increase availability rates.

The Hornets won't be able to engage before the fleet is within firing range of us.

The Auroras would do better but they are few in number-weather permitting.

You have MRTT’s and USAF tanker assets. As well as the USN, and USAF who have a vested interest in the North American region.

...

Battery of 8 HIMARS launching 16x 1500 km PrSM/LBASM in all weathers. Reload in 5 to 10 minutes. Repeat until the factory runs out.

I’d argue you need a domestic production of munitions, inc Long Range systems. Right now the RCAF and RCN have better supply chains due to in service weapons. Canada doesn’t yet have HIMARS, and the Army isn’t typically the best steward of munitions given the Battle Group mentality that has permeated the CA since the late 80’s.

.....

Buy Hanmoo 5 with 3000 km range and launch from shore.


.....

All of which is nonsense because we have never bought enough weapons for a war.

We have bought weapons to threaten one TU-95 or one Russian AGI ship at a time.

Might as well send a Mountie with his hands in his pockets and splash a warning shot from a battery in Shearwater.

Lethal engagements are minuscule compared to intercepts or boardings. Unless Canada adopts a different mentality and opts for shoot first ask questions later, the manned systems are a much better fit for the requirements of the mission.

I want Canada to get more HIMARS, and create a RDF Division of Light and Medium Bde’s and have a heavy Div for Europe, for which the Flyover forces are primarily PRes
As I see that as the most cost effective solution.

 

[Kirkhill]

And Canada decided it was indefensible back when the maritime territorial limit was set at 3 miles because the cannons of the day.

Coastal defence batteries went out of fashion in WW2 for the same reason that battleships were replaced. Their guns could only reach 23 nautical miles. Some countries like Sweden, dealing with the tight waterways of an archipelago kept them until the end of the Cold War. But guns were replaced by planes.

Coastal batteries were replaced by coastal squadrons.

My simple contention is that evolution continues.

UAVs and missiles are reducing the need for planes.

 

[dapaterson]

Can the HIMARS depress their rockets enough so they can hit dudes storming the beaches in Nova Scotia and Victoria?

It's easy to depress them.

Promise them 20% then delay implementation.

 

[MilEME09]

And Canada decided it was indefensible back when the maritime territorial limit was set at 3 miles because the cannons of the day.

Coastal defence batteries went out of fashion in WW2 for the same reason that battleships were replaced. Their guns could only reach 23 nautical miles. Some countries like Sweden, dealing with the tight waterways of an archipelago kept them until the end of the Cold War. But guns were replaced by planes.

Coastal batteries were replaced by coastal squadrons.

My simple contention is that evolution continues.

UAVs and missiles are reducing the need for planes.

Well once we buy PrSm we are talking about upto 1000km range, which will lock down larger sections of our coast, or for expeditionary ops, give wide coverage for ground forces from enemy naval vessels.