- Reaction score
- 8,411
- Points
- 1,260
The guy is clueless, in this case, then.
Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
Exactly what it is. This is supposed to be closer to how shipbuilding is run. A pipeline of work. Cooperation with industry on what can be built. And what technologies need to be fostered. Add milpers posted to DIA and industry to advise and guide development. A lot of this is still ramping admittedly.
You're assuming it just covers our Arctic. Not quite. And we absolutely would share with them.
Yes and no. We've probably not done something this tight with industry in easily half a decade. This means there's nobody in government who still remembers how to do this. It's honestly been useful that DIA's CEO is a banker in this regard. It's a job that needed an outsider.
That's not what got them this. As Noah points out, it's the backing of several large IT companies. And I'm sure they appreciate AB ramming though some data centres. Or more accurately an order of magnitude spend higher than any other province, on data centres. That is the part that is controversial given how much some constituencies hate data centres.
Funnily enough that’s what I thought of too.
- Reaction score
- 13,731
- Points
- 1,160
US punch list for Fires probably applies to Canada as well.
breakingdefense.com
1. energetics and propulsion,
2. targeting and seekers,
3. the industrial base and
4. “munitions breadth and depth.”
The last one needs some expansion
“Not every target requires the most exquisite munition, and not every threat should be defeated with our most expensive interceptor,” he added. “We need a balanced mix of affordable mass and exquisite capability.”
Lt. Gen. John Rafferty, who heads up Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), spoke with Breaking Defense about this very problem Wednesday.
From his vantage point, the future consists of a mix of high-end interceptors that can take down threats like maneuverable ballistic missiles, while soldiers use lower-cost, less capable interceptors for things like non-turbo Shahed drones.
“There’s a range of threats that are in between” those options too, Rafferty added, “from fixed-wing to rotary-wing to other unmanned systems to cruise missiles. And each one of those threats has an optimized effector, and the limiting factor is not having that full range of effectors from cheap and easily produced to very sophisticated and hard to make.”
Army fires community tackling four ‘capability gaps,’ including magazine depth - Breaking Defense
Brig. Gen. Robert Mikesh, charged with offensive fires, detailed a quadruple challenge — energetics and propulsion, targeting and seekers, the industrial base and “munitions breadth and depth.”
breakingdefense.com
1. energetics and propulsion,
2. targeting and seekers,
3. the industrial base and
4. “munitions breadth and depth.”
The last one needs some expansion
“Not every target requires the most exquisite munition, and not every threat should be defeated with our most expensive interceptor,” he added. “We need a balanced mix of affordable mass and exquisite capability.”
Lt. Gen. John Rafferty, who heads up Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), spoke with Breaking Defense about this very problem Wednesday.
From his vantage point, the future consists of a mix of high-end interceptors that can take down threats like maneuverable ballistic missiles, while soldiers use lower-cost, less capable interceptors for things like non-turbo Shahed drones.
“There’s a range of threats that are in between” those options too, Rafferty added, “from fixed-wing to rotary-wing to other unmanned systems to cruise missiles. And each one of those threats has an optimized effector, and the limiting factor is not having that full range of effectors from cheap and easily produced to very sophisticated and hard to make.”
Similar threads
