Would we be cutting off Nfld from Canada, or cutting off Canada from Nfld?
That doesn't work anymore... The media and opposition would call surplus capacity government waste, and the government that decided to buy a surplus would be voted out.
That truly is the answer for this type of capability. The idea of a "big honking ship" in the CAF inventory that sits around for 360 days a year doing nothing is a waste of resources. One that provides surplus capacity in peacetime (possibly even with active or reserve crews) sharing time operating it from time to time during the year benefits not only a surge military capability but also full-time civilian infrastructure resilience.
That speaks of a lack, or failure, of an effective long term education and communication strategy on the part of the government and military. It's an own goal.
That's making its way into the next draft of "Unsustainable."
www.navylookout.com
On the RWS front, RS4 and RS6 are probably sufficient. Benefit of that is standardized training, DCPs and controls across the Div. You can mount an M230LF 30mm cannon on an RS6, perfect gun for LCav. 50s/GPMGs for everyone else.I don't think we need Korea for the Defence of Canada division unless they have a real nice air defence suite. For vehicles we already have the GDLS LAV/ACSV and Roshel lines who can can do the medium and lower level wheeled armour which is all that is needed here. We don't need IFVs, tanks, or SP howitzers for 2 Div. We do need a better broader line of RWS that can be fitted to both. Comms, optics, radars etc we need to bring onshore as well.
Equipping the manoeuvre div is a different problem. I prefer a North American (Canadian especially) manufacturing base which is less likely to be stressed by competing demands or even destroyed in a conflict. There's an upfront cost to establishing other lines of equipment here but we need to put cash down for that. Quite frankly I'm not too concerned about the actual systems as long as they are built here and that we own the IP/maint/supply lines for it.
I frankly do not know enough as between the Kongsberg and Moog lines of product to compare them intelligently, but the issue you mention is the one I think is the important one, standardization across the various fleets so that one weapons tech and supply chain and training chain can meet the 90% requirement. There will always be a difference between a vehicle with a DF/CUAV .50cal RWS and an air defence one firing 30mm AHEAD but as much as possible there should be one standard mounting/fire control/crew placement etc etc so that a variety of systems can easily be mounted across multiple fleets/purposes.
I think MOOG could be cut right out. RS6 is the hardkill core of the MADIS system down south, so obviously the work has been done to enable them to act in an VSHORAD capacity. Further, you can integrate stingers into both RS6 and RS4. Im really hoping the rumours are true that we're ditching DRWS as it approaches EoL and standardize with the RS-family. Thatll make our loves much easier when instructing DF gunnery.I frankly do not know enough as between the Kongsberg and Moog lines of product to compare them intelligently, but the issue you mention is the one I think is the important one, standardization across the various fleets so that one weapons tech and supply chain and training chain can meet the 90% requirement. There will always be a difference between a vehicle with a DF/CUAV .50cal RWS and an air defence one firing 30mm AHEAD but as much as possible there should be one standard mounting/fire control/crew placement etc etc so that a variety of systems can easily be mounted across multiple fleets/purposes.
At some point we need to buy into a solution at large scale so that we can get long-term manufacture located within Canada.
In my day we had 30cal and 50 cal MGs on many mid and rear area vehicles in the unlikely possibility we might need them to defend against Spetsnaz ambush or a rogue fast air getting through. That has now changed to the high possibility of varying classes of strike UAVs proliferating in those areas and even in the homeland. My guess is that we will need thousands of these systems in both 1 and 2 Div or we will need to be prepared to loose both A and B vehicles in the thousands. We shouldn't be building any vehicles that aren't fitted for receiving an RWS. We've spent many decades buying military kit "good enough for peacetime." That type of thinking needs to stop on an industrial scale.
More on the UK method:
Transporting military hardware around the world – UK strategic sealift - Navy Lookout
A Private Finance Initiative provides the UK Ministry of Defence with four roll-on, roll-off (Ro-Ro) ships available to deliver military vehicles and other equipment around the globe. Here we look at these ships, plans to replace them and their tasks, including recent work to reinforce the...
I think I have successfully derailed this artillery thread to not only Logistics, Naval Logistics lol.
Fully agree that we need to grow the trade and other maintainer trades too.
