Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft (Saab Globaleye)

[ytz]

Yes, and the issue is as we have seen repeated again and again and again is that the CA will buy 1/2 of what is needed, the line closes, and then the fleet rusts out.
One may also look at the CA's current Logistics truck program and wonder who on earth spec'd it.

The new DIS and the new procurement authority (DIA) are meant to address exactly this. Expect to see industrial base management like you have in the US. This is honestly partly why AEWC and CSEAD are both going to Global based platforms. It's not just about Canadian jobs directly. It's also assurance to industry that they will get a pipeline of work. This is, after all, exactly what the Americans and Europeans do.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't see this.

Sure. Can't make HIMARS in Canada. But we can make logistics trucks here. We can keep buying LAVs here. We can get GDLS to stand up an armoured tracked program. Etc. I think the proportion of what the CA can build in Canada is higher on a tonnage and dollar terms than the RCAF.

298 Lynx KF41s from Rheinmetall are about $5.5B CAD. I think you either grossly underestimate the cost of aircraft or exponentially overestimate the cost of land vehicles. We could fully kit out CA with vehicles and weapons for the same cost as just the F35 purchase.

 

[ytz]

Any may wonder if that is just throwing shit at the wall though.
5k LAV’s for what?
I mean that just seems to me like green welfare for GDLS London as opposed to an actual fielding plan based on requirements.

You're not entirely wrong. But good for the Goose, good for the Gander.

 

[KevinB]

You're not entirely wrong. But good for the Goose, good for the Gander.

I have been extremely biased against wheeled combat vehicles for a lot of roles based on my own experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seeing AAR's from other conflicts.

I think there is a definite role for wheeled APC's, but I am not a fan of them for the European theatre in a LSCO, or potential LSCO..
I also think that the LAV family passed the LAV 2.0 design is grossly overweight for the ideal roles for those vehicles.

I would like to see the "European focused" Division have tracked systems for most of the A vehicles.
I would like to see tracked BsV-10 type vehicle for an Arctic force for both domestic and potential expeditionary usage.
Leaving Wheeled for Domestic - and potentially operational usage in other theaters.
But the entire appeal of the LAV to me was Hercules capability -- something the LAVIII and beyond has lost.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have been extremely biased against wheeled combat vehicles for a lot of roles based on my own experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seeing AAR's from other conflicts.

I think there is a definite role for wheeled APC's, but I am not a fan of them for the European theatre in a LSCO, or potential LSCO..
I also think that the LAV family passed the LAV 2.0 design is grossly overweight for the ideal roles for those vehicles.

I would like to see the "European focused" Division have tracked systems for most of the A vehicles.
I would like to see tracked BsV-10 type vehicle for an Arctic force for both domestic and potential expeditionary usage.
Leaving Wheeled for Domestic - and potentially operational usage in other theaters.
But the entire appeal of the LAV to me was Hercules capability -- something the LAVIII and beyond has lost.

 

[FJAG]

So much to unpack.

The army is in on it. They are just... as armies are, slower. Their big difference is they have to completely reinvent how they expect to be fighting when moving to the Divisional model. And then fit the equipment into that. That takes time.

There is a preliminary question. Will the army be required at some point to field an expeditionary division?

If yes, or a high likelihood of yes, then the army will have to design such a division and its theatre support organization from scratch and, in all probability have a second such division available as a sustainment and replacement force.

The 2nd preliminary set of questions are: what are the army related threats to the homeland? How will we organize to fight them? How will we sustain that force?

These all need to be answered long before we start buying equipment and organizing industry to sustain that. And I won't get into the recruiting and training stream here.

I am hoping that the Army will reinvent itself as a full LSCO force and look to a Corps operational formation as the peacetime minimum.

It has to. I don't think the two (or better yet three) mechanized divisions for expeditionary ops will be very large (excluding the theatre support elements, I put the 2 divisions at around 25,000 all ranks in total with half being ARes. Yes. I know. That's heresy.

I would like to see the "European focused" Division have tracked systems for most of the A vehicles.

I would like to see tracked BsV-10 type vehicle for an Arctic force for both domestic and potential expeditionary usage.

Leaving Wheeled for Domestic - and potentially operational usage in other theaters.

Ditto

I am hoping that the Army will reinvent itself as a full LSCO force and look to a Corps operational formation as the peacetime minimum. With the ability to deploy Divisions with enablers across the globe. Which will require varied Divisions, and grossly improved CSS, and C6ISR.

I agree with with full scale LSCO but that doesn't mean fully tracked/mechanized. Expeditionary yes but Homeand will be quite different but still LSCO - just a different LSCO.

We can keep buying LAVs here.

Not if they are infantry section carriers. 6 battalions are more than enough. SEV vehicles like mortar carriers, anti-armour and AD, yes.

One may ask how many LAV does Canada really need.

Enough to round out six battalions (2 brigades) at most. I see them with roles that span the Homeland and expeditionary. (and again, 50% ARes)

We can get GDLS to stand up an armoured tracked program.

Absolutely. They have ASCOD to work off of as long as they avoid the Ajax issues. It wouldn't hurt to have a second manufacturer of armoured vehicles here. German or Korea might be interested in a facility if it meant long term manufacturing and maintenance. Or, heaven forbid, Canada sets up our own heavy tracked vehicle manufacturer.