Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project

[Kirkhill]

100% understand the argument made. I'm just thinking back on the many different previous purchases where only the bare minimum "combat" type vehicle was purchased for the needs of the day and there was no surplus of available units to account for attrition or loss. And one thing I've learned is young energetic youth let loose with off highway vehicles results in breakage and loss.

Do Canadian Ranger Patrol Groups need armoured units? Probably not especially given the lack of support weaponry they are issued to make the vehicle into a tactical unit. Could an unarmoured version be excellent units for both military and civilian response roles....definitely.

If the 1980's purchase was 880 unarmoured Bv206's to me that is the minimum order size we're talking. If our European allies are only operating armoured units and we're going soft skin there is a miss match of force capacity and/or loss replacement to be considered. I'd much rather be willing to walk into the NATO meeting and indicate there is a strategic reserve of these units in use in Canada that could be used to offset combat losses if required while new ones are being built than offer up subpar alternatives.

In my dream world one of the core missions for the CAF is transport...because short of the US invading it will be transport of resources/munitions/key force elements to the theater as key. If you're going to be a small force then what is the most useful option out there...hence my dream of expanded heavy lift air transport (good for anywhere in the world) and force enabler type units such as long range artillery, hospitals, intelligence roles and high impact ground forces. If we're ordering a 1000 units is there a deal to be made to produce them here in Canada as a steady stream of new units rather than a single year lump purchase.

I think Hagglunds has made over 11000 Bvs and the vast majority of them were of the unarmoured types.

Armoured types seem to have only been popularized since the Royal Marines commissioned a few for their own needs then started using them as effective troop carriers in Afghanistan.

I don't think we are in danger of generating an orphan fleet regardless of what we choose....

.... assuming we don't do an LSVW on it and convert a perfectly functional piece of kit into a loud, squeaky mess. Having said that, it has squeaked on for 32 years. Somebody on Italy must have done something right.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm pretty familiar with the Bv206's as they're a common site for crew transport on wildfire.

None of the operators are mechanics...often just a farm kid tossed into the machine and told to go to work. It's the simplicity of the design that attracts my attention as much as anything. The one down side is the brake system is less than perfect when dealing with going down steep slopes.

Fair, but if we are talking Arctic Ranger units, the cold alone is hard on equipment.

If we were buying solely for domestic use, short of a land invasion then, sure, unarmoured 'constabulary' equipment world be fine. If it never leaves our shores, we don't even need Milcot; we just need Cot, but we are so kit-poor that sending something unsuitable into harm's way because that's all we have has happened before.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair, but if we are talking Arctic Ranger units, the cold alone is hard on equipment.

If we were buying solely for domestic use, short of a land invasion then, sure, unarmoured 'constabulary' equipment world be fine. If it never leaves our shores, we don't even need Milcot; we just need Cot, but we are so kit-poor that sending something unsuitable into harm's way because that's all we have has happened before.

I agree with you Lenaitch. It is wrong to send the wrong kit into the wrong place. But when we need 10,000 vehicles tomorrow we waste money and time over-engineering complex solutions that may never be used anywhere.

We should absolutely kit out a heavy brigade or two with the gear appropriate to the threats of the day.

But our interminable focus on that has left our reg logistics in a mess and both the Reserves and the Rangers lacking even COTS assets that would enhance their utility.

The Rear needs to be championed as well.

...

As to the specifics of the DAME-NTV type vehicle, Canada has companies like Foremost, in a similar league to Roshel, that build small numbers of bespoke vehicles from commercially available components.

Both they and the CAF, not to mention the governments and communities they serve, would benefit from the continually modified contracts of the type Canada Ukraine and Roshel seem to be operating under.

A continual stream of a specialty vehicle that is constantly modified.

Boom and bust doesn't wotk for us.

 

[foresterab]

I agree with you Lenaitch. It is wrong to send the wrong kit into the wrong place. But when we need 10,000 vehicles tomorrow we waste money and time over-engineering complex solutions that may never be used anywhere.

We should absolutely kit out a heavy brigade or two with the gear appropriate to the threats of the day.

But our interminable focus on that has left our reg logistics in a mess and both the Reserves and the Rangers lacking even COTS assets that would enhance their utility.

The Rear needs to be championed as well.

...

As to the specifics of the DAME-NTV type vehicle, Canada has companies like Foremost, in a similar league to Roshel, that build small numbers of bespoke vehicles from commercially available components.

Both they and the CAF, not to mention the governments and communities they serve, would benefit from the continually modified contracts of the type Canada Ukraine and Roshel seem to be operating under.

A continual stream of a specialty vehicle that is constantly modified.

Boom and bust doesn't wotk for us.

Foremost is another one that logistics type might love but also might not have seen:

https://www.foremost.ca/foremost-mobile-equipment/wheeled-vehicles/

Most of the ones I know are used for specialized hauling in the oil patch.

I see these occasionally used on domestic responses as they can travel - slowly- on public roads but they have been used to transport bulldozers over swamps, 400 barrel oil tanks (for water supplies and community protection), or frankly there are some with modular flat deck/crew cab/cranes that are also used. Unfortunately they are truly a specialty product that is excellent for 2% of the time...and overkill for the majority.

But if we're talking logistics fleets to move troops and supply they are a product that should be looked at for higher weight loads especially those out of the capacity of something like the BV-10 series Hagglunds.

 

[Kirkhill]

In my dream world one of the core missions for the CAF is transport...because short of the US invading it will be transport of resources/munitions/key force elements to the theater as key. If you're going to be a small force then what is the most useful option out there...hence my dream of expanded heavy lift air transport (good for anywhere in the world) and force enabler type units such as long range artillery, hospitals, intelligence roles and high impact ground forces. If we're ordering a 1000 units is there a deal to be made to produce them here in Canada as a steady stream of new units rather than a single year lump purchase.

Back in days of yore

The Canadian Forces comprise the regular force and the reserve force. The Primary Reserve, one of four components of the reserve force, includes the Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, Air Reserve, National Defence Headquarters Primary Reserve List and Communication Reserve. Currently, the Communication Reserve has 2,000 troops. While some regular force members are part of the Communication Reserve, the majority of the formation is made up of reservists.

Canada's Communication Reserve Links Warfighters

As with the U.S. military, Canada is transforming its military to enhance network-centric operations and to improve information security. And, also similar to the United States, the Canadian Forces are counting on their reservists to shore up their ranks in current operations as well as in...

www.afcea.org

Comms Squads, before they went all tactical, were part of a separate entity with a live, strategic objective - to maintain communications across country under all circumstances.

Currently I gather there is a similar association with the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. They located in various formations but they are not of them.

The Comms Squads were located within the armouries but operated separately from the Army Reserve / Militia units. We were responsible for our own internal comms, primarily via 77 sets.

....

Foresterab's comment triggered this -

A Canadian Transport Reserve

transport of resources/munitions/key force elements to the theater

Our prospective 5% is anticipated to cover new comms systems and cyber systems that will be of use to both the military and the civilian government as well as civilians generally. It is also likely that a good chunk of the 5% will go to subsidize airfields, ports, rails, roads and shipping. And pipelines.

By and large those come under Transport Canada.

Is there a military component to Transport Canada? If there isn't would it benefit from one?

Military roads. Military railways. Military pipelines. Military airfields. All of them have been created to fill strategic needs when the market doesn't suffice. All of them have had some portion of them turned over to dual use or even single use civilian.

This is not to argue for Soviet style centralization. This is to suggest that it could be useful for a Major General of Logistics to sit at Transport Canada's table with a wallet full of money appraising the existing civil transport infrastructure and determining if it meets the government's military and broader strategic objectives and using the funds to fill the gaps.

Short of trucks? Subsidize the availability of long haul trucks. Short of flat cars? Likewise. RoRo ferries? Ice Class shipping? Ports? Railway lines moved to increase capacity? More drive on cargo aircraft?

Emergency mobility assets to manage disaster relief?

....

All of this would be separate from the distinct military needs of the uniformed forces. But it would keep those needs in the frame.

....

Projects like the Gray's Bay Road from Yellowknife to the Arctic Coast across the Barrenlands, the Hudson Bay ports, BC and Atlantic ferries, Air Canada, Westjet and charter company aircraft, shipping for FedNav, Algoma, Desgagnes, NEAS and MTS.... roads to the Ring of Fire or from Schefferville to Kuujjuaq. All of those have a military and strategic dimension to them.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Short of trucks? Subsidize the availability of long haul trucks. Short of flat cars? Likewise. RoRo ferries? Ice Class shipping? Ports? Railway lines moved to increase capacity? More drive on cargo aircraft?

Emergency mobility assets to manage disaster relief?

There's already a mechanism to acquire such assets in an emergency. It's called the Emergencies Act.

 

[Kirkhill]

There's already a mechanism to acquire such assets in an emergency. It's called the Emergencies Act.

Would it be useful to be on top of the situation so that we don't have to declare a constitutional crisis when stuff happens?

 

[foresterab]

...
Military airfields. All of them have been created to fill strategic needs when the market doesn't suffice. All of them have had some portion of them turned over to dual use or even single use civilian.

This is not to argue for Soviet style centralization. This is to suggest that it could be useful for a Major General of Logistics to sit at Transport Canada's table with a wallet full of money appraising the existing civil transport infrastructure and determining if it meets the government's military and broader strategic objectives and using the funds to fill the gaps.
...

If I just think airfields then I think of three ring circus situations.

1) If a C-130 departs CFB Trenton (for lack of a better starting location) how far can it fly before it needs refueling? Is there a current large scale airport in place that can handle this task (Thunder Bay, Ontario for example) or am I forced to make odd detours?
2) If a F-35 departs CFB Cold Lake how far can it fly before it requires refueling?
3) If a Bell 412 departs CFB Trenton how far can it fly before refueling?

For much of the "southern" part of the country there are larger and in some cases very large airports that have this capacity to handle military traffic if needed. The question then comes what is needed to upgrade and where?

La Ronge Saskastchewan is not exactly booming with air traffic...but it is a central hub for domestic response air tanker operations and might be a good candidate for C-130/Bell 412 investment due to the use of the area a flight hub for northern fly in reserves.

Churchill on the other hand might be a better F-35 upgrade site...but so would Tuktoyaktuk and Iqaluit as at least refueling sites/FOB's.

Intermixed is a wide range of smaller scale infrastructure ranging from fuel bowsers installed (not necessarily filled as fuel spoils) but established so that on short order the site is usable.

In my mind is the old WW2 ferry routes that primary bases...and diversion strips. Both were needed although the majority of traffic and investment went into the main bases.

 

[lenaitch]

If I just think airfields then I think of three ring circus situations.

1) If a C-130 departs CFB Trenton (for lack of a better starting location) how far can it fly before it needs refueling? Is there a current large scale airport in place that can handle this task (Thunder Bay, Ontario for example) or am I forced to make odd detours?
2) If a F-35 departs CFB Cold Lake how far can it fly before it requires refueling?
3) If a Bell 412 departs CFB Trenton how far can it fly before refueling?

For much of the "southern" part of the country there are larger and in some cases very large airports that have this capacity to handle military traffic if needed. The question then comes what is needed to upgrade and where?

La Ronge Saskastchewan is not exactly booming with air traffic...but it is a central hub for domestic response air tanker operations and might be a good candidate for C-130/Bell 412 investment due to the use of the area a flight hub for northern fly in reserves.

Churchill on the other hand might be a better F-35 upgrade site...but so would Tuktoyaktuk and Iqaluit as at least refueling sites/FOB's.

Intermixed is a wide range of smaller scale infrastructure ranging from fuel bowsers installed (not necessarily filled as fuel spoils) but established so that on short order the site is usable.

In my mind is the old WW2 ferry routes that primary bases...and diversion strips. Both were needed although the majority of traffic and investment went into the main bases.

Not a tactical logistical technician (?), but I would think having containers (bowsers) available to hold fuel is limited by the prior ability to put fresh fuel in them (and take it out if unused). It seems this is the fate of Nanisivik It's probably less of an issue if some level of threat/need is anticipated. As far as I know, Ontario's MNR still has a few in-season fuel caches in the remote northwest, and I remember an episode of Ice Pilots (when I watched it) where they were replenishing civilian caches in the far north.

I have to believe there is some manner of US-satisfying technical or security limitation to having a F-35 simply dropping into the local FBO with a credit card.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Jet fuel management in the RCAF is…interesting. There is an understandable desire to ensure it is both safe to burn in jet engines and that it does not spill into the environment. This leads to alot of checks that need to be done on a very routine basis. There is an unhealthy “union” mentality on which occupations can have the bulk fuel course, which greatly constricts who can manage fuel (this might be changing).

As to the question of: can an F-35 go to an FBO with credit card and get fuel? AFAIK, there would be no restriction- the pilot is right there and can actually do all the touching of the aircraft. Shutting down and staying overnight is the part that gets tricky with an F35…

 

[Kirkhill]

Domestic Mobility Italian Style

Use EU defence money to build a bridge to Sicily and get it credited towards your 5% NATO budget....

Italy’s Sicily bridge isn’t a military fiction, builder assures

Critics complain the bridge doesn’t make sense as a military project and is just a way for Rome to pretend it’s boosting defense spending.

www.politico.eu

Of course we are going to build a NATO road to Gray's Bay, NATO ports on Hudson and James Bay, NATO pipelines, railways and terminals.

And a linear NATO bomb shelter that stretches from one side of Toronto to the other....


I love imagination.

The DSR bank: A new Finance Mechanism for Collective Defence

On March 5th, 2025, Rob Murray, NATO’s former head of innovation, launched an initiative to establish the Defence, Security and Resilience (DSR) bank. This move comes as access to defence financing has become a common topic of discussion among the European Union (EU) leaders.

carleton.ca

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And we are different because .....

I did my first B.A. at Laval university, in Quebec City. It's a nice, wide open campus with various pavilions quite spread out on top of the local hill, and very windy and cold in winter. Most of the pavilions are linked by underground tunnel so you don't have to go outside in winter (though they are not the most direct or quick way for some destinations). These tunnel were built in the 1960's and designated as "nuclear shelters". Guess what Federal department budget they came out of.

 

[Blackadder1916]

And we are different because .....

I did my first B.A. at Laval university, in Quebec City. It's a nice, wide open campus with various pavilions quite spread out on top of the local hill, and very windy and cold in winter. Most of the pavilions are linked by underground tunnel so you don't have to go outside in winter (though they are not the most direct or quick way for some destinations). These tunnel were built in the 1960's and designated as "nuclear shelters". Guess what Federal department budget they came out of.

For that time and place, nothing unusual about such a designation and source of funding. Canadian civil defence organization (under various names) had, prior to and during the war (WW2), been under the Department of National Defence and continued until 1951 when responsibility was shifted to the Department of Health and Welfare, though some responsibilities remained with DND (mostly Canadian Army). With the increased threat of nuclear attack through the 1950s, there was a program of shelter building at federal as well as the provincial/local levels and there was a federal financing program underwriting public shelters. In 1958, civil defence was incorporated in the newly formed Emergency Measures Organization which reported directly to the Privvy Council Office (PCO); administration of the outreach funding programs came under EMO. By 1963 EMO was moved from under PCO to the Minister of Defence Production (Bud Drury) and when Drury moved to Minister of Labour so was EMO. In 1968 EMO was placed under DND (specifically reporting to the DM). There was still remnants of some of the funding programs but in the years following there was little to no building of shelters.