• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....
 

There is a common trend on display within this article posted earlier. In the last year we have seen Colt Canada, GDLS Canada, SeaSpan all expressing the same concern. They all needed firm commitments and contracts to maintain their current capacity and capabilities.

If Canada wants a domestic defence industry it needs to pay for it. There needs to be consistent R&D program money, continuous build programs and routine rebuild/upgrade programs.

Buying everything from C6s to Ships once every 30 years is not compatible with maintaining a domestic defence industry.

If anything the lessons of UKR is likely that industrial capacity and R&D ability is as important if not much much more so than the exact weapons and vehicles your army is equipped with year to year during peacetime.

The other lesson of the Ukraine war, it seems to me, is that engineers are actively engaged at all levels, all the way back to the Roshel factory in Canada, updating and modifying to counter changed situations in the field. Nothing is static.
 
I have done both. What we can do with screens is outpacing advancements of the human eyeball.
Which is fine, but an independent commander sight doesn't come close to the SA that one gets from having your head up in the commanders hatch, especially on the move. As you know, sights are used in conjunction with your eyes and to zoom, but scanning tends to be more effective with your eyes.

8cddf33c3e1ab37f06168cb41588e32b.jpg
 
It takes a lot of drones to achieve the videos we see, so an armoured vehicle with countermeasures gives you a chance against Drones, Artillery shrapnel and small arms. Ambulances are going to be very expendable.

The problem with that one though, is that, apparently, there are a lot of drones - some as low cost as 1000 dollars, some costing 1000 dollars but dropping 100 dollar HEAT rounds.

Having said that, I stick by having ambulances made from the same carriers the CQ uses to feed the front lines. Commonly that would be a variant of the F Echelon vehicles involved in the fight.
 
Which is fine, but an independent commander sight doesn't come close to the SA that one gets from having your head up in the commanders hatch, especially on the move. As you know, sights are used in conjunction with your eyes and to zoom, but scanning tends to be more effective with your eyes.
Trust me you have not seen anything like what the CSAM offer --for commander and gunner there are "VR" headsets as well that will give you a full 360 degree in X and Y axis imagery.
You can use the ITV to zoom etc.
 
Trust me you have not seen anything like what the CSAM offer --for commander and gunner there are "VR" headsets as well that will give you a full 360 degree in X and Y axis imagery.
You can use the ITV to zoom etc.
Like what's in the Apaches? I heard about that a few years ago but thought that was abandoned as it was too expensive/fragile for a tank?

Edit: took a look through some of the open source stuff on M1A2 SEPv3, couldn't find that. Is it new?
 
Like what's in the Apaches? I heard about that a few years ago but thought that was abandoned as it was too expensive/fragile for a tank?

Probably just too expensive for Canada.

Is there an element of trust here? Pilots have to be taught to rely on their instruments. Do people have to be taught to rely on their screens?
One advantage of the screen I can see is that I can put all of the inputs from all of my sensors, 360 degrees worth of coverage, onto one screen within my field of view. I don't have to keep pivoting my head to see behind me.
 
So after everyone posts their spot observations, I still lean in the direction of "lightly-armoured, wheeled" is good enough for forward logistical platforms. We could buy, maintain, and employ more of them more widely, for less cost than heavier and/or tracked alternatives.
Wasn't making a comment on the overarching viability or survivability, just commenting that its a cool video.
 
or how about a full on mini-turret.

8ba258f0-8376-42ab-9d46-e032350c37c6-DSC_5189.JPG
TC hated them and the ultra crappy MG that went into them. Plus if hit with APDS would shear off and take half the TC with it. The idea might not be bad, but that version not so much.
 
The problem with that is screens don't give you the 360° SA that an open hatch and the Mk1 eyeball gives you. Hence why most tankers are hatches up when possible.
I wonder if we could experiment with a VR headset? I'm generally reticent to rely on electronics like that though, which will absolutely be N/S within a few days of being in theatre, but an interesting thought experiment never the less.
 
Which is fine, but an independent commander sight doesn't come close to the SA that one gets from having your head up in the commanders hatch, especially on the move. As you know, sights are used in conjunction with your eyes and to zoom, but scanning tends to be more effective with your eyes.

View attachment 93718
I think you underestimate what can already be integrated into a turret. VR headset is not even the cutting edge.
 
Like what's in the Apaches? I heard about that a few years ago but thought that was abandoned as it was too expensive/fragile for a tank?
No not really - that sort of thing was for RWS gunners.
Edit: took a look through some of the open source stuff on M1A2 SEPv3, couldn't find that. Is it new?
The Abrams isn't even close to what is possible at this point.
Nearly every new hull has many EO sensors on them - in addition to being used for AP systems, they are also used to assist with navigation, collision avoidance, old school laser detection, etc -- but they can be integrated to give a full 3D view of the vehicle and it's surroundings.
Which in turn can be put on displays - either HUD's, VR goggle, or crew information screens, or a all of the above.
 
No not really - that sort of thing was for RWS gunners.

The Abrams isn't even close to what is possible at this point.
Nearly every new hull has many EO sensors on them - in addition to being used for AP systems, they are also used to assist with navigation, collision avoidance, old school laser detection, etc -- but they can be integrated to give a full 3D view of the vehicle and it's surroundings.
Which in turn can be put on displays - either HUD's, VR goggle, or crew information screens, or a all of the above.
And this is why troops will start to be stagging on with weapons 24/7 in vehicle compounds and hangers in 5, 15, 25, or 50 years. Already, outdoor storage of A vehicles is a bad idea, better start building hangers that can hold 70 ton vehicles.
The sensors from F35 and similar platforms are trickling down. Don't think of F35 as a 5th gen fighter; it's a 5th gen sensor and networking platform and eventually that tech will move elsewhere or everywhere.
 
Why? Does your car typically fail due to mechanical or electronic faults? Does your household have a problem with the availability rate of smart phones or the home entertainment system?
I don't drive my car or home cross-country very often. There's little vibration involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top