• 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....
 
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 gun was terrible by all accounts, not sure why they didn't go with a standard M2, or a 20mm.

It's a good concept, a modern version of the cupola might work.
 
Can we really have the CV90 and still keep the lights on over at GDLSC?

Another programme out there is the Common Armoured Vehicle System (15 to 24 tonnes - amphibious to 21.5) which also include Finland and Sweden, as well as Latvia, Germany and Denmark.

1749244235547.png


the programme's modular design allows the vehicle to be adapted for various missions, such as troop transport, medical evacuations, logistical support, reconnaissance, and combat operations. This flexibility ensures that the vehicle can meet the varied operational needs of the participating states.

2nd line vehicle.


....

The 8x8 vehicle is the AMV (16 to 32 tonnes amphibious)

That group includes

Finland, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia (possibly), Japan and South Africa.


1749245094342.png

....

Yes there is room for both CV90s AND more wheeled armour. Even in the Arctic.

 
Last edited:
Last Patria offering of note (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and Greece)

FAMOUS ATV (11.5 to 15 tonnes amphibious)

1749246584112.png


An upgraded MTLB as an alternative to the Bv series of vehicles.



A tracked Second Line Vehicle.

....

Finland - 5.6 million people. But highly motivated. Like the Swedes.
 
Put all those home based systems in a RV or a boat and you will see how well they are made.
Yup. There's a reason 'police package' cars are a thing and why the 'K-car' days of the 1980s didn't go so well; and why service duty laptops are all Toughbooks or another 'ruggedized' line.
 
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.
I have to ask: have you worked in a modern tank or are you making assumptions?
The Germans were very good a picking off heads sticking out of hatches.
 
I have to ask: have you worked in a modern tank or are you making assumptions?
The Germans were very good a picking off heads sticking out of hatches.
My tank experience is extremely limited as a reservist but have plenty of experience in other AFVs in the CAF fleet, TLAV, TAPV, LAV, Bison, etc. Talk to any tanker and they're hatches up as much as possible. Hell, look at pictures of the GWOT and you'll find plenty of Abrams or Leo commanders hatches up outside the wire.

Edit: on the topic of the Germans picking off tank commanders, there's a really good book called Tank Action about a British troop leader during the Normandy campaign. Highly recommend it if you want a good impression of what it was like in tank combat during ww2
 
My tank experience is extremely limited as a reservist but have plenty of experience in other AFVs in the CAF fleet, TLAV, TAPV, LAV, Bison, etc. Talk to any tanker and they're hatches up as much as possible. Hell, look at pictures of the GWOT and you'll find plenty of Abrams or Leo commanders hatches up outside the wire.
I’d suggest that was due to the very limited threat of indirect fire.
 
I have to ask: have you worked in a modern tank or are you making assumptions?
The Germans were very good a picking off heads sticking out of hatches.
The US lost 1800 tank crew in the entire war. Funny enough most injuries to British tankers was head injuries, which the US did not suffer because they had a proper helmet and not a beret.

Have to admit I get a chuckle out of Ukrainian tankers wearing the Soviet tank crew helmet in Abrams and Leopards.
 
The US lost 1800 tank crew in the entire war. Funny enough most injuries to British tankers was head injuries, which the US did not suffer because they had a proper helmet and not a beret.

Have to admit I get a chuckle out of Ukrainian tankers wearing the Soviet tank crew helmet in Abrams and Leopards.
The British tankers actually preferred using their helmets as decoys since the Brodie helmet wasn't a good AFV helmet. Most American tankers didn't wear the steel pot, they wore a leather Rawlings (the baseball glove company) crash helmet. Good for impact, but wouldnt do anything for spall or splinters. Those helmets in Canadian service is where the name zipperhead comes from as the stitching would leave marks. They were rarely worn by Canadian crews. I actually own one, they're super cool.
 
Last Patria offering of note (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and Greece)

FAMOUS ATV (11.5 to 15 tonnes amphibious)

View attachment 93728


An upgraded MTLB as an alternative to the Bv series of vehicles.



A tracked Second Line Vehicle.

....

Finland - 5.6 million people. But highly motivated. Like the Swedes.
for a tracked second line vehicle how about

 
The British tankers actually preferred using their helmets as decoys since the Brodie helmet wasn't a good AFV helmet. Most American tankers didn't wear the steel pot, they wore a leather Rawlings (the baseball glove company) crash helmet. Good for impact, but wouldnt do anything for spall or splinters. Those helmets in Canadian service is where the name zipperhead comes from as the stitching would leave marks. They were rarely worn by Canadian crews. I actually own one, they're super cool.
That was the "helmet" I was referring to, the Chieftain did a excellent bit on tank crew fatalities and injuries in the US army in WWII.
 
I don't argue that in the slightest, however, it would be a very tough pill for the Canadian Public to see CAF members making bank while they're struggling to make ends meet.

Then again, I also have been hit very hard with the Reality stick when it came to dangling the Compensation carrot in hopes of retention (see: ACISS Spec Pay fiasco)
The recruiting offices are open to everyone, and it's not like the standards are getting higher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top