Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[markppcli]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Canada develop it's own system, more that Canada should work with like minded partners to make systems not dependant on an unreliable partner.

Well actually GR66 did.

America doesn't have to go to war with us to screw us... Look at Ukraine. They provided systems and Int, then turned off the taps to get a trade deal. How would you feel about a future Canada's HIMARS being slow rolled parts/ammo because the president of the day decides they want a better rate on hydro from Ontario or Quebec? Now, take that scenario, and put in it the context of Canada being back in a situation like Afghanistan... We need the kit to keep our troops alive/fighting, and an unreliable partner decides to use that as a bargaining chip.

This is precisely what I mean. We have a poor relationship with the US right now, but it’s an anomaly in our history. We haven’t fought a war without the US since 1903. I’m all for us domestically producing military equipment, but I think we have to accept there’s probably a practical limit somewhere, and trying to cut out the world biggest arms manufacturer is probably not going to be effective.

We are already essentially entirely GPS dependant, and our comms are built around Harris Radios. If the us wanted to fuck is the kill switch already exists.

 

[Furniture]

Well actually GR66 did.

Fair, I didn't notice that.

This is precisely what I mean. We have a poor relationship with the US right now, but it’s an anomaly in our history. We haven’t fought a war without the US since 1903. I’m all for us domestically producing military equipment, but I think we have to accept there’s probably a practical limit somewhere, and trying to cut out the world biggest arms manufacturer is probably not going to be effective.

We are already essentially entirely GPS dependant, and our comms are built around Harris Radios. If the us wanted to fuck is the kill switch already exists.

I'm not suggesting never buying American kit, I'm simply suggesting that we develop our own arms industry, with other "medium power" partners, so we aren't 100% dependant on American kit.

Realistically, if we end up in a war alongside the USA as an ally again, they are still going to keep their guns and HIMARS shooting before they give us parts and ammo. If we have our own facilities making CAN/SK/Polish kit, we don't need to rely on the kindness of America to keep fighting.

 

[markppcli]

Fair, I didn't notice that.


I'm not suggesting never buying American kit, I'm simply suggesting that we develop our own arms industry, with other "medium power" partners, so we aren't 100% dependant on American kit.

Realistically, if we end up in a war alongside the USA as an ally again, they are still going to keep their guns and HIMARS shooting before they give us parts and ammo. If we have our own facilities making CAN/SK/Polish kit, we don't need to rely on the kindness of America to keep fighting.

We will never buy enough to keep production open. Especially on expensive, niche products like HIMARS, or what ever other SSM / MLRS we procure. If Korea wants to build production facilities here to save on shipping g to Europe the. Maybe but they’re already building them in Poland so doubtful.

 

[Furniture]

We will never buy enough to keep production open. Especially on expensive, niche products like HIMARS, or what ever other SSM / MLRS we procure. If Korea wants to build production facilities here to save on shipping g to Europe the. Maybe but they’re already building them in Poland so doubtful.

The more that other countries make it, the less likely we are to be at the end of the line for parts/ammo...

We buys ESSMs from America, but we are also a major partner in developing them. We should be doing that with people other than America, even if we decide to be continue to be cheap with kit.

 

[markppcli]

If we want strategic independence we need to start with getting on Galileo instead of GPS, and adopting a whole news comms infostructure. Without that it’s largely irrelevant if the GOS guided missile gets delivered or not.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fair, I didn't notice that.


I'm not suggesting never buying American kit, I'm simply suggesting that we develop our own arms industry, with other "medium power" partners, so we aren't 100% dependant on American kit.

Realistically, if we end up in a war alongside the USA as an ally again, they are still going to keep their guns and HIMARS shooting before they give us parts and ammo. If we have our own facilities making CAN/SK/Polish kit, we don't need to rely on the kindness of America to keep fighting.

I’m starting to like the trifecta of SK/PL/CA.
We have stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the past and have bled with them in the past. They were reliable enough in the past to do then, maybe it’s time to see if we can join with them again.

 

[GR66]

Well actually GR66 did.

What I'm actually suggesting is that we have a hierarchy of preferences in our procurement. Each individual item will have to be reviewed to see which actually makes sense:

1. 100% Canadian IP and produced in Canada
2. Shared IP w/foreign partners and produced in Canada
3. Shared IP w/foreign partners and produced offshore
4. Foreign IP and produced in Canada
5. Foreign IP and produced offshore

I would suggest that items that we use/consume in bulk quantities as well as those items that are absolutely critical to our ability to operate independently we should aim to have as close to the top of the list as practical. Of course there are items/technologies where it simply doesn't make sense for us to develop/produce domestically due to either the complexity, cost or low volumes we would need - 5th/6th Generation Fighter aircraft for example. However, we could potentially invest heavily into research and developement of key individual components of those products so that there is at least some mutual dependence between ourselves and the country producing the final product.

This is precisely what I mean. We have a poor relationship with the US right now, but it’s an anomaly in our history. We haven’t fought a war without the US since 1903. I’m all for us domestically producing military equipment, but I think we have to accept there’s probably a practical limit somewhere, and trying to cut out the world biggest arms manufacturer is probably not going to be effective.

We are already essentially entirely GPS dependant, and our comms are built around Harris Radios. If the us wanted to fuck is the kill switch already exists.

I agree that our relationship with the US will likely improve post-Trump but that doesn't mean we should assume that means they won't at times act against our best interests. The US is currently an extremely prosperous nation but there are potential serious issues brewing that could make them inclined to be more confrontational with Canada. Depletion of their water resources (both in changing precipitation patterns reducing the flow of some key rivers as well as the drawing down of the aquifers that support much of their agriculture) for example could lead them to push for major water diversion from the Great Lakes, or demands for a greater share of the water flow from rivers originating in Canada. Our interests will not always align.

 

[MilEME09]

gn IP and produced offshore
I would suggest that items that we use/consume in bulk quantities as well as those items that are absolutely critical to our ability to operate independently we should aim to have as close to the top of the list as practical. Of course there are items/technologies where it simply doesn't make sense for us to develop/produce domestically due to either the complexity, cost or low volumes we would need - 5th/6th Generation Fighter aircraft for example. However, we could potentially invest heavily into research and developement of key individual components of those products so that there is at least some mutual dependence between ourselves and the country producing the final product.

I agree, most importantly we need barrel manufacturing capabilities to be restored, not just ammo

 

[Underway]

If we were smart (and we aren't), we'd maybe team up with Poland and SK to make non-ITAR, "domestic" systems based on the lessons learned from the American kit we all own.

Obviously there are IP issues to be overcome, but I'm pretty sure three relatively wealthy world powers could come up with solutions as a team. Maybe make the basis of the arrangement a non-limited use of whatever technology we co-develop. That way none of the players are bound by local politics in the other countries.

That doesn't sound smart, that sounds like industrial welfare, and more like the ridiculous Euro procurement processes for their "joint" ships and aircraft.

Remember the Leo 1 targeting system? That had to have sandbags on top so the heat of the vehicle wouldn't warp the steel and thus ruining the targeting? Yah that was a Canadian only procurement. Great job team. We bought crappy stuff because we forced it to be Canadian.

Building under license or having the company build a factory here is far better than forcing a Canadian solution on an already working system.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I agree, most importantly we need barrel manufacturing capabilities to be restored, not just ammo

Many a machine shop in the Windsor/Essex County would love to have this opportunity.

These guys instantly come to my mind. Home grown.

Steel HSS | Atlas Tube

Depend on Atlas Tube for steel hollow structural sections (HSS) and answers to all your design and shipment questions.

www.atlastube.com

 

[FJAG]

Many a machine shop in the Windsor/Essex County would love to have this opportunity.

These guys instantly come to my mind. Home grown.

Steel HSS | Atlas Tube

Depend on Atlas Tube for steel hollow structural sections (HSS) and answers to all your design and shipment questions.

www.atlastube.com

Not to get picky but

1) the first thing I see on their page is a "Made in America" USA label and

2) making a tube does not equate to making a 155 mm L52 barrel capable of taking the chamber pressures generated when trying to send a shell 30-40 miles down range.

I'm not 100% sure but to the best of my knowledge there is only one facility in North America capable of doing that right now and its Watervliet Arsenal.

 

[Furniture]

That doesn't sound smart, that sounds like industrial welfare, and more like the ridiculous Euro procurement processes for their "joint" ships and aircraft.

Remember the Leo 1 targeting system? That had to have sandbags on top so the heat of the vehicle wouldn't warp the steel and thus ruining the targeting? Yah that was a Canadian only procurement. Great job team. We bought crappy stuff because we forced it to be Canadian.

Building under license or having the company build a factory here is far better than forcing a Canadian solution on an already working system.

That is not what I was arguing for, I was arguing for us to work with other countries to develop systems. You know, like we did with the F-35 and ESSM...

I'm suggesting we do it as an equal partner with a nation like SK that already has an effective arms industry. With America we will always be a Jr partner, and limited to what they are willing to sell us. With a country like SK we could be equals, and not face limitations based on local politics.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not to get picky but

1) the first thing I see on their page is a "Made in America" USA label and

2) making a tube does not equate to making a 155 mm L52 barrel capable of taking the chamber pressures generated when trying to send a shell 30-40 miles down range.

I'm not 100% sure but to the best of my knowledge there is only one facility in North America capable of doing that right now and its Watervliet Arsenal.

I agree that they don't have this capability today, but we need to start with someone that at least works with steel, makes tubes, etc.

They say 'Made in America' because they have large facilities in the US and as any multi-national CDN company knows, you do NOT want to draw attention to yourself in a negative way to your US customers. They are playing it smart.

Barry Zekelman | Zekelman Industries

Meet Barry Zekelman, our Executive Chairman, and learn how he's leading our companies with his vision and expertise.

www.zekelman.com

Anybody in the Windsor area knows that you have to play both sides of the border in order to make money. This guy, through his father, take a small 'mom and pop' machine tool shop in Harrow (village south of Windsor) from nothing of significance into a multi-billion a year company. There are very very few CDN companies still like this left in Canada that are not foreign owned.

 

[FJAG]

That is not what I was arguing for, I was arguing for us to work with other countries to develop systems. You know, like we did with the F-35 and ESSM...

I'm suggesting we do it as an equal partner with a nation like SK that already has an effective arms industry. With America we will always be a Jr partner, and limited to what they are willing to sell us. With a country like SK we could be equals, and not face limitations based on local politics.

I'm not sure that's fully true although I'd like to believe it is.

It would be interesting to get some feedback from the Aussies as to just how well their arms deals with SK have worked out.

I think what's critical that we have end-to-end manufacturing within our own country. I'm agnostic as to who holds the IP as long as we have unrestricted access to it. While I'd like to see us as a distributor of arms, I think we can really only count on ourselves as customers (why would an IP holder allow us to become an international competitor of its own systems unless there is a real good licence fee for it)

I think the crux of the matter is to set up a system designed for a set amount of continuous construction - be it new systems or rebuilds. The government has to share in the setup costs and guarantee a continuous production line for a considerable number of years - for trucks it should be indefinitely - for smaller scale like artillery it could be as few as a dozen or two a year for a decade or two.

Heavy defence industries have to be nurtured. We need a national heavy weapons strategy - like the national shipbuilding strategy, only better.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukraine denies Trump claims that ‘thousands’ of its troops are surrounded

Ukraine’s military was forced on Friday to dismiss Donald Trump’s claim that thousands of its troops were encircled in Russia’s Kursk region as “false”.

www.telegraph.co.uk

7:02 AM​

US resumes shipment of long-range bombs to Ukraine​

The US is set to resume shipments of long-range bombs known as ground-launched small diameter bombs (GLSDB) to Ukraine.

The bombs have been upgraded to better counter Russian jamming, sources told Reuters.

The supplies will arrive amid reports that Kyiv’s supply of similarly-ranged ATACMS has been depleted.

These are upgraded versions of the GLSDB developed jointly by Boeing and SAAB as part of the Family of MLRS Missiles, comprising the GBU-39B Small Diameter Bomb normally launched from bombers and fighters, and the M26 rocket motor repurposed from carrying DPICMs.

I wonder if this upgrade employs the GBU-53B Stormbreaker SDB. It employs a triple mode seeker, including an MMW Radar that gives that bomb a degree of autonomy over the target area. It finds its own targets.

Ground-Launched And Powered Air-Launched Versions Of StormBreaker Glide Bomb Are In Development

The Small Diameter Bomb II already brings the ability to hit moving targets at standoff distances in any weather. As well as multimode guidance, Raytheon says the ground-launched version of its StormBreaker will offer greater range than the existing GLSDB.

www.twz.com

 

[Kirkhill]

What I'm actually suggesting is that we have a hierarchy of preferences in our procurement. Each individual item will have to be reviewed to see which actually makes sense:

1. 100% Canadian IP and produced in Canada
2. Shared IP w/foreign partners and produced in Canada
3. Shared IP w/foreign partners and produced offshore
4. Foreign IP and produced in Canada
5. Foreign IP and produced offshore

I would suggest that items that we use/consume in bulk quantities as well as those items that are absolutely critical to our ability to operate independently we should aim to have as close to the top of the list as practical. Of course there are items/technologies where it simply doesn't make sense for us to develop/produce domestically due to either the complexity, cost or low volumes we would need - 5th/6th Generation Fighter aircraft for example. However, we could potentially invest heavily into research and developement of key individual components of those products so that there is at least some mutual dependence between ourselves and the country producing the final product.

I agree that our relationship with the US will likely improve post-Trump but that doesn't mean we should assume that means they won't at times act against our best interests. The US is currently an extremely prosperous nation but there are potential serious issues brewing that could make them inclined to be more confrontational with Canada. Depletion of their water resources (both in changing precipitation patterns reducing the flow of some key rivers as well as the drawing down of the aquifers that support much of their agriculture) for example could lead them to push for major water diversion from the Great Lakes, or demands for a greater share of the water flow from rivers originating in Canada. Our interests will not always align.
View attachment 91893

This applies equally to Canada. The UK has long touted a Special Relationship with the US, dating back to Churchill and Roosevelt and the Atlantic Charter. Even as Roosevelt signed that Charter he was no friend to Britain's interests.

But those of us who love America must acknowledge how the US ruthlessly exploited its participation in the wars to demolish Britain’s financial, maritime and geopolitical power. It treats its allies as vassals, rather than equals. In Stalin’s War, Sean McMeekin recounts how Roosevelt suggested to Stalin in 1943 that India be taken away from Britain. It was best “not to discuss the question of India with Mr Churchill”, the US president said, arguing that America and Russia should remake India “from the bottom, somewhat on the Soviet line”. Stalin couldn’t believe his luck, or the way Roosevelt spoke of the greatest Englishman of all time.

John Maynard Keynes was sidelined at Bretton Woods. The 1947 sterling crisis was precipitated by America. The US betrayed us over Suez. Ronald Reagan disappointed on the Falklands, and invaded Grenada, a Commonwealth member, without properly informing Lady Thatcher. The IRA spent decades fundraising in the US while murdering in Britain. The UK sacrificed much in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 for no return; the “special relationship” started to feel abusive. Barack Obama and Joe Biden disliked the UK, and removed Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office. Obama took the EU’s side over Brexit. Trump is an Anglophile, and may offer us a trade deal, but has no interest in our perspective.

Britain has no friends, no money, and no grasp on reality

Neither America nor Europe has our back: we must become truly independent once again

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain Canada stands alone in a brutish world. Our small, impoverished yet special nation has spent too long lying to itself. The horrifying reality is that we have no real friends, just interests and beliefs. If we want to ensure the security, liberty and prosperity of the British people, and as Lord Palmerston put it, be “the champion of justice and right”, we will have to do it ourselves. Nobody, least of all the greater or lesser powers, has our back, or any interest in fair play.

Donald Trump’s America is putting itself first, reshaping the world, trashing allies and waging idiotic trade wars. Europe, mired in decadence and welfarism, is interested primarily in our military know-how, nuclear umbrella and, as always, our fisheries. Russia is a fascistic empire whose advances must be halted. China is a hostile civilisation. India doesn’t really care. International institutions and courts serve as useful idiots for proto-Marxists keen to destroy the West.

We need to be able to operate our own military without having to rely on parts from unreliable providers, to withstand embargoes or sanctions or cyber-attacks or pipelines being blown up or star wars. We must learn from how Trump treats Ukraine, or how Biden treated Israel, suspending arms sales. We must be able to project power and defend trade routes worldwide. We must retain as much free trade as possible, and slash tariffs further on friendly nations, but make sure that we can always get hold of essential goods and commodities.

We can no longer be naive, and assume that mercantilists who leverage trade for warfare are in fact followers of Milton Friedman or David Ricardo. In many cases, we will have to produce more military equipment in Britain, requiring reindustrialisation and greater steel manufacturing; in others, ensure a diversity of trading partners, buying weapons from Israel and Poland as well as the US, or food from Argentina rather than Spain.

The Atlanticists and the pro-Europeans alike are wrong. We should be friendly to the US and EU, but beholden to neither.

We should also learn from those that, in good faith bought weapons from Switzerland, only to discover they couldn't sell them or shoot them.

 

[Kirkhill]

That doesn't sound smart, that sounds like industrial welfare, and more like the ridiculous Euro procurement processes for their "joint" ships and aircraft.

Remember the Leo 1 targeting system? That had to have sandbags on top so the heat of the vehicle wouldn't warp the steel and thus ruining the targeting? Yah that was a Canadian only procurement. Great job team. We bought crappy stuff because we forced it to be Canadian.

Building under license or having the company build a factory here is far better than forcing a Canadian solution on an already working system.

Does having a build license ensure freedom to use the weapon or to transfer it to an ally in need?

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure that's fully true although I'd like to believe it is.

It would be interesting to get some feedback from the Aussies as to just how well their arms deals with SK have worked out.

I think what's critical that we have end-to-end manufacturing within our own country. I'm agnostic as to who holds the IP as long as we have unrestricted access to it. While I'd like to see us as a distributor of arms, I think we can really only count on ourselves as customers (why would an IP holder allow us to become an international competitor of its own systems unless there is a real good licence fee for it)

I think the crux of the matter is to set up a system designed for a set amount of continuous construction - be it new systems or rebuilds. The government has to share in the setup costs and guarantee a continuous production line for a considerable number of years - for trucks it should be indefinitely - for smaller scale like artillery it could be as few as a dozen or two a year for a decade or two.

Heavy defence industries have to be nurtured. We need a national heavy weapons strategy - like the national shipbuilding strategy, only better.

This.

National security is a field, like construction engineering, where efficiency must take a back seat to results. Warfare, by its nature, is inefficient. There is no cheap way to fight a war.

 

[OldSolduer]

I’m starting to like the trifecta of SK/PL/CA.
We have stood shoulder to shoulder with them in the past and have bled with them in the past. They were reliable enough in the past to do then, maybe it’s time to see if we can join with them again.

Agreed. Let's not toss the baby out with the bath water.

One can only hope that there are sober people behind the scenes chatting with each other.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed. Let's not toss the baby out with the bath water.

One can only hope that there are sober people behind the scenes chatting with each other.

If we toss efficiency and accept the need for additional costs then buying F35s and Gripens (or Golden Eagles to replace the Snowbirds and BAE Hawks), or MRLS and Rheinmetall PULS (Israeli system bought by Germany, or M109s and Archers.... etc. Yes it is more inefficient and costly. But it grants more freedom of movement.