Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[FJAG]

Keeping in mind also that any move on our Arctic is not likley to be a purely military by our opponents, but a blend of political, civil and military power projection, coupled with disinformation, international political manoeuvring to paralyze our government and delegitimize our claims.

We totally agree and I think this, more than anything else, is what I see it as becoming an analogy of what China is doing in the South China Sea: Staking it's claims (physically, politically and commercially), and then aggressively nudging us away from them through politics and disinformation to delegitimize our claims, ignoring any international arbitration and using force to keep us away while our government is paralyzed.

IMHO we need armed ice breakers and the subs before we need the River Class.

 

[Kirkhill]

We totally agree and I think this, more than anything else, is what I see it as becoming an analogy of what China is doing in the South China Sea: Staking it's claims (physically, politically and commercially), and then aggressively nudging us away from them through politics and disinformation to delegitimize our claims, ignoring any international arbitration and using force to keep us away while our government is paralyzed.

IMHO we need armed ice breakers and the subs before we need the River Class.

And I would add long range fire power to rapidly neutralize threats with a small amount of weapons and people (cost effectiveness) and the means to keep our skies clear and our infrastructure secure.

 

[GR66]

If we had our shit together we'd be setting up arms manufacturing by the half ton on the basis that any war will be a long one which will gobble up rockets, missiles, ammo, UAVs and UGVs, etc etc and our distance from the conflict gives our industries a degree of protection - but we aren't that type of people.

This to me is really the key for Canada. Any major conflict anywhere in the World will need munitions in large volumes. Volumes that even the major nations are having trouble producing. This is where Canada should focus its efforts...both for our own defence and to contribute to the collective defence of our allies.

It may not put our flag on a map in the same way that an Armoured Division or a Naval Task Group would but I bet it would have a greater impact on the conflict overall than either of those would. Europe is not going to run out of people to fight against Russia if it comes to that but they could run out of the missiles, rockets and UAVs required to decisively win the war before it turns into an attritional fight. Similarly for the Indo-Pacific. We're not going to do a "Hong Kong 2.0" in Taiwan and admittedly the number of subs, ships and aircraft we could deploy wouldn't be enough to tip the balance but as was noted in a CSIS* video the China Thread, most wargames of a conflict between the US and China see the US running out of long-range anti-ship missiles within a week.

@FJAG is correct that the best time to have started down this path was years ago but as the saying goes the 2nd best time to start is now. IF war breaks out between Russia and NATO or China and the West it won't be a "one and done" type thing. It will set the stage for ongoing conflict and the munitions we produce will be in demand for years to come.

* No, not THAT CSIS