Leo 2A6M CAN - are they in service?

[YZT580]

CHILD54

Ok you got me thinking. I feel maybe I'm too hard on your ideas. I do think you have your heart in place. So on my drive home I thought what would work. Here I am going with the idea that Canada wants a home grown or at least home control over some equipment.

First I'm going to approach this from industrial side. I'm going assume the government is in agreement and actively supporting this industrial policy.

Ok here is my totally crazy plan to build Canada Land Systems Inc. First CLS Inc will need cash flow at the start. CLS Inc will need its own or good access to IP. We can't start as an R&D or prototype shop. Short of buying GD or BAE what is out there? My target is Arquus. That is the military business of AB Volvo. Arquus is mostly the Renault truck defence business with Volvos and few other plants. So why do I pick this? One Volvo was shopping it a couple years ago. Had no takers because of companies interested are all defence companies that would have had competitive issues. So they kept it. Second reason they are the current supplier of the CAF MSVS trucks. There are branded Mack but Mack is a Volvo brand. That would give our new company revenue in Canada with the sustainment contract. Also as we are dealing with Volvo we have them throw in their Canadian problem child Nova Bus division. This gives us two North American plants with work forces. One in Saint-Eustache QC and Plattsburgh NY. (Shhh secret they're for sale don't say anything) It will also give CLS Inc a civilian product line but with government buyers.

This idea has a capital heavy option where CLS buys all of Arquus and the gets the IP and European (French) plants or Capital light where you buy just the North American stuff. And go into agreement with Volvo for the IP and use of their dealer and supply chain and technology example Volvo Penta engines etc.
Problem on the heavy capital side is the French government who knows what they will want. But put that aside for now.
On the Canada government side they will have to be in agreement and do stuff they have not done. But model it somewhat on the shipbuilding but start after the competition. Or Colt Canada special agreement. So CLS is the single source for land equipment from trucks, Jeeps types up to the LAVs. (Give GDLS-C another LAV contract to keep them happy. Like LAV Air defence and some other things.)

So now CLS will start be producing the LSVW then the HLVW replacements moving on to the G Wagon LUVW replacement and at the same time many other equipment projects. With access to Volvo's products like contruction, Penta, European military, Volvo and Mack lines the CHER program can be also run through CLS.

There I have put the CLS Inc. together for you. Got a Billion?

By the time the Tank replacement and/or other fighting vehicles come up for bid CLS has a good shot. And you run a competition. CLS v GDLS v Hyndai Rotem etc.

If CLS go all in and purchases all of Arquus and Mack defence North Amerca you have a strong basis to get workd wide contracts. Need a good supply agreement and/or JV still with Volvo here. But that maybe work able. Volvo is still looking for cash right now to fund electrification of their remaining product lines. Because they could not sell Arquus they sold UD in Japan instead to Nissan.

In reality it breaks all the government procurement procedures, laws and trade agreements. Also an agreement that the Canadian government underwrites the deal and give the IP package that sovereign protection.

Put the head office in Montreal and you will have a deal

 

[Spencer100]

Put the head office in Montreal and you will have a deal

Saint Eustache (Nova Bus) is not far away. But you mostly likely have a good size footprint in Quebec. French speaking would help with the Arquus side. But I would also cover all bases. Sale office in Ottawa area. Sustainment operations in NB and Alberta. R&D and future production in Windsor ON. Ten minute drive to TACOM and Devcom in Warren MI. Plus ten minute drive to the Auto capital of the world.

 

[daftandbarmy]

CHILD54

Ok you got me thinking. I feel maybe I'm too hard on your ideas. I do think you have your heart in place. So on my drive home I thought what would work. Here I am going with the idea that Canada wants a home grown or at least home control over some equipment.

First I'm going to approach this from industrial side. I'm going assume the government is in agreement and actively supporting this industrial policy.

Ok here is my totally crazy plan to build Canada Land Systems Inc. First CLS Inc will need cash flow at the start. CLS Inc will need its own or good access to IP. We can't start as an R&D or prototype shop. Short of buying GD or BAE what is out there? My target is Arquus. That is the military business of AB Volvo. Arquus is mostly the Renault truck defence business with Volvos and few other plants. So why do I pick this? One Volvo was shopping it a couple years ago. Had no takers because of companies interested are all defence companies that would have had competitive issues. So they kept it. Second reason they are the current supplier of the CAF MSVS trucks. There are branded Mack but Mack is a Volvo brand. That would give our new company revenue in Canada with the sustainment contract. Also as we are dealing with Volvo we have them throw in their Canadian problem child Nova Bus division. This gives us two North American plants with work forces. One in Saint-Eustache QC and Plattsburgh NY. (Shhh secret they're for sale don't say anything) It will also give CLS Inc a civilian product line but with government buyers.

This idea has a capital heavy option where CLS buys all of Arquus and the gets the IP and European (French) plants or Capital light where you buy just the North American stuff. And go into agreement with Volvo for the IP and use of their dealer and supply chain and technology example Volvo Penta engines etc.
Problem on the heavy capital side is the French government who knows what they will want. But put that aside for now.
On the Canada government side they will have to be in agreement and do stuff they have not done. But model it somewhat on the shipbuilding but start after the competition. Or Colt Canada special agreement. So CLS is the single source for land equipment from trucks, Jeeps types up to the LAVs. (Give GDLS-C another LAV contract to keep them happy. Like LAV Air defence and some other things.)

So now CLS will start be producing the LSVW then the HLVW replacements moving on to the G Wagon LUVW replacement and at the same time many other equipment projects. With access to Volvo's products like contruction, Penta, European military, Volvo and Mack lines the CHER program can be also run through CLS.

There I have put the CLS Inc. together for you. Got a Billion?

By the time the Tank replacement and/or other fighting vehicles come up for bid CLS has a good shot. And you run a competition. CLS v GDLS v Hyndai Rotem etc.

If CLS go all in and purchases all of Arquus and Mack defence North Amerca you have a strong basis to get workd wide contracts. Need a good supply agreement and/or JV still with Volvo here. But that maybe work able. Volvo is still looking for cash right now to fund electrification of their remaining product lines. Because they could not sell Arquus they sold UD in Japan instead to Nissan.

In reality it breaks all the government procurement procedures, laws and trade agreements. Also an agreement that the Canadian government underwrites the deal and give the IP package that sovereign protection.

Why not just pay GMC and Ford to convert/increase capacity of their production lines by something like 0.02% to fulfill military equipment requirements e.g., vehicles and other stuff?

 

[Spencer100]

Why not just pay GMC and Ford to convert/increase capacity of their production lines by something like 0.02% to fulfill military equipment requirements e.g., vehicles and other stuff?

This crazy idea was to build a Canadian manufacturing base or supplier. In response to Child56. He has many times expressed a desire to see Canada grow a domestic capacity in defense manufacturing and service.

GM is currently bidding and interested in the defence market. They have reentered the market after leaving when sold to GD. After winning the ISV in the US and the new truck with a JV of Rheinmetal of a MAN truck last week.

Ford has show no interest in defence after selling Ford Aerosoace in the 80s

Ford sells chassis to independent upfitters. There are three or more in Canada who take F550 and make armored cars or Light APCs. Like the Senator.

Both GM and Ford plants in Canada are not at a stage to build anything for CAF. The GM Oshawa plant could make a pick up truck after its dont being rebuilt. Ford's Oakville plant builds crossovers. And retooling for BEV production.

Both have V8 powertrain plants in Canada. Ford in Windsor (2) and the GM propulsion plant plant in St Catharines.

All the facilities are in the middle of a multi billion dollars change to electric and BEV production. Funded by billions in taxpayer grants.

GM Ingersoll the old CAMI plant is being converted to Brightdrop. Brightdrop is a BEV delivery van designed in the COVID home delivery logistics market. GM got almost a billion from Trudeau for that one. It's basically a box on wheels for last mile logistics.

Now if you want to talk about Stallantis Canadian plants.......and their stuff...that's whole other story.

But the main thing to think about major OEM car manufacturers is that most of their plants would be very difficult to produce much for the military market. Even the GM ISV based on tbe S10 is a offline special build. Closer to Ferrari type production system than to Silverado production.

 

[daftandbarmy]

But the main thing to think about major OEM car manufacturers is that most of their plants would be very difficult to produce much for the military market. Even the GM ISV based on tbe S10 is a offline special build. Closer to Ferrari type production system than to Silverado production.

So there's a good goal for military designers... develop models that can be easily manufactured by the largest industrial base in the planet, in North America, versus various exotic 'unicorn' models.

We tend to forget that the Sherman won WW2, not the King Tiger

 

[lenaitch]

I have a hard time seeing any common ground between typical automotive production facilities and the production of military vehicles (a separate line or division, sure). Production lines are either specific to a single vehicle or a narrow range of vehicles ('flexi-line'). They produce multiple vehicles per hour, so any market for a complete CAF change-over would take, what, a week or two? International sales? Quite frankly, do we have the will or capacity to go nose-to-nose with the US or other major military production company? They would trade tribunal us in the dirt. The just-in-time parts supply precludes much in the way of warehousing. If an armour is involved, the entire facility would likely have to be re-built. There's probably a lot of reasons military-spec vehicles are essentially hand-built. When I want a Ford or Hyundai, I get to pick one of their models - I don't get to bespoke what I want. The days of picking options and features like a Chinese food menu are long gone.

In the last years of its life, the old Ford Crown Victoria was fleet sales only and had a significant lock on the police and taxi market in North America. Every single one was made in St. Thomas ON. Ever at that, Ford decided it wasn't worth staying in the market or keeping the plant.

 

[IKnowNothing]

We tend to forget that the Sherman won WW2, not the King Tiger

If modern thought processes could be transplanted the Sherman Tank would not have existed, instead WW2 would have been won with the Sherman Medium Infantry Support Gun- Turreted, which is not a tank, and should not be used as a tank.

 

[Spencer100]

So there's a good goal for military designers... develop models that can be easily manufactured by the largest industrial base in the planet, in North America, versus various exotic 'unicorn' models.

We tend to forget that the Sherman won WW2, not the King Tiger

I don't think there is a military system out there in production that is not an exquisite boutique machine. I do think we would be better served by just buying a crap load of F250 crew cabs painted green. Would be fine for 80% of the time.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This crazy idea was to build a Canadian manufacturing base or supplier. In response to Child56. He has many times expressed a desire to see Canada grow a domestic capacity in defense manufacturing and service.

GM is currently bidding and interested in the defence market. They have reentered the market after leaving when sold to GD. After winning the ISV in the US and the new truck with a JV of Rheinmetal of a MAN truck last week.

Ford has show no interest in defence after selling Ford Aerosoace in the 80s

Ford sells chassis to independent upfitters. There are three or more in Canada who take F550 and make armored cars or Light APCs. Like the Senator.

Both GM and Ford plants in Canada are not at a stage to build anything for CAF. The GM Oshawa plant could make a pick up truck after its dont being rebuilt. Ford's Oakville plant builds crossovers. And retooling for BEV production.

Both have V8 powertrain plants in Canada. Ford in Windsor (2) and the GM propulsion plant plant in St Catharines.

All the facilities are in the middle of a multi billion dollars change to electric and BEV production. Funded by billions in taxpayer grants.

GM Ingersoll the old CAMI plant is being converted to Brightdrop. Brightdrop is a BEV delivery van designed in the COVID home delivery logistics market. GM got almost a billion from Trudeau for that one. It's basically a box on wheels for last mile logistics.

Now if you want to talk about Stallantis Canadian plants.......and their stuff...that's whole other story.

But the main thing to think about major OEM car manufacturers is that most of their plants would be very difficult to produce much for the military market. Even the GM ISV based on tbe S10 is a offline special build. Closer to Ferrari type production system than to Silverado production.

The actions of Canada and the UK in regards to truck production is very enlightening, and was critical to the Allied war effort. Canadian Military Pattern truck - Wikipedia

What Canada should be doing is running tests on those 3 APC's based on the F550. Find out what they like and don't like from the designs, and take in account Ukrainian usage and suggestions. Then we can have a new CMP design. These vehicles can replace the G-wagon, Milcots and TAPV for many roles, freeing up the TAPV's and LAV's for direct combat. The mechanization of the Canada military particularly in the Reserves is falling to Pre-WWII levels. Commit to industry to buy X number of the new armoured CMP's each year (we can also have a un-amoured CMP using the same chassis), slowly build up the vehicle fleet and support for it, vehicles that hit the ten year mark are sold off and replaced 1 for 1. This lowers maintenance requirements and keeps the fleet current. The standard design can be revisited every 5 years or if there is a major change in the base chassis.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The actions of Canada and the UK in regards to truck production is very enlightening, and was critical to the Allied war effort. Canadian Military Pattern truck - Wikipedia

What Canada should be doing is running tests on those 3 APC's based on the F550. Find out what they like and don't like from the designs, and take in account Ukrainian usage and suggestions. Then we can have a new CMP design. These vehicles can replace the G-wagon, Milcots and TAPV for many roles, freeing up the TAPV's and LAV's for direct combat. The mechanization of the Canada military particularly in the Reserves is falling to Pre-WWII levels. Commit to industry to buy X number of the new armoured CMP's each year (we can also have a un-amoured CMP using the same chassis), slowly build up the vehicle fleet and support for it, vehicles that hit the ten year mark are sold off and replaced 1 for 1. This lowers maintenance requirements and keeps the fleet current. The standard design can be revisited every 5 years or if there is a major change in the base chassis.

But, yet again, there are procurement issues with a piece of military equipment apparently:

The Bloc Québécois’ defence critic is concerned about transparency of a recent $90-million sole-sourced deal to supply Ukraine with 200 armoured personnel carriers (APCs).

The contract was awarded to Mississauga-based Roshel after Ukraine’s defence minister, Oleksii Reznikov, specifically requested the company’s Senator vehicle.

But the Bloc’s Christine Normandin said the purchase was surprising given the number of armoured vehicle manufacturers, including Cambli Group, in her riding of Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, who were not approached.

“We are concerned about the government’s lack of transparency and this opens the door to all sorts of speculation as to why the government offered such a large contract … without competitive bidding.

John Ivison: Ottawa's sole-source deal for armoured vehicles for Ukraine raises questions | SaltWire

The Bloc Québécois’ defence critic is concerned about transparency of a recent $90-million sole-sourced deal to supply Ukraine with 200 armoured ...

www.saltwire.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which we can reduce the bitching by ordering 5 of each and run them through tests and then publish the results and then test each companies abilty to produce X number of vehicles.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But, yet again, there are procurement issues with a piece of military equipment apparently:

The Bloc Québécois’ defence critic is concerned about transparency of a recent $90-million sole-sourced deal to supply Ukraine with 200 armoured personnel carriers (APCs).

The contract was awarded to Mississauga-based Roshel after Ukraine’s defence minister, Oleksii Reznikov, specifically requested the company’s Senator vehicle.

But the Bloc’s Christine Normandin said the purchase was surprising given the number of armoured vehicle manufacturers, including Cambli Group, in her riding of Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, who were not approached.

“We are concerned about the government’s lack of transparency and this opens the door to all sorts of speculation as to why the government offered such a large contract … without competitive bidding.

John Ivison: Ottawa's sole-source deal for armoured vehicles for Ukraine raises questions | SaltWire

The Bloc Québécois’ defence critic is concerned about transparency of a recent $90-million sole-sourced deal to supply Ukraine with 200 armoured ...

www.saltwire.com

Oh Quebec, please never change. lol

 

[Spencer100]

The actions of Canada and the UK in regards to truck production is very enlightening, and was critical to the Allied war effort. Canadian Military Pattern truck - Wikipedia

What Canada should be doing is running tests on those 3 APC's based on the F550. Find out what they like and don't like from the designs, and take in account Ukrainian usage and suggestions. Then we can have a new CMP design. These vehicles can replace the G-wagon, Milcots and TAPV for many roles, freeing up the TAPV's and LAV's for direct combat. The mechanization of the Canada military particularly in the Reserves is falling to Pre-WWII levels. Commit to industry to buy X number of the new armoured CMP's each year (we can also have a un-amoured CMP using the same chassis), slowly build up the vehicle fleet and support for it, vehicles that hit the ten year mark are sold off and replaced 1 for 1. This lowers maintenance requirements and keeps the fleet current. The standard design can be revisited every 5 years or if there is a major change in the base chassis.

That was my point up in the thread. I was using the Arquus model because the company maybe available. Roshel, Strait Group etc. are just what in the business is called an upfitter. They take a chassis and bolt stuff to it. They really are just large custom shops. No real difference to say a Demers Ambulance upfitter. Yes they do have specialist knowledge about armouring a truck but would not call them a full manufacturer.

If we are using the CMP model say a CMPII you would need a full manufacturing operation. We will avoid the engine manufacturing to start. So think not as high volume of an auto plant but not like the little guys Roshel, etc. I would say plant with a 4 hour takt time production rate would give you about 400 per year on shift or 800 per year on two. The big truck makers run much faster at 30 to 1 hour Takt or faster. To give you an idea Windsor Assembly runs at 45 sec Takt.

We could do it we have the skill in this country. Its the will.

Oh we do have one heavy truck manufacturer left in Canada PACCAR in Quebec. They don't really do much milspec. International Navistar in Chatham is gone. Mack left in the 90's. Sterling closed in St Thomas that was the old Ford Louisville line Daimler bought. And Western Star closed to after also being purchased by Daimler. Daimler closed the Ontario Bus also. Volvo builds Nova Bus and Provost coaches in Quebec. New Flyer NFI make buses in Winnipeg.

Anyways this idea or mine earlier one will not work in the current political, regulation and trade law system we have in past.

 

[Zipperhead99]

The actions of Canada and the UK in regards to truck production is very enlightening, and was critical to the Allied war effort. Canadian Military Pattern truck - Wikipedia

What Canada should be doing is running tests on those 3 APC's based on the F550. Find out what they like and don't like from the designs, and take in account Ukrainian usage and suggestions. Then we can have a new CMP design. These vehicles can replace the G-wagon, Milcots and TAPV for many roles, freeing up the TAPV's and LAV's for direct combat. The mechanization of the Canada military particularly in the Reserves is falling to Pre-WWII levels. Commit to industry to buy X number of the new armoured CMP's each year (we can also have a un-amoured CMP using the same chassis), slowly build up the vehicle fleet and support for it, vehicles that hit the ten year mark are sold off and replaced 1 for 1. This lowers maintenance requirements and keeps the fleet current. The standard design can be revisited every 5 years or if there is a major change in the base chassis.

Very true, although I would almost suggest that we are falling to pre-WWI levels at this rate as the Reserves have next to no motorized (let alone mechanized) capability. What is even more concerning is that the Ukraine conflict has demonstrated the requirement for mobility in a near peer conflict.

The Ukrainians have been so desperate for mobility that they have even used UTVs and civilian trucks to move troops around the battlefield. If that is not an example of the requirement for vehicles for a military, then I do not know what is,

And here are some examples of the Ukrainian Army using whatever it can as a "military" vehicle: “Get ready to be amazed! Meet Ukraine’s ‘Mad Max’, who is taking civil... | TikTok

 

[FJAG]

It strikes me that our biggest issue is the feast or famine system of refreshing our B fleets which basically work on a orgy of acquisition followed by decades of running the fleet into the ground followed by yet another but smaller orgy. That makes it impossible for any supplier to become a dedicated producer.

I sometimes puzzle about why we don't make long term contracts--I'm talking decades--where a smaller producer turns out several hundred vehicles per year and we keep replacing the clapped out ones with new ones on an ongoing basis. One needs to start the process early after a big fleet orgy, and then keep the annual flow working at a rate to either grow, maintain or decrease the fleet size as required by operational need.

Just as an example if we have a B fleet of 2,000 of one class of vehicle and the estimated life cycle is 20 years then we would simply need an ongoing small scale production line that outputs 100 vehicles per year. There would obviously need to be an ease-in period but thereafter one would transition to a steady state.

You end up with a continuing depot maintenance facility and would be able to phase in product improvement cycles.

If one wants a dependable industry then it needs to be set up at a manufacturing scale and pace that ensures the manufacturer a guaranteed long-term workflow and income that makes it worthwhile to invest in the plant needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

That was my point up in the thread. I was using the Arquus model because the company maybe available. Roshel, Strait Group etc. are just what in the business is called an upfitter. They take a chassis and bolt stuff to it. They really are just large custom shops. No real difference to say a Demers Ambulance upfitter. Yes they do have specialist knowledge about armouring a truck but would not call them a full manufacturer.

Plasan's SandCat is based on a bolt on modular armour system...

Suppose we supplied all the Canadian "upfitters" with Ford 550 frames and then purchased the Sand Cat armour for them to add. The F550 could be used for unarmoured B fleet vehicles as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

It strikes me that our biggest issue is the feast or famine system of refreshing our B fleets which basically work on a orgy of acquisition followed by decades of running the fleet into the ground followed by yet another but smaller orgy. That makes it impossible for any supplier to become a dedicated producer.

I sometimes puzzle about why we don't make long term contracts--I'm talking decades--where a smaller producer turns out several hundred vehicles per year and we keep replacing the clapped out ones with new ones on an ongoing basis. One needs to start the process early after a big fleet orgy, and then keep the annual flow working at a rate to either grow, maintain or decrease the fleet size as required by operational need.

Just as an example if we have a B fleet of 2,000 of one class of vehicle and the estimated life cycle is 20 years then we would simply need an ongoing small scale production line that outputs 100 vehicles per year. There would obviously need to be an ease-in period but thereafter one would transition to a steady state.

You end up with a continuing depot maintenance facility and would be able to phase in product improvement cycles.

If one wants a dependable industry then it needs to be set up at a manufacturing scale and pace that ensures the manufacturer a guaranteed long-term workflow and income that makes it worthwhile to invest in the plant needed.

Why are we looking for 20 year lives when the field life of a utility vehicle in Ukraine is 3 months?

20 years is 80 field lives.

Seems to me the Jeep M151 Mutt was developed as a low cost, short life runabout for Vietnam. I could be wrong. But it was built by 3 manufacturers

M151 MUTT

The M151 MUTT was the successor to the Korean War M38 and M38A1 jeep Light Utility Vehicles. It was produced from 1959 through 1982 and served in the Vietnam War. The M151 utilized a monocoque design making it roomier than previous jeep designs, and incorporated an independent suspension with...

jeep.fandom.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes I said years ago that we treat vehicles like capital assets, when in reality they are expendable goods. With the 3 small scale out fitters we have all using a common chassis, we can do a combined test, develop the model for the CAF and have then produce it. The USA Army pre-WWII let small contracts out to many of the companies so they get experience building military goods, so they were ready when the war came. We can do the same with the current manufacturing setup we have. Concentrate these vehicles in the Reserve with local dealer servicing, Keep the LAV's in the Regular army. We still be better off than we are now.

 

[brihard]

Yes I said years ago that we treat vehicles like capital assets, when in reality they are expendable goods. With the 3 small scale out fitters we have all using a common chassis, we can do a combined test, develop the model for the CAF and have then produce it. The USA Army pre-WWII let small contracts out to many of the companies so they get experience building military goods, so they were ready when the war came. We can do the same with the current manufacturing setup we have. Concentrate these vehicles in the Reserve with local dealer servicing, Keep the LAV's in the Regular army. We still be better off than we are now.

So an assortment of MILCOTS for in-Canada use, outfitted with necessary kit and ancillaries to allow for military use and meaningful training that can carry over to combat-suitable expeditionary equipment?

 

[CBH99]

But, yet again, there are procurement issues with a piece of military equipment apparently:

The Bloc Québécois’ defence critic is concerned about transparency of a recent $90-million sole-sourced deal to supply Ukraine with 200 armoured personnel carriers (APCs).

The contract was awarded to Mississauga-based Roshel after Ukraine’s defence minister, Oleksii Reznikov, specifically requested the company’s Senator vehicle.

But the Bloc’s Christine Normandin said the purchase was surprising given the number of armoured vehicle manufacturers, including Cambli Group, in her riding of Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, who were not approached.

“We are concerned about the government’s lack of transparency and this opens the door to all sorts of speculation as to why the government offered such a large contract … without competitive bidding.

John Ivison: Ottawa's sole-source deal for armoured vehicles for Ukraine raises questions | SaltWire

The Bloc Québécois’ defence critic is concerned about transparency of a recent $90-million sole-sourced deal to supply Ukraine with 200 armoured ...

www.saltwire.com

Maybe because the Ukrainian Minister specifically asked for that model of vehicle, as it’s already in service & liked by the Ukrainian Armed Forces?

They requested additional Senator vehicles. What else would you have us send them?

And how long does this competitive bidding process of yours take? Judging from past projects, much nuch longer than current events allow for…


I get it. She has to bring it up as there are numerous competitors in her riding - she’s doing her job.

But