Pretty much, I suspect there is very little difference in the cross country capabilities of the various Roshel products and the uparmoured G-wagon with turret, which suspect would be an utter dog in mud. You could have a new replacement within 2 years, easy part support and warranty work on the driveline at pretty much any Ford dealer.
I think that a logical solution would be the creation of 8 asymmetrical manoeuvre brigades (plus 1 manoeuvre bde HQ in Latvia) involving a mix of vehicles.
Are you advocating for a capability or for a placebo … or maybe a toy?
He's advocating for something usable for the Reserves. GWagons are dying across the board and the MILCOTs are rusted out. Theres literally no light wheels available in thr MO anymore beyond some OUT/U trucks that should have been written off years ago.
The CAF owes their reservists workable kit. Tough to train as an armoured crewman when there is no wheels available beyond our glorified golfcarts. We know for a fact that the Reserves aren't getting LAVs or Leos anytime soon, so we make do with what we have to approximate the tactics and doctrine we use in the real show.
Roshel and vehicles like it are well liked by thr Ukrainians all over Ukraine. Is that closer to Wainwright or Meaford? I'm personally leaning Wx especially the pandemonium when Bridget is at JDs on Saturday.
Not up-armoured. Armoured vehicles intended to roll around domestic training areas with no operational roll are a waste of money. Don't buy armour for egos.
No. The CAF must invest in requirements. That includes deployed operations, domestic operations, training, and support. The reserve units exists to satisfy a requirement (and if a unit doesn't satisfy a requirement then it doesn't need to exist). A reserve unit need the appropriate equipment to satisfy its existential requirement. There is no requirement for an armoured vehicle that does not deploy into a threat environment. The PRes either needs equipment that can go to war, or equipment to go train in Wainwright / Meaford. An armoured car may be inadequate for one of these and excessive for the other.
Good thing well trained crewmen proficient in armoured warfare with gunnery, comms and tactical driving to augment the burnt out Strats, RBCs and RCDs are requirements. No reservists, no tank squadron in Latvia at this point. 25-30% of the squadron are reservists these days. The same can be said of infantry reservists getting experience operating as a section of out of the back of a LUV. Sure its not a LAV, but its a way to train for a fraction the price.
I agree with you, but the CAF needs to do more to reduce the training delta when the reserves come to augment international operations. Do we need armour? no, but at the same time having a common vehicle across the reg force and reserve means if a shooting war happens we have extras around. I've said this many times before, many of our allies have reserves that operate with the same kit as their reg force counter parts. We just choose not to because we don't want to. Until the CAF decides to change things, we can argue this until the cows come home but in reality the reserves will continue to be almost useless and require enormous resources to bring to a reg force standard just to augment unless we get serious.
You don't get gunnery training from a Roshel, and you don't need armour for driving or comms. You are arguing for an armoured truck, but your arguments don't support the need for an armoured truck. Go bigger or go smaller.
But the armoured truck being argued as the panacea to PRes inadequacies does not come as an un-armoured variant. So, that does mean they "have them armoured in training." Put comments in the context of the conversation. We are being told that the CAF "owes" an armoured truck to the PRes. That is untrue. If they PRes are getting a bespoke vehicle to just train for war, then they do not need to be armoured. If they are getting a vehicle to train and go to war, then the vehicle must be good enough to go to war.
Why would any right thinking recruit join the Armd Reserves or the Artillery Reserves? The minimal equipment they have is falling apart. If you want people to give up their time, then you better damm well do something and soon. So yes the army "Owes" those people, who give up their free time to train in their occupation.
Jeezus, is she still alive?
The CAF pays reservists. It does not owe them a shiny toy. The equipment exists to satisfy CAF requirements.
Which is it? The Iltis have already been operational deployed and therefor are validated as a suitable system, or the suitability of the senators needs to be argued independent of what one nation in existential crisis has done with it?
So what's the point? Take your money and STFU?
Of course they do. It owes them the equipment they are to be trained on or that they have to go to war with. The current concept of hoarding all the shiny toys for the RegF has been stupid for many decades and is the very reason that you have platoon strength ARes bns with poorly trained people. The only reason for keeping shiny toys out of the ARes hands is a weak argument that they can't take care of it. Of course they can if properly resourced. Incidentally how is maintenance working out for the RegF? With a 50% VOR maybe the RegF can't be trusted with equipment?
Absolutely correct. And so does the ARes exist to meet CAF requirements. If the CAF, especially the army, could get its head out of its ass it would start to prioritize getting shiny toys into the ARes hands so that they too could meet CAF requirements. And yes, it would be best if it was identical to that of the RegF but the last time Canada did that was in the 1950s.
Take a look around. Senator type vehicles fill roles in many armies. Let's face it not every infantryman needs to be in an IFV or even a LAV. An armoured battle taxi capable of moving folks safely around the rear areas reasonably secure from splinters and small arms is adequate. It starts as a training device for armoured infantry (either IFV or LAV) and it also serves the purpose as a third tier device.
Then the RCAC collapses. There simply isn't enough dudes to go around to run the show between the Reassurance, the RCACS, other named Ops, work up, reconstitution and other activities.
I'll leave aside the Reg v ARes side but I think we dismiss equipment out of hand because it's not the best of the line.
Absolutely
If a reservist feels entitled to a particular brand name vehicle, yes. They need to get over themselves and realize the CAF does not owe them a toy.
No. The CAF does not owe anyone toys.
The CAF owes to Canadians that it buys the equipment that satisfy requirements.
The CAF owes nobody toys, and should not be buying toys.
If you want buy toys, go joint the Frontiersmen or an Airsoft club.
"Lots of people are doing this" is a bad/dangerous reason to do something. Lots of armies are using T72s, but we don't want to go buy those.
The Senator is excessive to needs for of a pure training vehicle, but it will get infantry killed if we try to send them to war in it ... of course, the proposal was that we buy Senator for PRes cavalry and that role will kill even more Canadians. If we need the PRes to have a vehicle that they are only going to use for training, then buy something without armour (you can buy comms & RWS with the money not spent on extraneous armour). If we need the PRes to have a vehicle that they can also take to war, then buy a proper war fighting vehicle. Don't buy anybody toys ... not even if it looks shiny or is "third tier"
