The CAF updates it's blue fleet in small batches as they age-out, the CAF isn't a stranger to what large companies or businesses do.
Green fleet serves different roles than blue fleet.
Im hoping we get into customization honestly. If it proves effective Id like to see an amb, light recovery, CUAS, even light mortar, etc if it works out.
The problem is that the current concept does not provide adequate war stocks. The second problem is that there is only so much money to go around. There needs to be a program that both allows the cycling of older but still useable vehicles into war stocks while new vehicles are introduced in a logical plan that is both economical and sustainable.
The lack of 2 Div plan announcements isgetting concerning.The problem is that the current concept does not provide adequate war stocks. The second problem is that there is only so much money to go around. There needs to be a program that both allows the cycling of older but still useable vehicles into war stocks while new vehicles are introduced in a logical plan that is both economical and sustainable.
The concept of "we need a common fleet to simplify maintenance and repair" hasn't worked for us in peacetime (see the previous year's VOR rates) and will leave us incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup in wartime. And that is ludicrous.
If anything that Ukraine teaches us about sustainment in battle it is that you need to be able to and can in fact sustain a wide variety of equipment. Sometime it just gets used 'til it wears out or breaks and then you coble something together or let it sit in a field. Stuff gets grouped in brigades for as much commonality as you can. We can do that as well. I see three tiers of equipment - 1) front line deployed formations and Canadian-based training and replacement formations; 2) Canadian formations for domestic operations; 3) A territorial home guard. Those can, and probably will have different sets of green fleets which may, in part, be hand-me-down fleets.
The CAF has to get out of the rut of just thinking about its full-timers - what has now become 1 Div - and seriously plan for what 2 Div will become and need and, more importantly, what the expanded war-time army will need. - and that needs to include a greatly expanded, more versatile log and maint structure.
I think that you'll find that the army will be turning to 2 Div matters in a large way starting early this fall. Plans should fall out after that.
Well CANSOF did testing and they bought JLTV’s.
CANSOF is no more immune to "shiny" than the rest of the CAF, and they tend to have more money to throw at toys...
Fair
One could argue non-combat troops don’t need an armored vehicle.
CAF VOR rates are driven by institutional decisions not to resource spares. Just like the ammunition holdings measured in hours, not days or months, are driven by institutional decisions not to resource the ammunition program.The problem is that the current concept does not provide adequate war stocks. The second problem is that there is only so much money to go around. There needs to be a program that both allows the cycling of older but still useable vehicles into war stocks while new vehicles are introduced in a logical plan that is both economical and sustainable.
The concept of "we need a common fleet to simplify maintenance and repair" hasn't worked for us in peacetime (see the previous year's VOR rates) and will leave us incapable of sustaining anything more than a battlegroup in wartime. And that is ludicrous.
If anything that Ukraine teaches us about sustainment in battle it is that you need to be able to and can in fact sustain a wide variety of equipment. Sometime it just gets used 'til it wears out or breaks and then you coble something together or let it sit in a field. Stuff gets grouped in brigades for as much commonality as you can. We can do that as well. I see three tiers of equipment - 1) front line deployed formations and Canadian-based training and replacement formations; 2) Canadian formations for domestic operations; 3) A territorial home guard. Those can, and probably will have different sets of green fleets which may, in part, be hand-me-down fleets.
The CAF has to get out of the rut of just thinking about its full-timers - what has now become 1 Div - and seriously plan for what 2 Div will become and need and, more importantly, what the expanded war-time army will need. - and that needs to include a greatly expanded, more versatile log and maint structure.
Youre very quick to wave off the fact the Ukrainians genuinely really like thr product they get with Roshel, especially since it got the upgraded suspension.
If we choose them, I'd like to hope that we would push to incorporate changes/improvements to some of the deficiencies discovered during its extensive combat usage in Ukraine.
Im pretty sure I read those changes are incorporated in all further tranches theyve built.
We couldn't agree more. I tend to see things from a filter of my last three RegF years with an M109 battery. We had tracks, lots of them, but they stayed on the road because I had a lot of techs working for me and we had the parts and did the crew maintenance as well. My guess is that I probably had more techs working for me in that one battery than the average battalion or regiment has now. (Oh. And we had air defence as well, but I digress).
Fun fact: alot of civilian mechanics are not Canadian, or from Canada. Dealerships are desperate for wrench pullers and are sourcing them from far and wide....
I wonder how that might impact our national security if they've fixing all our Army stuff.
