The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[childs56]

Interestingly, one of the foundations of military equipment is small arms.

The GOC's policies of the past few years related to small arms have devastated that industry in Canada. Several manufacturers have closed up shop, innovation has been driven offshore, and due to the political climate, I suspect few major companies would be willing to commit to any form of investment.

One would think that a nation interested in re-arming would start with the basics, not destroying that basic foundation.

But what do I know.

But they have Colt Canada. What more do they need?

 

[FJAG]

I don't think you understand what reserve equipment is.

I'm not sure what you mean by that because, if anything, I have a pretty good understanding of the various meanings of "reserves" and "reserve equipment."

In this context think of it like war stock.

The ARes are part of the 1000 trucks in operation.

The point I was making was in response to @KevinB's comment which was simply to reiterate that "reserve equipment," should not simply be that held in war stock, but should also include a healthy allocation to fully equip reserve units. Both the equipped reserve units and the war stocks together form the totality of the "reserve." After that you need to look to the national manufacturing capabilities to generate more.

I think where things go off the rails is that the equipment held by army reserve units is viewed in many cases not as "reserve equipment", but as "training aids." This is why the army is satisfied with giving reserve units MILCOTS rather than SMP vehicles. These MILCOTS have a training role and may have a role in the domestic operations now being assigned to 2 Div, but have limited, if any, value in replacing destroyed SMP equipment used in expeditionary operations by 1 Div. While I appreciate the financial aspects to that, I think it is fundamentally wrong and a false economy as it limits the sustainability of the expeditionary forces.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not sure what you mean by that because, if anything, I have a pretty good understanding of the various meanings of "reserves" and "reserve equipment."

The point I was making was in response to @KevinB's comment which was simply to reiterate that "reserve equipment," should not simply be that held in war stock, but should also include a healthy allocation to fully equip reserve units. Both the equipped reserve units and the war stocks together form the totality of the "reserve." After that you need to look to the national manufacturing capabilities to generate more.

I think where things go off the rails is that the equipment held by army reserve units is viewed in many cases not as "reserve equipment", but as "training aids." This is why the army is satisfied with giving reserve units MILCOTS rather than SMP vehicles. These MILCOTS have a training role and may have a role in the domestic operations now being assigned to 2 Div, but have limited, if any, value in replacing destroyed SMP equipment used in expeditionary operations by 1 Div. While I appreciate the financial aspects to that, I think it is fundamentally wrong and a false economy as it limits the sustainability of the expeditionary forces.

I think the point is that Reserve Equipment needs to be understood as Extra stuff past operating use requirements.
The PRes in Canada needs to be considered operating use for equipment -- or just pack them all up and shutter the system.

I do not accept for Canada that the PRes be looked at as a “Reserve” -- realistically they are the first wave - while 1/2 the RegF trains new folks.

The Operational Army (RegF and PRes in Canada’s case) needs equipment and manning at 110% WarTimeStrength, in Peacetime - simply to ensure that there are 100% ready to go.

There should be a significant overage of war stock reserve equipment to then be able to mobilize the populace.

 

[FJAG]

I think the point is that Reserve Equipment needs to be understood as Extra stuff past operating use requirements.
The PRes in Canada needs to be considered operating use for equipment -- or just pack them all up and shutter the system.

I do not accept for Canada that the PRes be looked at as a “Reserve” -- realistically they are the first wave - while 1/2 the RegF trains new folks.

The Operational Army (RegF and PRes in Canada’s case) needs equipment and manning at 110% WarTimeStrength, in Peacetime - simply to ensure that there are 100% ready to go.

There should be a significant overage of war stock reserve equipment to then be able to mobilize the populace.

You and I are totally in sync.

I don't think the CAF is.

As a side note I just submitted my last material for "WAFG" to our editors which leaves me free to work on revising "Unsustainable" which should be interesting in light of CAMO and Aimpoint 1 and other things. Waiting with bated breath for submarine and fighter announcements.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm not sure what you mean by that because, if anything, I have a pretty good understanding of the various meanings of "reserves" and "reserve equipment."

Reserve has more meanings than the Army reserve. We have repairable reserves in supply, that has nothing to do with the ARes, or any reserve force; as an example.

The point I was making was in response to @KevinB's comment which was simply to reiterate that "reserve equipment," should not simply be that held in war stock, but should also include a healthy allocation to fully equip reserve units. Both the equipped reserve units and the war stocks together form the totality of the "reserve." After that you need to look to the national manufacturing capabilities to generate more.

No one said that. You got defensive for no reason.

Disagree, stock held and used by reserve units should be counted as operational. And they should be provided operational support for that stock and materiel.

I think you're confusing what a War Stock is, and I think tying the ARes to war stock would not be in their favor.

I think where things go off the rails is that the equipment held by army reserve units is viewed in many cases not as "reserve equipment", but as "training aids." This is why the army is satisfied with giving reserve units MILCOTS rather than SMP vehicles. These MILCOTS have a training role and may have a role in the domestic operations now being assigned to 2 Div, but have limited, if any, value in replacing destroyed SMP equipment used in expeditionary operations by 1 Div. While I appreciate the financial aspects to that, I think it is fundamentally wrong and a false economy as it limits the sustainability of the expeditionary forces.

I want make sure we all realize were in the RCAF Next Generation Fighter Thread. And not everything revolves around the black hole that is the much maligned ARes.

 

[Good2Golf]

I want make sure we all realize were in the RCAF Next Generation Fighter Thread. And not everything revolves around the black hole that is the much maligned ARes.

Maybe the RCAF should consider forming numerous small detachments of 3-6 aircraft ‘Squadrons’ across the country flying F-35 and Gripen, each one run by a LCol? 15-20 Air Reserve squadrons should work to keep from burdening the regular RCAF fighter squadrons.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Maybe the RCAF should consider forming numerous small detachments of 3-6 aircraft ‘Squadrons’ across the country flying F-35 and Gripen, each one run by a LCol? 15-20 Air Reserve squadrons should work to keep from burdening the regular RCAF fighter squadrons.

lol

God damn it I'm in.