Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Smallc]

Ahhh no......reread your link.

There is a reason the Americans (and Europeans) started developing replacements for the TOW and HOT missiles decades ago......and its not because they felt they could still do the required "job".........I'm sure in the certain circumstances a Panzerfaust or even a recoilless rifle could "do the job"

You realize the Americans plan to use TOW until 2050, and bought the ones we sold?

[Smallc]

So? This Government's "not a cut" took away the infantry's only anti-armor tool........they were testing them earlier this year in Gagetown.....and they've since put them in storage per the article you cited.

And now they're taking them out of storage. It's the Conservaties that caused them to be put away with their cuts

.

[Derek 2.0]

So none.

Except the video evidence I linked to from earlier this year with the Canadian army live firing the latest wireless block of TOW..

Edited July 21, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

You realize the Americans plan to use TOW until 2050, and bought the ones we sold?

Not as their primary (or even secondary) anti-armor missile.........

[Derek 2.0]

And now they're taking them out of storage. It's the Conservaties that caused them to be put away with their cuts

.

The Tories mothballed our obsolete inventory several years ago.........and purchased the latest block......The Trudeau government is the one the put these newest of missiles into storage.....per your link, where the army is again taking them out of storage.

[Smallc]

Except the video evidence I linked to from earlier this year with the Canadian army live firing the latest wireless block of TOW..

At a NATO testing.

[Smallc]

The Tories mothballed our obsolete inventory several years ago.........and purchased the latest block

And then mothballed those as well:

The Canadian Army decided to get rid of the TOW missiles after they were required by the Harper government to find cost-savings.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/what-happened-to-the-canadian-armys-tow-2-missiles

Apparently, they must have kept some.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

At a NATO testing.

So? It counters your earlier link that the Government is now taking them out of storage.....

[Derek 2.0]

And then mothballed those as well:

The Canadian Army decided to get rid of the TOW missiles after they were required by the Harper government to find cost-savings.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/what-happened-to-the-canadian-armys-tow-2-missiles

Apparently, they must have kept some.

So? Said retired (obsolete) equipment also included the TUA launchers off the old M113s and equipment purchased for the Liberal's Frankenstein ADATS project.......

Clearly your above link is wrong as if it were true we wouldn't have missiles to be used in tests earlier this year........or missiles to take out of storage now per your earlier link

[Army Guy]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-army-pulls-anti-tank-missiles-out-of-storage-as-tensions-increase-with-russia

We have TOW missiles again, so, that's good for the anti tank part I was worried about.

Now we just need some actual air defense that doesn't have to be mounted on a jet or a ship.

No we have a few Tow missles most were sold off...An Infantry BN normally held 18 tow under armor vehs, plus 18 ground mount systems, not including eryx systems and 84 mm carl gustoff at guns....now they have only the 84mm, and a few examples of the ground mount Tow sys....the Eryx system was scrapped in 2011, and was suppose to be replaced by a similar system such as US javelin , but that project was cancelled along with the tow sys replacement....

[Smallc]

No we have a few Tow missles most were sold off...An Infantry BN normally held 18 tow under armor vehs, plus 18 ground mount systems, not including eryx systems and 84 mm carl gustoff at guns....now they have only the 84mm, and a few examples of the ground mount Tow sys....the Eryx system was scrapped in 2011, and was suppose to be replaced by a similar system such as US javelin , but that project was cancelled along with the tow sys replacement....

But not by the Liberals, as Derek is suggesting.

[Army Guy]

You realize the Americans plan to use TOW until 2050, and bought the ones we sold?

Yes the Americans are going to use it until platforms such as the Bradlys, M901, and the LAV equivalent are replaced.

That being said TOW tech is obsolete, for many reasons , it is wire guided, wires have a tendency to break or malfunction. once fired a large flash normally gives away your position, last thing you want is for the enemy to find you while your missle takes off into space....

It should be noted that we had taken off the TUA turrets off the M-113 and placed them on LAV III chassis, but as Derek said some of these vehs were frankistiened into the a ADDATS/ rocket platform, the rest were converted into something else after that failure.....

The Europeans are now replacing all their Tow platforms into new tech fire and forget missles that have no wires but are computer controlled using various systems , along with much longer ranges....the TOW systems have a max range of 3750 meters and were once a long range sys....today such as the Spike system which comes in short (inf manpad) ,MED, AND LONG RANGE with long range sys it has ranges exceeding 5 kms or 5000 meters.....

And while other allies have developed firing missles from tanks, such as Israel, and Germany leo firing the LAHAT missles similar to the Russian tanks.

Defeating reactive armor is not all that hard, the latest TOW has a tandum war head, the problem with reactive armor is once it is used it leaves a gap in your defenses....hence why the tandum war head is so effective....it is also deadly to dismounted infantry, not to mention is dazes the crew inside the tank....for a few seconds....The TOW II B was a top attack mis, meaning it had no reactive armor to defeat....as you don't put reactive on the top of the tank....

hence why some nations now use a combo reactive armor and new composite armor.....Plus most NATO nations have added active defense systems that use smoke, thermal defeating smoke, or attack the missles themselves with a counter projectile. which are much better than reactive armor, but the sys themselves tend to be exposed to enemy fire. and can only be used once every 8 to 10 seconds....

[Army Guy]

But not by the Liberals, as Derek is suggesting.

The TOW systems were taken out of the Armys inventory in 2006, Both the TUA's ( M-113) and ground systems and the liberals were in charge back then.

These missiles are not cheap, each new member of a tow team is required to fire between 3 to 5 missiles just to become qualified....like I said there used to be up to 36 tow platforms per BN, a lot of training missiles going down range every year....when you combine the effectiveness of the missile, and compare it to new tech it was not worth the funding spent....it was supposed to be replaced and is on a long list of equipment the Army needs...when it gets it is unknown , keep in mind it has been gone since 2006.....along with the Eyrx AT sys ( med Range), been gone since 2006 as well.....

As for the surplus missiles, I can not say, there where rumors of stocks, and a sale to US marines, but I can not confirm any of that other than the sources provided in the media. What I do know is like every munition they have a shelf life, and old batchs of ammo are tested regularly at CFB Gagetown, along with testing of new munitions or proto types by an Army testing cell in Gagetown (Trails and evaluations) who may have been testing new equipment , however I can not confirm this either.

[Argus]

It's grossly misleading to refuse to acknowledge that we spend the 6th most in NATO, and to pretend we're actually 23rd.

It's grossly misleading to suggest that paying vast sums of money for an army of chair warmers, bureaucrats and clerks in Ottawa, and a bunch of barely used bases around the country fulfills our obligations under NATO.

Do you honestly think NATO is impressed when they say "Where are your fighters, your warships, your tanks and LAVs and soldiers?" and we beam at them and show them how much we spend on bureaucrats, in and out of uniform, in Ottawa?

DND has about 100,000 full-time employees, civilian and military. But it can't put together and equip three full regiments of full time infantrymen. How many trigger pullers does the military actually have? Less than 5,000, I'm sure, maybe even half that if you discount the reservists.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

They might say that, were we not contributin LAVs, warships, fighters, and possibly tanks.

[Smallc]

The TOW systems were taken out of the Armys inventory in 2006, Both the TUA's ( M-113) and ground systems and the liberals were in charge back then.

These missiles are not cheap, each new member of a tow team is required to fire between 3 to 5 missiles just to become qualified....like I said there used to be up to 36 tow platforms per BN, a lot of training missiles going down range every year....when you combine the effectiveness of the missile, and compare it to new tech it was not worth the funding spent....it was supposed to be replaced and is on a long list of equipment the Army needs...when it gets it is unknown , keep in mind it has been gone since 2006.....along with the Eyrx AT sys ( med Range), been gone since 2006 as well.....

As for the surplus missiles, I can not say, there where rumors of stocks, and a sale to US marines, but I can not confirm any of that other than the sources provided in the media. What I do know is like every munition they have a shelf life, and old batchs of ammo are tested regularly at CFB Gagetown, along with testing of new munitions or proto types by an Army testing cell in Gagetown (Trails and evaluations) who may have been testing new equipment , however I can not confirm this either.

The Liberals left government February 6th, 2006. I think you'd better check your dates.

The newer TOW, bought in 2010, was retired in 2014, by the Conservatives as well.

[Army Guy]

I get that the liberals left power in Feb of 2006, however all that being the LAV project was started in in 1999, under the liberals, and the TUA LAV project was completed until 2006, we both know that these contracts take years before they become reality.....The phase out of M-113 TUA began in 2003, with the final machines with drawn from inventory in 2005,with the turrets to be used in the new LAV III TUA....This withdrawal also included Tow ground systems....as they were going to be replaced with a Medium range lighter, more portable system (still waiting on this project) That being said no long range AT sys in the CF during this period...

http://canadianforcesmilitary.com/tow.html

The contract for LAV III TUA was suppose to fill these gaps, however the contract was amended with only 38 machines built, most of these machines were later reconverted back into LAV III with an RWS system similar to the US strikers....meaning no 25 mm turret, just a 7.62 GPMG RWS. Now I have seen a few LAV III TUA systems out in CFB Wainwright, but no more than a couple of examples.....still in service....

Now why would Canada need to buy new missiles in 2007 and 2010....well during that time we were in Afghanistan, the LAV III was brought over to the Afghanistan mission in 2006 , still no tanks at this time, at it was thought that role could be filled by the LAV III TUA, (at this time they had not been converted to LAV RWS) which did not happen until 2011,( but sat in warehouses waiting the final decision on what to do with them, and them messing around with the MMES (addats platform) with some examples at the units to conduct limited training with.... once converted to LAV III RWS's the media asked why? as we had just purchased more tow missiles....

To make a long story short the original contract was modified by the liberal government, to build only 38 machines....and yes it was harpers choice to agree to have existing stocks of LAV III TUA's back into LAV RWS...as there was not enough of them, to deploy at unit level, and the Army was short of LAV III....Due to the fact that orginal LAV III contract was cut in half by the liberal government...

[Smallc]

The reality of all this is there is no existential threat to Canada. There's no pressing need for more money to be spent on war.

[Argus]

The reality of all this is there is no existential threat to Canada. There's no pressing need for more money to be spent on war.

The reality is that once an 'existential threat' develops it's a little late to buy equipment and build a military to take care of it.

And Trump has already said he's going to think twice about having the US aid NATO allies (and that includes us) who have refused to commit sufficient sums to be credible military partners. Relying on the US in any sort of confrontation with the Russians is a fool's game. They will settle things as per their interests, not ours, if we have no skin in the game.

[Smallc]

The reality is that once an 'existential threat' develops it's a little late to buy equipment and build a military to take care of it.

And Trump has already said he's going to think twice about having the US aid NATO allies (and that includes us) who have refused to commit sufficient sums to be credible military partners. Relying on the US in any sort of confrontation with the Russians is a fool's game. They will settle things as per their interests, not ours, if we have no skin in the game.

Trump says a lot of things.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Relying on the US in any sort of confrontation with the Russians is a fool's game. They will settle things as per their interests, not ours, if we have no skin in the game.

Excellent observation.....total NATO member population in Europe is far greater than the population of the United States. Relying and depending on American foreign policy and military spending to protect Europe is a decades old exercise in faith. Canada's DND budget presumes/assumes much of the same.

The U.S. spends about 72% of total NATO member military budgets (~$900 billion USD).

[Smallc]

The reality is that once an 'existential threat' develops it's a little late to buy equipment and build a military to take care of it.

And Trump has already said he's going to think twice about having the US aid NATO allies (and that includes us) who have refused to commit sufficient sums to be credible military partners. Relying on the US in any sort of confrontation with the Russians is a fool's game. They will settle things as per their interests, not ours, if we have no skin in the game.

We could double our defence spending and it wouldn't defend us from Russia.

[Derek 2.0]

But not by the Liberals, as Derek is suggesting.

Where did I say the Liberals sold off the TOW system? (The Harper Government sold off parts off the TUA launchers to the USMC to support their LAV based fleet)

You're the one with the contradiction, on one hand you cite a media source that stated the TOW's were being brought out of storage and then you cite another (dated and incorrect) source that stated the TOWs were sold off by the Harper government.......if Harper sold off the army's TOWs, what missiles are being brought out of storage? You don't see an issue with your "sources" ?

Further to that, as cited (with video evidence to boot!!) from the Canadian Army's social media , the army was training with their TOW missiles earlier this year...... just prior to the Liberal's budget where funds for DND were "redirected".

[Smallc]

You're the one with the contradiction, on one hand you cite a media source that stated the TOW's were being brought out of storage and then you cite another (dated and incorrect) source that stated the TOWs were sold off by the Harper government.......if Harper sold off the army's TOWs, what missiles are being brought out of storage? You don't see an issue with your "sources" ?

I can't control the sources (both of which are Post Media, btw). I can only tell you what is reported.

Further to that, as cited (with video evidence to boot!!) from the Canadian Army's social media , the army was training with their TOW missiles earlier this year...... just prior to the Liberal's budget where funds for DND were "redirected".

The video shows NATO training. It had nothing to do with what you state.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes the Americans are going to use it until platforms such as the Bradlys, M901, and the LAV equivalent are replaced.

That being said TOW tech is obsolete, for many reasons , it is wire guided, wires have a tendency to break or malfunction. once fired a large flash normally gives away your position, last thing you want is for the enemy to find you while your missle takes off into space....

Exactly, and further to that, even with the newer wireless TOW missiles, the TOW system is a big expensive missile with a smallish warhead and optically guidance........most NATO forces were replacing/supplementing their TOW inventories in the 1980s.......

Defeating reactive armor is not all that hard, the latest TOW has a tandum war head, the problem with reactive armor is once it is used it leaves a gap in your defenses....hence why the tandum war head is so effective....it is also deadly to dismounted infantry, not to mention is dazes the crew inside the tank....for a few seconds....The TOW II B was a top attack mis, meaning it had no reactive armor to defeat....as you don't put reactive on the top of the tank....

Right and most modern systems have a larger warhead, cheaper production, a far smaller launcher and are fire & forget.......with the American Javelin system they also have the option of a "top attack" flight profile....kinda handy being able to attack a tank where its armor is the thinnest one would think......

The point remains, if the Trudeau government is going to send Canadians to Europe to defend our allies against the Russian hordes, he'd best equip said Canadians with what they would need to actually defend against said Russians.....an even if he did purchase modern anti-tank missiles, that is merely a drop in the bucket......how about sel-propelled artillery including an MLRS? Air defense systems? Tracked IFVs? How about withdrawing from the land mine treaty? etc etc

Trudeau is "whipping out the Canadian army".....the problem, he's waving a two-inch-Grinch at Putin......