Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm pretty sure most of htem were given to ukrane.  Not many new ones for our boys

Ok you’re  thinking of the 360 ACSV vehicles which to be fair is the support variant (ambulance, general purpose transport etc) of the new LAV 6 and is still rolling off the line. The ~600 LAV 6 combat vehicles were fully delivered to the army by 2019. In a rarity they were acidic delivered on time and on budget. 
 

Of the 360 ACSVs Canada has ordered, as of the latest data Ive seen (February 2024) nearly 120 had been delivered to the army. To date, 89 of current and future vehicles have been donated or pledged to Ukraine with the army saying they will be replaced at some point.  It’s not clear however whether Ukraine is getting all their 89 vehicles up front, they may be getting them in batches or every 3rd or 4th vehicle off the line something like that interspersed with deliveries for the Canadian army. From what I’ve last seen from earlier this year, 49 had been delivered to date, a batch of 39 in 2023 and a batch of 10 earlier this year. The ACSV had pandemic related delays but is still on budget and still expected by end of next year. 
 

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then he's done basically nothing.

He’s signed a bunch of expensive contracts that PP will have to pay for. Otherwise yeah very little and only when forced. The Canadian way. 
 

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. the recession was shallow in canada compared to much of the world, but it was still very significant. And while the recession itself lasted only about a year the RECOVERY lasts a lot longer than that. The recovery continued until about 2014.  Until then gov't revenues are still repressed and expenditures are still high and deficits are larger. 

He cut defence as % of revenue all the way down to 0.99% in 2014, so that means he reallocated resources elsewhere. He did so because he was desperate to show a balanced budget. If he hadn’t resorted to dumb gimmicks like cutting the GST he would have had more money available but he chose tax cuts over defence. 
 

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Look around you - the devistation we see now where 20 percent of people have to use the food bank, nobody can afford a place to live and there's no gov't services available is what happens when you DON'T do that.  So yep.

1) According to the data I see food bank usage is 2 million which is 5% not 20%

2)People don’t go to the food bank because the government is running deficits. In fact history has shown the opposite (although the capacity to run deficits is not unlimited)  

3)The entire western world experienced post-pandemic inflation and it has subsided immensely to the point where central banks are repeatedly cutting interest rates 

4) To the extent housing policy has affected the economy that is not a function of government over-spending in fact it’s a sign the government has under-invested in the affordable housing supply  

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Harpers peaked at 1.4, which is about justin's peak.  And more or less they have about the same spending. 

Harper was just under 1.4, but more to the point that was also at the height of the Afghanistan war where he wasn’t building up the military so much as paying for operations. Operations that depleted and destroyed inventories mind you, with 400 army vehicles damaged or destroyed there. Harper decommissioned Canada’s entire air defence capability, put most of the tanks and heavy trucks in long term storage, Upgrade and procurement projects were foregone or postponed indefinitely and so on.  And you can see from your own link he went down to 0.99% of GDP in 2014. 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. Nothing says "we respect you as warriors and men" like saying "we heard you needed tampons. "

So the military wasn’t exempted from his government-wide tampon policy. TBH it would have been pretty awkward to try and explain the justification for that given their stance on transgender issues.  But anyone who’s triggered and demoralized by seeing a tampon especially a soldier needs to get their priorities straight.  A sane reaction would simply be to  roll your eyes and laugh and see who can make the best tampon joke. 

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But anyone who’s triggered and demoralized by seeing a tampon especially a soldier needs to get their priorities straight. 

the lunatic leftists whom put tampons in the male washrooms on all military bases

lecturing the population about getting their "priorities straight"

international laughing stock Canada in a nutshell

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Of the 360 ACSVs Canada has ordered, as of the latest data Ive seen (February 2024) nearly 120 had been delivered to the army. To date, 89 of current and future vehicles have been donated or pledged to Ukraine with the army saying they will be replaced at some point.  It’s not clear however whether Ukraine is getting all their 89 vehicles up front, they may be getting them in batches or every 3rd or 4th vehicle off the line something like that interspersed with deliveries for the Canadian army

Ok, i'm going to stand corrected in light of that and say 'a sizeable portion will be given to ukraine' and concede that we'll keep some of them, which wasn't my previous understanding. Even if all 89 are up front that still means SOME are left. 

But those units are still part of our 'military expenditures ' and they didn't go to our boys.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

He cut defence as % of revenue all the way down to 0.99% in 2014, so that means he reallocated resources elsewhere. He did so because he was desperate to show a balanced budget. I

well no, it means he didn't borrow the money. It doesnt' mean it was spent elsewhere. There were other cuts as well. 

But yes it was to balance the books. You make that sound like a bad thing, and it's not.  Balancing the books or at least coming close to doing so is what SHOULD Happen most years. 

You think the military isn't going to pay for it when we have to do that this time?

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

1) According to the data I see food bank usage is 2 million which is 5% not 20%

2)People don’t go to the food bank because the government is running deficits. In fact history has shown the opposite (although the capacity to run deficits is not unlimited)  

3)The entire western world experienced post-pandemic inflation and it has subsided immensely to the point where central banks are repeatedly cutting interest rates 

My mistake, it's 25 percent. 

One-quarter of Canucks will use food banks in fall: StatsCan | Toronto Sun

And yes they go to the food bank thanks to gov't overspending. Gov't overspending and population growth in excess of capacity are the two primary drivers that drive up inflation and or interest rates.  That's how it works. 

And no - the banks have chimed in.  Our over-target inflation is almost entirely due to population growth in excess of capacity and gov't spending.  That is the way it is. It's not 'world wide',  it's not out of our control. .If the gov't cut spending by 3 percent and increase in population was cut back to match our housing last year we'd be at target right now, and we'd have been at target last year if they'd done it in 2022 the way scotia bank recommended. 

If you thought the government could consistently run 54 billion dollar deficits and there wouldn't be inflation you were grossly mistaken. This is what happens. This is what happens every single time. And the inflation stops the moment that those two factors are addressed. This is not debatable, this is not a? This is not a matter of opinion. This is as sure as gravity.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

4) To the extent housing policy has affected the economy that is not a function of government over-spending in fact it’s a sign the government has under-invested in the affordable housing supply  

That is beyond nonsense. If the government spent enough money to have enough affordable housing to address our problems you would be talking about 2 million units. The cost of that would drive our inflation through the roof (roughly 700 billion) and create financial havoc. Governments simply cannot operate housing on that kind of scale in a free market without severe consequence. It would be one thing if perhaps it had traditionally been done and we've been doing it for a long long time and kept up to demand, or if we had much much slower population growth but that's not something that can happen right now and even if it did you would still have to make sure that our population growth was not higher than our speed at which we were building new units

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Harper was just under 1.4, but more to the point that was also at the height of the Afghanistan war

Don't care. Bottom line is his spending wasn't much different than Justin's, and whether you talk about depleting resources or giving them away to a foreign country it's six of one half a dozen of the other. We can agree that both should have done more, but pretending you prefer one over the other on military spending is silly.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

So the military wasn’t exempted from his government-wide tampon policy.

Exactly. And the military didn't get any new bullets or new guns or new equipment but now if suddenly men start menstruating they'll be ready for it. I'm sure that that really made them feel a lot more positive about how seriously the government takes them.

Have you seen the military recruiting numbers these days? At the rate we're going Will be able to deliver our entire fighting force to the forward lines in a Ford Bronco. Nobody wants to be in the military anymore. Tell me all about how great we're doing

Demands of defence policy almost double military's recruitment gap, top soldier warns | CBC News

[Dougie93]

FIRST READING: Canadian military commissions $32,000 report on how space is racist and sexist

The 48-page 'intersectional feminist' report also bemoans the non-inclusion of astrology and spirituality in space planning

As Canada prepares to send an astronaut on the first manned moon mission in more than 50 years, its own military has commissioned a $32,250 report on how space exploration may actually be “racist, exploitative, elitist, and environmentally destructive.”

The 48-page report, entitled Hidden Harms: Human (In)security in Outer Space, concludes that human usage of space is currently “masculine, militarized and state-based.”

The authors also bemoan a space exploration field that is beholden to colonial concepts such as “technospeak” and “expertise, and which doesn’t give appropriate weight to “spirituality, astrology, and cosmology, the last of which views celestial bodies in space as animated beings and not mere objects.”

As such, the report concludes that space will continue to be a realm of “hidden violence” against the world’s marginalized until “gender, race, class, ability, and sexuality” can be put at “the centre” of how decisions are made in the cosmos.

“Leadership is needed to normalize inclusion of different perspectives,” reads a conclusion.

The report has very little positive to say about the current state of human space exploration or space technology.

The whole endeavour is criticized as “technology-biased” because it fails to consider “gendered effects.” It’s “geography-biased,” because it doesn’t include equal participation from poorer countries.

It “normalize(s) violence and exploitation” by using language that depicts “outer space as a hostile and desolate environment that is unpeopled/inhuman and controlled so that it can provide an extractable resource.”

The construction of launch pads, satellite receivers and other ground infrastructure causes “disproportionate harm to Indigenous communities by severing their connection to ancestral lands.”

The report is also deeply critical of the fact that space is disproportionately inhabited by able-bodied males from wealthy countries. “Existing approaches are ahistorical and thus invisibilize diverse stakeholders and voices,” it reads.

Hidden Harms contains little to no discussion of the technical aspects of space exploration or technology. The word “rocket,” for instance, appears only once in a footnote in relation to how a falling rocket stage could hurt Inuit people. The word “orbit” appears in the text just once, when referencing how states could impose extraterrestrial harm by “permanently damaging objects on orbit.”

Nevertheless, the report is clear that all of these technical considerations should become secondary to “intersectional, decolonial, and humanitarian perspectives.”

“We must make space for the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable,” it reads.

The Department of National Defence knew what they were getting into when they commissioned Hidden Harms.

The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation used an Access to Information request to obtain the June 2023 contract by which military brass approved a $32,250 grant for the report’s creation. The federation published the details last week, with spokesperson Kris Sims saying “it took the equivalent of a neighbourhood’s worth of income tax bills to pay for this study.”

The paper was pitched to the military as a “feminist spotlight on space insecurity” and promised to highlight the “hidden violence” of space, a well as its effect on “gender, race and socio-economic status.”

“Feminist and gendered understandings are currently sorely lacking,” reads the application.

The grant was approved via Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security (MINDS), a Trudeau government grant program to introduce “diverse viewpoints” into military decision-making. The program has an annual budget of around $2 million.

In the same year that Hidden Harms was approved, MINDS also earmarked $50,000 for a two-day conference on “Gender and Arctic Security,” $50,000 to develop an “identity-based moral injury” assessment tool and $40,025 for a report on “the role of gender in disinformation campaigns.”

The Hidden Harms paper was pitched and written by a team from Project Ploughshares, a Canadian anti-war non-profit that is not typically known for accepting military contracts.

Of late, Project Ploughshares has been one of the most vocal groups pushing for the Government of Canada to impose an export ban on Israel, and sever any conceivable ties between Canada and the Israel Defense Forces.

An August letter by the non-profit claimed “40,000 Palestinians” had been killed by Israeli arms in the last 10 months. This figure not only exceeds the notoriously unreliable casualty estimates issued by the terrorist group Hamas, but it fails to distinguish between civilian deaths and those of Hamas combatants.

Although the language used in Hidden Harms would have seemed wildly out of place in a military-commissioned report only 10 years ago, it’s relatively standard for an entire subset of “anti-racist” literature now being published by the Department of National Defence.

Earlier this year, the Canadian Military Journal – the official academic journal of the Canadian Armed Forces – published an entire edition dedicated to essays on how Canada was awash in “patriarchy, colonialism, white supremacy, heteronormativity, ableism, and classism.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadian-military-commissions-32000-report-on-how-space-is-racist-and-sexist

Edited September 17, 2024 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:15 PM, Army Guy said:

Your right it does not mean that 20 leopardIIa6m  were borrowed from Germany becasue the LEO I were not up to the task be it with air-conditioning, weak armor, older than dirt meaning extensive maintenance was required all the time...troops were getting injured operating them....So the government did not really speed up the purchase of replacement....they did however buy some 60 old LeoIIa4, only upgraded 20 into LeoIIA4M, leaving the remaining 40 for training tanks.... which sat in a warehouse for 2 plus years waiting for a contract to upgrade them....thats not an urgent buy....Check out all the rest of the equipment purchased for Afghanistan, only after a certain amount of troops had died did they take any urgent buy, and then only the minimum amount that was required for Afghanistan and a few samples to train with in Canada...

That’s still lightening fast by Canadian standards. What the “Immediate Operational Need”  or “Urgent Requirement” or whatever they’re calling it these days means is that they fast-tracked the procurement process and in most if not all cases they didn’t even hold a competition or a bidding process, they just sole-sourced it. They just said “we want Leo2, boom, done.”   IIRC the whole complicated lending arrangement with Germany and Netherlands where used tanks were borrowed, upgraded/refurbished, returned, then new ones purchased from the factory had more to do with where the tanks were immediately available, what condition they were in, and of course cost. 

 

On 9/12/2024 at 11:15 PM, Army Guy said:

Yes Canada does have those capabilities, F-18 for SAM suppression, And Armed Griffons like they used in AFghanistan...

Neither of those aircraft would stand a chance against sophisticated near peer air defences. The reason USA and everyone else is moving to stand-off long range munitions is because of how sophisticated air defences have become. This affects airborne/airmobile units who increasingly include vehicles because they too have to now be dropped off at stand-off ranges. Australia just this week announces its purchase of a fleet of Polaris DAGORS, which are even lighter than the ISV we’re arguing about. Pretty sure they’re not under Trudeau’s spell. 
 

On 9/12/2024 at 11:15 PM, Army Guy said:

Your doctrine changes are from 2014/2016 once again they are planning to fight the last conflict. It is never a good idea to have Lt forces face off against mech forces, they are heavily outgunned, and can be out maneuvered very quickly, meaning easily destroyed with not much effort....

Latvia has a variety of terrain that can’t be reached by Mech forces such as wetlands and forests   You can’t get around the fact there will be times that soldiers will be required to carry out dismounted duties or duties in terrain where heavy vehicles can’t operate. If this was all just an evil Trudeau scheme to buy something nobody wanted for no reason except to be evil, they wouldn’t be rushing it to Latvia they would be puttering around a base back home. 
 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

DND Releases RFI for Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) with Responses Due by November 18th

The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) four Victoria-class submarines are showing their age, although they are expected to remain in service well into the 2030s. Mindful that the Canadian procurement process is typically a long and arduous process, the Department of National Defence (DND) has created the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) to look into replacements for the existing sub fleet.

It’s been reported that the RCN is readying itself for the purchase of up to 12 new submarines at a cost of $60 billion, according to National Defence and industry sources.

When it comes to buying new subs under the CPSP, the RCN needs “at least eight” and possibly 12, said VAdm Topshee, during aninterview with CDR in 2023. “If you want to have a single line of tasking with a submarine in the Pacific, you need four boats based in Victoria,” he explained. “You want to guarantee the availability of a submarine to do anything you need it to do in the Atlantic, so you need four boats based in Halifax. [Then] if you also want to be able to do the Arctic, you better find a place to put [another] four boats between those two places.”

On September 15^th, Canada officially released an RFI to industry for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project. Submission of Responses to the questions included in the Annexes to this RFI, by 18 November 2024.

Possible contenders include:

• Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems-Canada – Offering the Type 212CD
• Navantia – Offering the S-80
  • Read our latest cover story on Navantia.
• Hanwha Ocean/HD Hyundai Heavy Industries – Offering the Ahn Changho-class
• Saab/Damen Shipyards – C-71

 

https://canadiandefencereview.com/dnd-releases-rfi-for-canadian-patrol-submarine-project-cpsp-with-responses-due-by-november-18th/
 

 

 

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the lunatic leftists whom put tampons in the male washrooms on all military bases

lecturing the population about getting their "priorities straight"

international laughing stock Canada in a nutshell

The tampon directive was for the entire federal government it wasn’t targeted at the military specifically. And while it’s fair to question how far a government needs to go on transgender issues, it’s not that big of deal. A man saw a tampon, oh no.. 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

FIRST READING: Canadian military commissions $32,000 report on how space is racist and sexist

The 48-page 'intersectional feminist' report also bemoans the non-inclusion of astrology and spirituality in space planning

As Canada prepares to send an astronaut on the first manned moon mission in more than 50 years, its own military has commissioned a $32,250 report on how space exploration may actually be “racist, exploitative, elitist, and environmentally destructive.”

The 48-page report, entitled Hidden Harms: Human (In)security in Outer Space, concludes that human usage of space is currently “masculine, militarized and state-based.”

The authors also bemoan a space exploration field that is beholden to colonial concepts such as “technospeak” and “expertise, and which doesn’t give appropriate weight to “spirituality, astrology, and cosmology, the last of which views celestial bodies in space as animated beings and not mere objects.”

As such, the report concludes that space will continue to be a realm of “hidden violence” against the world’s marginalized until “gender, race, class, ability, and sexuality” can be put at “the centre” of how decisions are made in the cosmos.

“Leadership is needed to normalize inclusion of different perspectives,” reads a conclusion.

The report has very little positive to say about the current state of human space exploration or space technology.

The whole endeavour is criticized as “technology-biased” because it fails to consider “gendered effects.” It’s “geography-biased,” because it doesn’t include equal participation from poorer countries.

It “normalize(s) violence and exploitation” by using language that depicts “outer space as a hostile and desolate environment that is unpeopled/inhuman and controlled so that it can provide an extractable resource.”

The construction of launch pads, satellite receivers and other ground infrastructure causes “disproportionate harm to Indigenous communities by severing their connection to ancestral lands.”

The report is also deeply critical of the fact that space is disproportionately inhabited by able-bodied males from wealthy countries. “Existing approaches are ahistorical and thus invisibilize diverse stakeholders and voices,” it reads.

Hidden Harms contains little to no discussion of the technical aspects of space exploration or technology. The word “rocket,” for instance, appears only once in a footnote in relation to how a falling rocket stage could hurt Inuit people. The word “orbit” appears in the text just once, when referencing how states could impose extraterrestrial harm by “permanently damaging objects on orbit.”

Nevertheless, the report is clear that all of these technical considerations should become secondary to “intersectional, decolonial, and humanitarian perspectives.”

“We must make space for the unfamiliar and the uncomfortable,” it reads.

The Department of National Defence knew what they were getting into when they commissioned Hidden Harms.

The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation used an Access to Information request to obtain the June 2023 contract by which military brass approved a $32,250 grant for the report’s creation. The federation published the details last week, with spokesperson Kris Sims saying “it took the equivalent of a neighbourhood’s worth of income tax bills to pay for this study.”

The paper was pitched to the military as a “feminist spotlight on space insecurity” and promised to highlight the “hidden violence” of space, a well as its effect on “gender, race and socio-economic status.”

“Feminist and gendered understandings are currently sorely lacking,” reads the application.

The grant was approved via Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security (MINDS), a Trudeau government grant program to introduce “diverse viewpoints” into military decision-making. The program has an annual budget of around $2 million.

In the same year that Hidden Harms was approved, MINDS also earmarked $50,000 for a two-day conference on “Gender and Arctic Security,” $50,000 to develop an “identity-based moral injury” assessment tool and $40,025 for a report on “the role of gender in disinformation campaigns.”

The Hidden Harms paper was pitched and written by a team from Project Ploughshares, a Canadian anti-war non-profit that is not typically known for accepting military contracts.

Of late, Project Ploughshares has been one of the most vocal groups pushing for the Government of Canada to impose an export ban on Israel, and sever any conceivable ties between Canada and the Israel Defense Forces.

An August letter by the non-profit claimed “40,000 Palestinians” had been killed by Israeli arms in the last 10 months. This figure not only exceeds the notoriously unreliable casualty estimates issued by the terrorist group Hamas, but it fails to distinguish between civilian deaths and those of Hamas combatants.

Although the language used in Hidden Harms would have seemed wildly out of place in a military-commissioned report only 10 years ago, it’s relatively standard for an entire subset of “anti-racist” literature now being published by the Department of National Defence.

Earlier this year, the Canadian Military Journal – the official academic journal of the Canadian Armed Forces – published an entire edition dedicated to essays on how Canada was awash in “patriarchy, colonialism, white supremacy, heteronormativity, ableism, and classism.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadian-military-commissions-32000-report-on-how-space-is-racist-and-sexist

This is the kind of “woke nonsense” that is truly objectionable, the other stuff is just a distraction. Even this I think people just roll their eyes and carry on. 

[taxme]

On 7/26/2023 at 8:20 PM, BeaverFever said:

Two big Department of National Defence (DND)news stories in 24 hours finally persuaded me to start a thread on the topic. Hopefully the former CAF  members on this forum and others with interest/curiosity in the subject will share, ask questions and and contribute!

News Story 1:  Yesterday DND signed a $3.6Bn contract with Airbus to acquire a fleet of Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft which are based on the state of the art Airbus A330 wide-body airliner.  The MRTT will replace the current aged fleet of 5 CC-150 Polaris aircraft, which are based on the now-obsolete 1980s-era Airbus A310 wide-body airliner.   While the pending deal had been public knowledge for quite some time, the surprise yesterday was that Canada will procure 9 aircraft rather than the previously mentioned 6 aircraft, a 50% surprise increase attributed to Canada’s recently renewed commitment to NATO.   Also announced yesterday was that the RCAF has officially named the new MRTT the CC-330 Husky.   The Airbus MRTT is already in service with a number of countries and NATO allies including UK, Australia, France and Spain among others.

The Husky and its Polaris predecessor are used in various configurations for transporting personnel, cargo (or various combinations of both),and VIP transport of the Prime Minister, the Royal Family and other senior government officials. In addition, the aircraft are used to air-to-air refuelling of Canadian and allied fighter aircraft.  As the A330 is a significantly larger aircraft, it will have 50% more capacity than the current fleet. In addition to being newer technology, the entire Husky fleet will be capable of air-air refuelling compared to just 2 of the existing legacy Polaris fleet that have a tanker configuration. The Polaris is also not capable of refuelling F-35s or other aircraft that only use a “refuelling boom” system.  The Husky will also bring a new capability in the form of a MEDEVAC configuration where the aircraft is equipped with a medical bay and 24 medical personnel capable of treating 10 patients on stretchers (including 2 critical care patients) plus 6 ambulatory patients. One of the 9 aircraft will be dedicated to VIP transport and have a separate paint scheme accordingly but apparently can be reconfigured to other roles if needed.   

Of the 9 MRTT aircraft to be supplied by Airbus, the contract stipulates that 4 will be factory new and the other 5 are mint condition ex-Kuwaiti Airlines commercial A330s already acquired by RCAF that will be converted to MRTTs by Airbus. The ex-commercial A330s are expected to enter RCAF service this year for personnel/VIP transport in their existing unmodified “commercial passenger” configuration.   All 9 aircraft are expected to be operational in full MRTT configuration by 2027  

 

 

 

I would prefer to just not have any military at all. A national guard is all that Canada needs. How are we ever going to end wars if we keep buying military war equipment which no doubt costs the Canadian taxpayer's tens of billions of their tax dollars every year. All we are doing here is making the military industrial machine complex which makes billions in profit for the globalist warmongers in America. While those warmongers get to stay at home and enjoy the lives of the rich and famous, we the Joe and Mary six packs get to be injured or killed in their created for profit wars. 👎

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

The tampon directive was for the entire federal government it wasn’t targeted at the military specifically. And while it’s fair to question how far a government needs to go on transgender issues, it’s not that big of deal. A man saw a tampon, oh no.. 

I frankly welcome it,

since this is just the sort of lunacy which is going to get the Liberals & NDP wiped out by the Conservatives

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s still lightening fast by Canadian standards. What the “Immediate Operational Need”  or “Urgent Requirement” or whatever they’re calling it these days means is that they fast-tracked the procurement process and in most if not all cases they didn’t even hold a competition or a bidding process, they just sole-sourced it. They just said “we want Leo2, boom, done.”   IIRC the whole complicated lending arrangement with Germany and Netherlands where used tanks were borrowed, upgraded/refurbished, returned, then new ones purchased from the factory had more to do with where the tanks were immediately available, what condition they were in, and of course cost. 

 

Neither of those aircraft would stand a chance against sophisticated near peer air defences. The reason USA and everyone else is moving to stand-off long range munitions is because of how sophisticated air defences have become. This affects airborne/airmobile units who increasingly include vehicles because they too have to now be dropped off at stand-off ranges. Australia just this week announces its purchase of a fleet of Polaris DAGORS, which are even lighter than the ISV we’re arguing about. Pretty sure they’re not under Trudeau’s spell. 
 

Latvia has a variety of terrain that can’t be reached by Mech forces such as wetlands and forests   You can’t get around the fact there will be times that soldiers will be required to carry out dismounted duties or duties in terrain where heavy vehicles can’t operate. If this was all just an evil Trudeau scheme to buy something nobody wanted for no reason except to be evil, they wouldn’t be rushing it to Latvia they would be puttering around a base back home. 
 

 

 

20 LeoiiA6M loan went as fast as you could possible make it...the rest of the Leos not so fast and once they took procession they sat in a warehouse for 2 years waiting on some Canadian company to make the modifications they needs...and of all the ones we received only 20 more were modified into LeoIIA4M the rest of the tanks were classified as training tanks NOT ready for war, the same ones we sent to Ukraine....ooopppsss

Look it does not matter how they would perform on certain missions, Thats what the CF has and Thats what it uses for those missions....i don't think the navy or army has the ability to say sorry our shit is 40 years old give that mission to someone else....

Thats not the doctrine they use, airbourne and airmobile forces get dropped as close to the target as they can get without alerting the bad guys normally between 5 to 10 kms away and they hoof it in from there...pathfinders/ Recce have already marked the DZ/LZ and the entire route to the target...not sure what you want to hear...lots of moving parts and all of them could compromise the mission...but unless you know something i don't i would love to hear about it...

Yes we have purchased DAGORS and what do we use them for...to haul around heavy weapons platforms....they are side by sides...

Yes Latvia has wet lands and forests...and if you can't get a LAV in there there is not going to be a ISV in there either...nor a Side by side...troops dismount and hoof it to the objective using other means of fire support such as armed helos, arty, mortars...or they hump in their heavy weapons on their backs... 

Liberals are a lot of things i would not say evil, if it was cheap...or they could get any political mileage out of it...But don't think for a second this was done because the army has lobbied hard for this vehicle....because you'd be wrong...and in today's environment when it comes to new equipment the Military would get excited over a 10 speed bike...but when it's 40 below, and the troops are moving a couple 100 km s to the training area....do you think they are going to be saying man we have been waiting for this vehicle all our lives what a dream...or are they going to be asking who was the F...ing mor0n that purchased this...

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

This is the kind of “woke nonsense” that is truly objectionable, the other stuff is just a distraction. Even this I think people just roll their eyes and carry on. 

soldiers have been rolling their eyes for a long time, and the amount of them leaving that have had enough is mind blowing some units are below combat effective in strength , the alarm bells have been going off for more than a decade....now nobody even hears them or even cares....people are using death spiral....in the media...and nothing...military commanders are begging for people to listen..... RSM of the Military Senior Non commissioned officer, say we have a poisoned chain of command, ....Military is short 16 thousand or so they report numbers are way higher than that ....plus there is another 10, 000 unfit for duty...and i doubt these numbers are accurate as well... 

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

soldiers have been rolling their eyes for a long time, and the amount of them leaving that have had enough is mind blowing some units are below combat effective in strength , the alarm bells have been going off for more than a decade....now nobody even hears them or even cares....people are using death spiral....in the media...and nothing...military commanders are begging for people to listen..... RSM of the Military Senior Non commissioned officer, say we have a poisoned chain of command, ....Military is short 16 thousand or so they report numbers are way higher than that ....plus there is another 10, 000 unfit for duty...and i doubt these numbers are accurate as well... 

When I joined in 1969 the Canadian military was in a restructuring mode. The biggest hot was against the Army. https://www.lermuseum.org/1946-to-present/1965-1979/restructuring-of-the-canadian-armed-forces-1969

The Navy lost ships and even the ony aircraft carrier we ever had. Gone were personel too.

The Airforce was also destined to be downsized with the "golden handshake" where they offered anyone over 10 years with a pension and many took it. Also, in the 70' the establishments and squadrons were downsized or eliminated. 

My point is, the Canadian military is not just Army and there has been military personnel downsizing for the past 5o years.

No doirespect for our Army but, the Army has never been a number one choice when joining the Military

 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

When I joined in 1969 the Canadian military was in a restructuring mode. The biggest hot was against the Army. https://www.lermuseum.org/1946-to-present/1965-1979/restructuring-of-the-canadian-armed-forces-1969

The Navy lost ships and even the ony aircraft carrier we ever had. Gone were personel too.

The Airforce was also destined to be downsized with the "golden handshake" where they offered anyone over 10 years with a pension and many took it. Also, in the 70' the establishments and squadrons were downsized or eliminated. 

My point is, the Canadian military is not just Army and there has been military personnel downsizing for the past 5o years.

No doirespect for our Army but, the Army has never been a number one choice when joining the Military

 

I never said the army is the Canadian military,that was not the point i was making, did not mean to lead you down that path.... even if it is the largest element, the best element, with the coolest toys...and all the other elements are there to support the army LOL.... ...And i get it down sizing has been going on for decades, but today there are pretty much down to the bone right now...not much meat on those bones either....in all three of the elements, one does not loss 16,000 positions and not effect all three elements... it is a paper military that would struggle to produce and support one Brigade group....One SQN, or one whatever the navy calls it formations...

No disrespect taken, but deep down everyone wanted to join the army and blow shit up....hence why it is the biggest element....lets also remember that when kids were growing up, no body played air force, or navy...it was always army....how many kids flew around the yard pretending to be air planes...and how many gun toy guns and played you guessed it army....

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Thats not the doctrine they use, airbourne and airmobile forces get dropped as close to the target as they can get without alerting the bad guys normally between 5 to 10 kms away

Not any more. Against a near-peer threat it’s much further.  And it’s not just about long range Air Defence systems it’s also about the proliferation of MANPADS which SEAD aircraft can’t detect or suppress. 
 

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

but unless you know something i don't i would love to hear about it...

A couple of times now I’ve posted content from task and purpose where they say Drop Zones/LZs  could be up to 100km from the objective in a conflict against China or Russia due to air defence. Once again all the allied nations are adopting these “ultra light” vehicles that can be slung under Blackhawks or carried inside Chinooks. At the same time, vehicles like Humvee have been replaced by larger heavier vehicles that can no longer be carried this way. The new JLTV can only be slung under a Chinook. Canada is not an anomaly. 
 

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes we have purchased DAGORS and what do we use them for...to haul around heavy weapons platforms....they are side by sides...

CANSOFCOM has DAGORs, who knows maybe the permanent Light vehicles will be a DAGOR too, there are several options to choose from these days. From what Ive seen, the future light vehicle will have weapons and a combat role. 
 

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes Latvia has wet lands and forests...and if you can't get a LAV in there there is not going to be a ISV in there either...nor a Side by side...troops dismount and hoof it to the objective using other means of fire support such as armed helos, arty, mortars...or they hump in their heavy weapons on their backs.

 But footage of 101st Airborne hunter-killer teams using this very same light has been shared in this thread 

 

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

.But don't think for a second this was done because the army has lobbied hard for this vehicle....because you'd be wrong...and in today's environment when it comes to new equipment the Military would get excited over a 10 speed bike...but when it's 40 below, and the troops are moving a couple 100 km s to the training area....do you think they are going to be saying man we have been waiting for this vehicle all our lives what a dream...or are they going to be asking who was the F...ing mor0n that purchased this...

If not for this exact vehicle then one of the other light vehicles like DAGORS or Flyers. They’ve definitely lobbied foe this capability, which is what you’re arguing against. And I doubt they’re being forced to take it to Latvia if they don’t want it there.   As for what the troops will say in winter I don’t know, what do they say now with their MRZR ATVs?  I doubt those are any warmer. 
 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Not any more. Against a near-peer threat it’s much further.  And it’s not just about long range Air Defence systems it’s also about the proliferation of MANPADS which SEAD aircraft can’t detect or suppress. 
 

A couple of times now I’ve posted content from task and purpose where they say Drop Zones/LZs  could be up to 100km from the objective in a conflict against China or Russia due to air defence. Once again all the allied nations are adopting these “ultra light” vehicles that can be slung under Blackhawks or carried inside Chinooks. At the same time, vehicles like Humvee have been replaced by larger heavier vehicles that can no longer be carried this way. The new JLTV can only be slung under a Chinook. Canada is not an anomaly. 
 

CANSOFCOM has DAGORs, who knows maybe the permanent Light vehicles will be a DAGOR too, there are several options to choose from these days. From what Ive seen, the future light vehicle will have weapons and a combat role. 
 

 But footage of 101st Airborne hunter-killer teams using this very same light has been shared in this thread 

 

If not for this exact vehicle then one of the other light vehicles like DAGORS or Flyers. They’ve definitely lobbied foe this capability, which is what you’re arguing against. And I doubt they’re being forced to take it to Latvia if they don’t want it there.   As for what the troops will say in winter I don’t know, what do they say now with their MRZR ATVs?  I doubt those are any warmer. 
 

Long range air defence and man pads have been around for decades....So have helo's and flying below the tree line...even todays radar can not discern between ground clutter and the tops of the trees....hence why helos and fast air fly as close to the ground as possiable...as for man pads flying at tree top level presents a target for a few seconds....not a long time to lock on to a target, and if it was helos have counter measures....

look I'm sorry but Thats not happening today....Ukraine is not dropping troops 100 km from the LZ neither is the Russians...  for a couple of reasons, one driving through enemy occupied territory for a 100 km is a suicide mission with a sizable force ..not even attempted by mechanized forces...to do so without any support also a suicide mission for anything other than a couple of vehicles...once you were discovered you would be a sitting duck for every weapon within that 100 kms..

I'm not arguing about most nations having Light forces, that is a fact...they are deployed using helos or transport aircraft....So yes most would be looking for light vehicles...plenty of them operate with heaters and enclosed cab....

Yes CSOR and JTF-2 have Dagors....they also operate ski doo's , BV 206,.... all of them serve as transport or combat support vehicles...

101 st spend much time in alaska using them, or is most of their mission set in much warmer climates......or do they use BVS10 or skidoos in the winter...... 

Thats not what i'm saying our light forces already use Dagors, and skidoo or BV206....i bet they don't use skidoos in the summer, which would make these new vehicles kind of seasonal right...

JTF still use open air stripped down Humvee's as well but they have a much different mission set... 

I already mentioned there are plenty of light vehicles that provide cover for their occupants can be mounted with a wide variety of weapons, that are already in use by other special forces and light infantry units from countries that operate in colder climates...Is a light vehicle what they need...yes....is it this POS i don't think so...for the many reasons i 've already stated...

Chain of command does what it is told..like the rest of the army....I guess we will have to wait and see if they are going to be used as combat lift for troops...or strickly an admin vehicle to run troops around the base...Unless manning has changed drastically in the last 3 months or so, the Battle groups is built around a mechanized force...Why would they have atleast a companies worth of LAV's in storage ?.....it does not make any sense to have a light infantry force attached to a mechanized battle group with open air pick up trucks as a mode of IFV or transport......

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I never said the army is the Canadian military,that was not the point i was making, did not mean to lead you down that path.... even if it is the largest element, the best element, with the coolest toys...and all the other elements are there to support the army LOL.... ...And i get it down sizing has been going on for decades, but today there are pretty much down to the bone right now...not much meat on those bones either....in all three of the elements, one does not loss 16,000 positions and not effect all three elements... it is a paper military that would struggle to produce and support one Brigade group....One SQN, or one whatever the navy calls it formations...

No disrespect taken, but deep down everyone wanted to join the army and blow shit up....hence why it is the biggest element....lets also remember that when kids were growing up, no body played air force, or navy...it was always army....how many kids flew around the yard pretending to be air planes...and how many gun toy guns and played you guessed it army....

My point was to address the "downsizing".

To that end, no one wants to be in the military any more and least of all the Army.

Oh and, people came by the tens of thousands to see airshows and no one saw army games

And guns are not acceptable any more. I have Grand Kids and when I go to Toy R Us, I do not see guns anywhere,

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Long range air defence and man pads have been around for decades....So have helo's and flying below the tree line...even todays radar can not discern between ground clutter and the tops of the trees....hence why helos and fast air fly as close to the ground as possiable...as for man pads flying at tree top level presents a target for a few seconds....not a long time to lock on to a target, and if it was helos have counter measures....

look I'm sorry but Thats not happening today....Ukraine is not dropping troops 100 km from the LZ neither is the Russians...  for a couple of reasons, one driving through enemy occupied territory for a 100 km is a suicide mission with a sizable force ..not even attempted by mechanized forces...to do so without any support also a suicide mission for anything other than a couple of vehicles...once you were discovered you would be a sitting duck for every weapon within that 100 kms..

I'm not arguing about most nations having Light forces, that is a fact...they are deployed using helos or transport aircraft....So yes most would be looking for light vehicles...plenty of them operate with heaters and enclosed cab....

Yes CSOR and JTF-2 have Dagors....they also operate ski doo's , BV 206,.... all of them serve as transport or combat support vehicles...

101 st spend much time in alaska using them, or is most of their mission set in much warmer climates......or do they use BVS10 or skidoos in the winter...... 

Thats not what i'm saying our light forces already use Dagors, and skidoo or BV206....i bet they don't use skidoos in the summer, which would make these new vehicles kind of seasonal right...

JTF still use open air stripped down Humvee's as well but they have a much different mission set... 

I already mentioned there are plenty of light vehicles that provide cover for their occupants can be mounted with a wide variety of weapons, that are already in use by other special forces and light infantry units from countries that operate in colder climates...Is a light vehicle what they need...yes....is it this POS i don't think so...for the many reasons i 've already stated...

Chain of command does what it is told..like the rest of the army....I guess we will have to wait and see if they are going to be used as combat lift for troops...or strickly an admin vehicle to run troops around the base...Unless manning has changed drastically in the last 3 months or so, the Battle groups is built around a mechanized force...Why would they have atleast a companies worth of LAV's in storage ?.....it does not make any sense to have a light infantry force attached to a mechanized battle group with open air pick up trucks as a mode of IFV or transport......

In Ukraine airborne and air assault units are all fighting as ground forces because air defence on both sides has all but completely removed helicopters from the conflict and made parachute drops a suicide mission 

As you say our light forces currently use MRZRs and DAGORS in the summer and other vehicles in winter. Nobody has ever said those other winter vehicles are going away so why the outrage that this vehicle will replace or operate alongside the MRZR and DAGOR?

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

In Ukraine airborne and air assault units are all fighting as ground forces because air defence on both sides has all but completely removed helicopters from the conflict and made parachute drops a suicide mission 

As you say our light forces currently use MRZRs and DAGORS in the summer and other vehicles in winter. Nobody has ever said those other winter vehicles are going away so why the outrage that this vehicle will replace or operate alongside the MRZR and DAGOR?

And yet Russia did just that in the opening of the conflict, airborne drops and air mobile insertions, all in a heavily contested air defense environment...The fact that helo operations are still ongoing today is proof of concept...not to mention the use of Attack helos...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/they-had-done-the-impossible-ukraine-s-secret-deadly-helicopter-rescue-missions-1.5955925

It is not outrage, just pointing out that it is a waste of funding, they would have been better off purchasing the new BVS 10 like the british marines, and their airborne forces purchased...it can carry every weapon system they have including tow, mortars, anti air, etc etc... it offers armor protection, proven in combat in Afghanistan it can go almost anywhere track or wheel vehicles can go plus more...it is heated,and cooled  can be used in all weather environments... and it can be lifted in by chinook...and carries more than any pick up can...Canada has a habit of buying capabilities once every forty years of so...atleast get something that is well rounded, and does more ...instead of buying something that has a whole list of restrictions added to it...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

My point was to address the "downsizing".

To that end, no one wants to be in the military any more and least of all the Army.

Oh and, people came by the tens of thousands to see airshows and no one saw army games

And guns are not acceptable any more. I have Grand Kids and when I go to Toy R Us, I do not see guns anywhere,

Well according to the numbers the army is still the largest element and employees the most CF members...not bragging but army rules...

while in germany the kids would line the streets to see all the cool army equipment, some of those exercises were 150,000 NATO troops  right across the entire northern front of Germany....millions would watch every day in their backyards... even let the airforce play sometimes...Here in Canada we are locked up deep in the woods so nobody can see, all our secret shit LOL

I forgot you live in Ottawa....no guns , no fun, that might change when the conservatives get in lol ...Toys r us is full of guns, ones that shoot foam darts, foam balls, jel balls...you name it...but hey we live in the redneck part of NB, guns are part of life here...

[I am Groot]

On 9/16/2024 at 4:51 PM, BeaverFever said:

I can’t stomach that partisan propaganda. Yes Trudeau hasn’t been a friend of the military but neither have conservatives. Harper cut the military to the bone. Trudeau might not have reversed decades of damage inflicted by both parties but FWIW he has increased rather than decreased budget.  Meanwhile Poilievre still refuses to commit to increased funding. 

The great majority of Trudeau's 'increase' is accounting changes that now declare things to be military spending that didn't previously have that designation. I won't attempt to excuse Harper's cutbacks when he was trying to achieve a balanced budget. They were wrong.

Even so, there's a difference between cutting the military as part of an across the board cut to government spending when the world was seen as largely at peace - and cutting the military during a time when the government is spraying money out everywhere it can without regard to deficits during a time when the world's warlords are stirring and threatening and when our southern neighbor has become less reliable.

There's also a difference between cutting money after a decade of additional money, and cutting money for years and years after that. Stuff wasn't in terrible shape in 2015. It is now. 

[I am Groot]

On 9/17/2024 at 12:57 PM, BeaverFever said:

DND Releases RFI for Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) with Responses Due by November 18th

The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) four Victoria-class submarines are showing their age, although they are expected to remain in service well into the 2030s. Mindful that the Canadian procurement process is typically a long and arduous process, the Department of National Defence (DND) has created the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) to look into replacements for the existing sub fleet.

It’s been reported that the RCN is readying itself for the purchase of up to 12 new submarines at a cost of $60 billion, according to National Defence and industry sources.

When it comes to buying new subs under the CPSP, the RCN needs “at least eight” and possibly 12, said VAdm Topshee, during aninterview with CDR in 2023. “If you want to have a single line of tasking with a submarine in the Pacific, you need four boats based in Victoria,” he explained. “You want to guarantee the availability of a submarine to do anything you need it to do in the Atlantic, so you need four boats based in Halifax. [Then] if you also want to be able to do the Arctic, you better find a place to put [another] four boats between those two places.”

On September 15^th, Canada officially released an RFI to industry for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project. Submission of Responses to the questions included in the Annexes to this RFI, by 18 November 2024.

Possible contenders include:

• Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems-Canada – Offering the Type 212CD
• Navantia – Offering the S-80
  • Read our latest cover story on Navantia.
• Hanwha Ocean/HD Hyundai Heavy Industries – Offering the Ahn Changho-class
• Saab/Damen Shipyards – C-71

 

https://canadiandefencereview.com/dnd-releases-rfi-for-canadian-patrol-submarine-project-cpsp-with-responses-due-by-november-18th/
 

First of them is targeted for delivery in 2035, which is going to be more than a little late unless things calm down between NATO and Russia/China. Imagine going to war and needing to wait a decade for the first new warships to be delivered!

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

And yet Russia did just that in the opening of the conflict, airborne drops and air mobile insertions, all in a heavily contested air defense environment.

And they took heavy casualties and failed to seize their objective which is why they don’t do it it anymore 

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The fact that helo operations are still ongoing today is proof of concept...not to mention the use of Attack helos...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/they-had-done-the-impossible-ukraine-s-secret-deadly-helicopter-rescue-missions-1.5955925

Combat SAR is a very small number of specialized helos and personnel involved, very different from air assault

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

they would have been better off purchasing the new BVS 10 like the british marines, and their airborne forces purchased...it can carry every weapon system they have including tow, mortars, anti air, etc etc... it offers armor protection, proven in combat in Afghanistan it can go almost anywhere track or wheel vehicles can go plus more...it is heated,and cooled  can be used in all weather environments... and it can be lifted in by chinook...and carries more than any pick up can.

BVS-10 is much bigger, slower, noisier, requires more maintenance and logistics, cannot fit inside a chinook in fact at 12,500 kg it barely makes the chinook’s 12,700 kg max payload. It’s not a light vehicle which is the capability the army s looking for with this procurement. Not everything has to be an armoured combat vehicle. 
 

 

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The great majority of Trudeau's 'increase' is accounting changes that now declare things to be military spending that didn't previously have that designation. I won't attempt to excuse Harper's cutbacks when he was trying to achieve a balanced budget. They were wrong.

Even so, there's a difference between cutting the military as part of an across the board cut to government spending when the world was seen as largely at peace - and cutting the military during a time when the government is spraying money out everywhere it can without regard to deficits during a time when the world's warlords are stirring and threatening and when our southern neighbor has become less reliable.

There's also a difference between cutting money after a decade of additional money, and cutting money for years and years after that. Stuff wasn't in terrible shape in 2015. It is now. 

What decade of additional money?  Most of the Harper defence spending was to pay for the Afghanistan mission not rebuild the military from the Mulroney-Chretien-Martin cuts and freezes. Stuff has been in terrible shape for decades.

 

 

9 hours ago, I am Groot said:

First of them is targeted for delivery in 2035, which is going to be more than a little late unless things calm down between NATO and Russia/China. Imagine going to war and needing to wait a decade for the first new warships to be delivered!

That’s Canada for you. If things calm down w Russia and China I expect most of these recently announced military investments and acquisitions will be cancelled 

[ExFlyer]

18 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Well according to the numbers the army is still the largest element and employees the most CF members...not bragging but army rules...

while in germany the kids would line the streets to see all the cool army equipment, some of those exercises were 150,000 NATO troops  right across the entire northern front of Germany....millions would watch every day in their backyards... even let the airforce play sometimes...Here in Canada we are locked up deep in the woods so nobody can see, all our secret shit LOL

I forgot you live in Ottawa....no guns , no fun, that might change when the conservatives get in lol ...Toys r us is full of guns, ones that shoot foam darts, foam balls, jel balls...you name it...but hey we live in the redneck part of NB, guns are part of life here...

The Army always had the most personnel. They also had the largest turnover of personnel

In Europe, they parade with military equipment and drive through towns and villages. We do not do that here in Canada. They have ten, twenty times the number of military bases than we have in Canada.

I live in  a Canadian city,..... no guns. I have no doubt the conservatives will get in and I also have no doubt that there will be no changes in the gun laws.