ExFlyer Posted December 9, 2025 Report Posted December 9, 2025 (edited) 14 hours ago, CdnFox said: They're in your posts actually At least you're not posting ass porn this time LOL 😆😆😆😆😆 And I see you're bound and determined to derail this threat as well with your childishness and weird sexual obsessive Behavior Derail this threat???? HA HA HA. Poor little LOSER...cannot even spell when you have your hissy fits. You have already done this a long time ago...it is you that cannot stay on topic LOL LOL LOL Stop responding and maybe you can get back on topic. Man, you are one sick puppy...must come in concert with being a LOSER!!!!! Edited December 10, 2025 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted December 9, 2025 Report Posted December 9, 2025 46 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Derail this threat???? HA HA HA. Poor little LOSER...cannot even spell when you have your hissy fits. LOL So you agree with what I said you just don't like the spelling mistake You know, the only thing stupider than complaining about someone's spelling mistake would be doing so and then making your OWN spelling mistake. THAT would truly be stupid wouldn't it 48 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: an dmaybe you can get back An dmaybe? Ooooopsie!! LOLOLOL 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Venandi Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 (edited) 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: And I see you're bound and determined to derail this threat as well with your childishness and weird sexual obsessive Behavior And it occurred immediately after said critter accused others of derailing threads, complained about the evils of thread drift, and insulted those who participated. Shrinkflation appears to have taken a toll on the cost and availability of mirror polish... Edited December 10, 2025 by Venandi 1 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 (edited) 14 hours ago, CdnFox said: LOL So you agree with what I said you just don't like the spelling mistake You know, the only thing stupider than complaining about someone's spelling mistake would be doing so and then making your OWN spelling mistake. THAT would truly be stupid wouldn't it An dmaybe? Ooooopsie!! LOLOLOL I agree with you??? LOL LOL LOL Not a chance LOL LOL LOL "The only thing stupider than complaining about someone's" actions is someone that is even stupider and LOSER....like you HA HA HA OMG LOSER...you just cannot seem to be any more foolish. Every one of your posts are you trying to defend your stupidity LOL LOL LOL Get back on topic LOSER!!!! Edited December 10, 2025 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 (edited) 11 hours ago, Venandi said: And it occurred immediately after said critter accused others of derailing threads, complained about the evils of thread drift, and insulted those who participated. Shrinkflation appears to have taken a toll on the cost and availability of mirror polish... It occurs immediately confux posts or retorts to my posts... He went off topic trying to outsmart me on pg 97. All was fine till then. All he has to do is stay on topic. If you look back at all his posts , to anyone, they almost all are insults to the persons he retorts to ( I dare you to and prove me otherwise) except to his buddies...of which you are one. LOL LOL LOL As I have said in the past and say again...you LOSERS stick together, like $hit on a diaper. Edited December 10, 2025 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
John Stone Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 Grammar – The Difference Between Knowing Your Shit And Knowing You’re Shit 1 Quote
Venandi Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 (edited) Step by step mirror cleaning instructions for those who only see other people looking back at them. The Zs and Ns mentioned are recommended cleaning patterns... not Nazi symbols or racial slurs. Sad eh... but sometimes you have to be specific. Edited December 10, 2025 by Venandi 1 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said: I agree with you??? LOL LOL LOL Not a chance LOL LOL LOL But you did. I guess even you don't pay attention to what you're saying Quote "The only thing stupider than complaining about someone's" actions is someone that is even stupider and LOSER.. Oh look, you're agreeing with me again! Complaining about someone's spelling and then making a spelling error is definitely even stupider and makes you more of a loser So did you have anything intelligent to say about Canadian defense or did you just want to continue to derail the thread? I see others are starting to laugh at you already as well, surely you want to move on and not ruin the thread for the others? Or maybe you don't. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 20 minutes ago, CdnFox said: But you did. I guess even you don't pay attention to what you're saying Oh look, you're agreeing with me again! Complaining about someone's spelling and then making a spelling error is definitely even stupider and makes you more of a loser So did you have anything intelligent to say about Canadian defense or did you just want to continue to derail the thread? I see others are starting to laugh at you already as well, surely you want to move on and not ruin the thread for the others? Or maybe you don't. Awww poor puppy..... cannot find the topic description and continues to babble LOL Every post just defines you as a LOSER and confirms you are that LOSER LOL Topic is Canadian Defence News..not In Defence of Confux News LOL What A LOSER you are 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
CdnFox Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 24 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Awww poor puppy..... cannot find the topic description and continues to babble LOL Is the topic description puppies? No? LOLOL just bound and determined to derail the thread. Well, that's certainly very "you" 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted December 10, 2025 Report Posted December 10, 2025 49 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Is the topic description puppies? No? LOLOL just bound and determined to derail the thread. Well, that's certainly very "you" Awww poor LOSER... Only reason it is derailed is because you keep posting BS LOL LOL LOL Typical LOSER post HA HA HA 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
BeaverFever Posted December 11, 2025 Author Report Posted December 11, 2025 On 12/4/2025 at 2:11 PM, Army Guy said: 1....And it has always been accountable to the elected government, It has always faithfully obeyed all orders it has received...It has never made up, it's own rules , and it has never been issued any blank checks.. And yet i don't understand the attitude that some on this forum has about our military leaders and their abilities to make decisions in regards to say equipment testing, or other reports provided by the military to civilian chain of command . It points to a lack of trust....and yet the military has shown nothing but trust to the government and its citizens, so where does this come from? Your statements are overly generous. In every institution people have their own agendas it’s human nature. There has been plenty of intrigue in the senior military ranks and between the military and civilian government. On 12/4/2025 at 2:11 PM, Army Guy said: That being said we as a nation are expected to be able to operate in the same environments as the US, Not to the same extent. For example we have no Marines. USA has no wilderness / Arctic SAR. They do a lot less extreme cold and arctic On 12/4/2025 at 2:11 PM, Army Guy said: hence why our training is almost identical in nature but on a much smaller scale But it’s not. Canada and other small militaries are known to have far better trained military members because they don’t have luxury of having hordes of “average” personnel. You hear this all the time about how US recruits are specialized almost immediately into radio operator, machine gunner etc whereas a Canadian infantryman learns the basics of everything before specializing Canadian artillery crew are trained to perform every position in the gun detachment (or nearly every one) and they regularly rotate whereas in the US each crew member is trained to do one position only. Canadian and other small NATO airforce fighter pilots are trained to a higher standard of competency than “average” US pilots. And so on. On 12/4/2025 at 2:11 PM, Army Guy said: US has more equipment and troops trained and equipped for artic operations than Canada ever hopes to have...Britain has more artic trained soldiers and equipment than Canada has They’re a small proportion of their total force, 1 division of about 12,000 troops and they were only stood up in 2022. Prior to that USA had no specialized Arctic force, just traditional army units that happened to be based in Alaska but operated conventionally without any specialized arctic training equipment or doctrine. The US also had entire divisions that have never seen snow. On 12/4/2025 at 2:11 PM, Army Guy said: 3...Heavy equipment cost much more to operate, which is why we switched from track vehs to wheel for the most part, had nothing to do with being able to move quickly or being able to use roll on or off, for a couple of reasons wheeled is cheaper to operate, to we have no roll on roll off capabilities, nor do we have any naval means of landing them under fire...what we have is a small fleet of C-17 which could transport a few LAVS any where in the world, providing we stripped them of most of their armor...Light vehs are great in Built up areas, but Ukraine is proving track IFV are the top predator... Heavier armor , more mobility, more weapons... Canada does need a heavy IFV fleet, it has run a couple of different purchase programs , but once again money is the issue... Yes cost is an issue but Canada also didn’t expect to be in a near peer conflict environment as we are today. Wheeled vehicles are actually superior for the kinds of missions we had actually been doing since the Korean war. RO-RO capability isn’t about landing ships under fire it’s about being able to get into theatre quickly without needing a railhead or other complicated logistics and infrastructure. I recall that Canadian Coyotes were some of the first allied vehicles into Kosovo after disembarking in Greece from chartered ships because they could just hit the highway and fly down the road. At the time the US had nothing as fast as our LAV fleet except Humvees and they were limited by their Bradley’s low speed, short range and large logistics tail which is why they then pursued the Stryker program based on the Canadian LAV Point being Canada doesn’t simply operate a version of the US mechanized brigade with cheaper vehicles, we have different doctrine and role on the battlefield 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 11, 2025 Author Report Posted December 11, 2025 Ottawa signs partnership with Canadian firms on military's Arctic satellite project Kyle Duggan Tue, December 9, 2025 at 2:40 PM EST 2 min read OTTAWA — Ottawa has signed a new strategic partnership with the Canadian firms Telesat and MDA Space to develop military satellite communications for the Canadian Armed Forces in the Arctic. It's among the first major military procurements to be managed by Ottawa's new Defence Investment Agency, which handles projects worth more than $100 million. MP Stephen Fuhr, the secretary of state for defence procurement, said the Canadian military has limited satellite communications options in the region, with most available options consisting of commercial rather than military networks. "That's why modernizing our surveillance and communications systems in the north is so important," Fuhr said at an announcement in Ottawa on Tuesday. "It will allow us to detect threats earlier and make and communicate information to decision makers faster." A strategic partnership is a rare approach to procurement that places industry involvement closer to the beginning of the process. Fuhr said Ottawa wants to use such partnerships "where we can and when we can." The partnership is for the Enhanced Satellite Communications Project — Polar (ESCP-P) project. It comes with a budget that exceeds $5 billion and is part of Ottawa's $38.6-billion plan for North American Aerospace Defence Command modernization. The federal government awarded a project contract to Telesat in partnership with MDA Space worth $2.92 million for engineering and options analysis. Documents tabled in Parliament this month state the current scheduled date for ESCP-P to come online is 2037, with full operational capability expected in 2041, although the Department of National Defence has been searching for ways to speed up the project. National Defence documents tabled in September say $7.6 million was spent on the project as of May this year. Most of the Norad modernization projects are still in their early stages but the department says 15 will be "costed, prioritized and accelerated as necessary" by the end of next year. Ottawa issued requests for information years ago but the file has been plagued by delays, including a re-evaluation of the project's scope. Fuhr said Tuesday Ottawa didn't have the money for some time, but government officials "just look at the world differently now than we did then." "Part of this big military defence spend isn't just to equip our Canadian Forces with the tools and equipment they need. We need to stimulate the Canadian economy with this money," he said. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ottawa-inks-partnership-canadian-firms-153829847.html Quote
CdnFox Posted December 11, 2025 Report Posted December 11, 2025 12 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Awww poor LOSER... And you're stuck in repeat mode. I would have thought of all the threads you wouldn't derail it would be this one, but then i remembered you were never actually in the military, you're not old enough to be in the military yet 4 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Ottawa signs partnership with Canadian firms on military's Arctic satellite project Kyle Duggan Tue, December 9, 2025 at 2:40 PM EST 2 min read OTTAWA — Ottawa has signed a new strategic partnership with the Canadian firms Telesat and MDA Space to develop military satellite communications for the Canadian Armed Forces in the Arctic. It's among the first major military procurements to be managed by Ottawa's new Defence Investment Agency, which handles projects worth more than $100 million. MP Stephen Fuhr, the secretary of state for defence procurement, said the Canadian military has limited satellite communications options in the region, with most available options consisting of commercial rather than military networks. "That's why modernizing our surveillance and communications systems in the north is so important," Fuhr said at an announcement in Ottawa on Tuesday. "It will allow us to detect threats earlier and make and communicate information to decision makers faster." A strategic partnership is a rare approach to procurement that places industry involvement closer to the beginning of the process. Fuhr said Ottawa wants to use such partnerships "where we can and when we can." The partnership is for the Enhanced Satellite Communications Project — Polar (ESCP-P) project. It comes with a budget that exceeds $5 billion and is part of Ottawa's $38.6-billion plan for North American Aerospace Defence Command modernization. The federal government awarded a project contract to Telesat in partnership with MDA Space worth $2.92 million for engineering and options analysis. Documents tabled in Parliament this month state the current scheduled date for ESCP-P to come online is 2037, with full operational capability expected in 2041, although the Department of National Defence has been searching for ways to speed up the project. National Defence documents tabled in September say $7.6 million was spent on the project as of May this year. Most of the Norad modernization projects are still in their early stages but the department says 15 will be "costed, prioritized and accelerated as necessary" by the end of next year. Ottawa issued requests for information years ago but the file has been plagued by delays, including a re-evaluation of the project's scope. Fuhr said Tuesday Ottawa didn't have the money for some time, but government officials "just look at the world differently now than we did then." "Part of this big military defence spend isn't just to equip our Canadian Forces with the tools and equipment they need. We need to stimulate the Canadian economy with this money," he said. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ottawa-inks-partnership-canadian-firms-153829847.html Interesting but not operational till 2041? If we have inadequate systems now as they suggest what are we supposed to do till then? 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
ExFlyer Posted December 11, 2025 Report Posted December 11, 2025 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: And you're stuck in repeat mode. I would have thought of all the threads you wouldn't derail it would be this one, but then i remembered you were never actually in the military, you're not old enough to be in the military yet Aww, another complaint from the complainative LOSER... Ya got nothing but complaints LOSER?? There ya are again...reverting to your pedophile ways... 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
BeaverFever Posted December 11, 2025 Author Report Posted December 11, 2025 (edited) 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: And you're stuck in repeat mode. I would have thought of all the threads you wouldn't derail it would be this one, but then i remembered you were never actually in the military, you're not old enough to be in the military yet Interesting but not operational till 2041? If we have inadequate systems now as they suggest what are we supposed to do till then? Make do as best we can with work-arounds and commercial systems. New rifles on the way for Canada's soldiers as defence spending ramps up A program intended to replace the entire stock of the Canadian military’s aging assault rifles is being sped up, CBC News has learned. An internal Department of National Defence presentation references a move to quickly order the first tranche of weapons under the Canadian Modular Assault Rifle program. The commander of the Canadian Army, Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright, confirmed in an interview with CBC News that the program, which has languished on the books for years, will now proceed with speedy delivery expected from a Canadian manufacturer. "We're on the cusp of signing a contract that will see those rifles start to be delivered to the Canadian Army as of next year," Wright said. Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright, the commander of the Canadian Army, says the rifle program that has languished on the books for years will soon have a contract in place.(Murray Brewster/CBC) That would be almost two years ahead of the last published schedule and is being made possible by the injection of more than $9 billion into the military as part of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s drive to reach NATO’s two per cent defence spending benchmark. A Defence Department equipment briefing, dated July 2025, says the plan is to order up to 65,401 modern rifles with the possibility being left open to increase the delivery up to 300,000 should the government proceed with a plan to drastically scale up the size of the military supplementary reserve. The internal presentation doesn’t contain a price tag, nor a precise delivery time, but the department’s defence capabilities website said the program could be worth between $500 million and $1 billion. The Canadian Modular Assault Rifle is intended to replace the current stock of C7 and C8 rifles, which date from the Afghan war almost two decades ago. Wright sees both the rifles and new day-to-day CADPAT camouflage pattern uniforms as important morale-boosters. Wright didn't reveal who the contract might go to. But Colt Canada, located in Kitchener, Ont., is in the running and has a long-standing relationship with the army. Buying Canadian would help the Liberal government's pitch to rebuild the country’s defence industrial base. Such an order would also provide a bit of political cover fire as the defence department pushes forward with the army’s demand for U.S.-manufactured rocket-propelled artillery, known as HIMARS. In October, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, an arm of the State Department, gave Canada permission to buy up to 26 of the M142 rocket systems. A letter of offer needs to be extended before the contract can be signed. The army isn’t expected to take delivery until 2029, but the $2.7-billion program is politically uncomfortable because of the federal government’s stated aim of diversifying military equipment purchases away from the United States. "We're saying the HIMARS system is the long-range precision strike system that we need for land operations," Wright said. "It's a capability that's been proven on the battlefield in Ukraine. More importantly, of the systems that are available right now, it's the system that we can put onto the back of a Royal Canadian Air Force strategic airlift, the C-17, and deploy anywhere The other priority capabilities, according to Wright, are drones and BV 206 tracked carriers, an all-terrain transport vehicle specifically designed for the Arctic. The current stock of those vehicles is decades old. Rifles, uniforms, drones and the rocket-propelled artillery are elements in the broader overhaul of the army. A strategy, released earlier this year, said the aim is to prepare land forces to fight large-scale warfare, similar to what we’ve seen in Ukraine, rather than the guerilla-type wars of the early 2000s. Intersecting with the overhaul is a recently acknowledged mobilization plan which aims to create a pool of up to 300,000 supplemental reserves — or citizen soldiers. Wright said his focus, at the moment, is getting both the regular army and reserve units up to full strength and more troops into a deployable state. The Canadian Army currently has a field strength of approximately 22,500 regular force members and 21,500 primary reserve members. "I'm focused on fixing the house that we have," rather than building an addition, Wright said. The proposed larger, mobilized force is still in the military's future. But "it’s not tomorrow or next year that they're arriving," Wright said. Members of the Canadian military are getting a pay raise of up to 20 per cent, as the federal government looks to boost recruitment and retention in the ranks. The $2-billion spending package also includes new allowances for certain deployments and operations. Over the long term, Wright said he could see some armouries in major urban centres — many of them built a century ago, either reconfigured or relocated to the suburbs or bedroom communities, where most Canadians now live. The army is being reorganized to cut down on administration in order to provide one division to respond to domestic crises in Canada and one for deployment overseas. The Canadian Army currently has four main regional divisions — the 2nd (Quebec), 3rd (Western Canada), 4th (Ontario) and 5th (Atlantic Canada), which are responsible for providing troops and training within their regions. The division concept lends itself to rapid scaling up in a crisis and Wright said army planners are looking at the challenges. They conducted a planning exercise in September, known as war game, to test and think through some of the challenges of building an army quickly. When asked what the army learned, he suggested it was a lot, but didn’t go into detail. "Most importantly, it got people into the mindset," he said. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/colt-modular-assault-rifles-army-9.7011113 Edited December 11, 2025 by BeaverFever 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted December 11, 2025 Report Posted December 11, 2025 10 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 1...Your statements are overly generous. In every institution people have their own agendas it’s human nature. There has been plenty of intrigue in the senior military ranks and between the military and civilian government. 2....Not to the same extent. For example we have no Marines. USA has no wilderness / Arctic SAR. They do a lot less extreme cold and arctic 3....But it’s not. Canada and other small militaries are known to have far better trained military members because they don’t have luxury of having hordes of “average” personnel. You hear this all the time about how US recruits are specialized almost immediately into radio operator, machine gunner etc whereas a Canadian infantryman learns the basics of everything before specializing Canadian artillery crew are trained to perform every position in the gun detachment (or nearly every one) and they regularly rotate whereas in the US each crew member is trained to do one position only. Canadian and other small NATO airforce fighter pilots are trained to a higher standard of competency than “average” US pilots. And so on. 4...They’re a small proportion of their total force, 1 division of about 12,000 troops and they were only stood up in 2022. Prior to that USA had no specialized Arctic force, just traditional army units that happened to be based in Alaska but operated conventionally without any specialized arctic training equipment or doctrine. The US also had entire divisions that have never seen snow. 5.... Yes cost is an issue but Canada also didn’t expect to be in a near peer conflict environment as we are today. Wheeled vehicles are actually superior for the kinds of missions we had actually been doing since the Korean war. RO-RO capability isn’t about landing ships under fire it’s about being able to get into theatre quickly without needing a railhead or other complicated logistics and infrastructure. I recall that Canadian Coyotes were some of the first allied vehicles into Kosovo after disembarking in Greece from chartered ships because they could just hit the highway and fly down the road. At the time the US had nothing as fast as our LAV fleet except Humvees and they were limited by their Bradley’s low speed, short range and large logistics tail which is why they then pursued the Stryker program based on the Canadian LAV Point being Canada doesn’t simply operate a version of the US mechanized brigade with cheaper vehicles, we have different doctrine and role on the battlefield 1...Are they generous, please explain , perhaps provide some examples...Military has some very strict arcs of fire, in which they have to operate, Yes the generals and everyone in the military has their own agendas, how to improve their jobs and completion of tasks, and the lives of their subordinates...other than that they are controlled on what they can or can not do... 2....Very few of NATO Countries have the same abilities, but they all have one thing in common, the ability to conduct ground , air and Naval combat in high intensity environments...And although we do not have marine units, , our Infantry bns do exercise in amphibious landing with our naval forces...And yes the US does have a huge SAR force, Coast Guard, army, air force, and navy, along with many civilian organizations... 3.... Thats a myth, Our regular forces may exercise maybe twice a year due to lack of funds, fuel, ammo, and other support units maybe once a year if they are lucky....As for the trades being more specialized, thats what happens when you have a small military does not mean we are better just that our troops have a wider knowledge base....In the Canadian military a mechanic trains on specific veh types, each type requires a special course ie LAV, Leopard tank, wheeled vehs, etc... 4.... I think it is a little more than a division, US airborne forces are not conventional in any means... US army has always had a ground force in Alaska...Anyone operating in the artic has to have a high degree of winter warfare, that's what the specialize in ...Just because we have winter here in Canada not all troops are qualified for winter warfare... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Alaska LAV does have "some" advantages over track...But nothing out performs a tracked veh in all environments, LAVs get stuck constantly in rough terrain or heavy mud...which tends to be where they operate the most.. 5...What RO -RO ships do we have....anything we do use is rented or contracted....and they do not do hostile areas . We have LAVs because they are much cheaper to operate, "That's our militaries theme, brought to you by the cheapest bidder"..........yes they provide superior operating parameters in built up areas..., but they are lightly armored, limited weapons, less survivability limited movement in mud, and extreme terrain. If you had seen the vehicle grave yard in Afghanistan i think you would change your mind about LAVS....ask the Russians what they think of their wheeled IFV...ask the Ukrainian what they think of their Bradly's... Canada does operate on the same battle field as the US, we use the same tactics, as the US for the most part on every operation we are part of a much larger US force...Our battle groups or Brigades are Light mechanized Infantry, and will be used like any US light mechanized unit... Our doctrine and roles are the same, as any matching NATO unit, which is why we are interoperable....Take our Battle group in Latvia, it comprises 6 or 7 different NATO units which make up the brigade everyone operates the same way... 1 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
I am Groot Posted December 12, 2025 Report Posted December 12, 2025 On 12/10/2025 at 10:39 PM, BeaverFever said: Canada and other small militaries are known to have far better trained military members because they don’t have luxury of having hordes of “average” personnel. You hear this all the time about how US recruits are specialized almost immediately into radio operator, machine gunner etc whereas a Canadian infantryman learns the basics of everything before specializing Not sure how much of this is true anymore. Without training, continuous training, you don't have a better-trained military. It takes money to train. And the military has been starved of funds for a decade. I doubt they've been doing much training. Not to mention they don't have the equipment to train with unless they can borrow vehicles and gear from other units. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
BeaverFever Posted December 12, 2025 Author Report Posted December 12, 2025 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: Not sure how much of this is true anymore. Without training, continuous training, you don't have a better-trained military. It takes money to train. And the military has been starved of funds for a decade. I doubt they've been doing much training. Not to mention they don't have the equipment to train with unless they can borrow vehicles and gear from other units. You’re talking about recurring training. I mean even just initial basic training. So for the artillery example, Canadian gun crews are small and multi-skilled with every member trained to perform all (or most) of the roles on the gun and they rotate through them Such as: No. 2 — Breech / Limber No. 3 — Layer (aiming) No. 4 — Loader No. 5 — Ammunition No. 6/7 — Communications / additional tasks In the US army most of those jobs done exclusively by separately trained soldiers who cannot do each other’s jobs, plus additional support detachments handling tasks that the Canadian gun crew does on its own. The bottom line is we can’t just say “we should but whatever the US buys and use it however the Us uses it” because there are fundamental differences in our forces’ purpose, role and doctrine Here’s how ChatGPT puts it: 1. Canada trains “generalist gunners” Canadian artillery doctrine emphasizes every soldier learning every position on the gun, including: laying (aiming) firing data interpretation projectile & charge preparation communications safety checks towing & emplacement procedures 👉 This means a Canadian gun crew is highly interchangeable. If someone is injured, tired, or pulled for another task, another member can immediately take their place. Why Canada uses this model Smaller army → need maximum redundancy. Gunners must be able to deploy in small batteries or even detached guns. The CAF culture values broad competency over compartmentalization. Historical legacy from Commonwealth/UK artillery doctrine. Result Canada usually requires 7–9 soldiers per M777, depending on whether the driver and signaller are physically attached to the detachment. 2. The U.S. uses a “specialist role” model Each gun position has a narrow, specific task, and many tasks the Canadian crew does are split into separate elements. For example: Ammo handling is often done by a different team (A-gun team). Fire data comes from a separate digital fire direction center. Vehicle drivers are not part of the gun crew. Some checks are delegated to FDC or platoon leadership rather than the detachment. Why the U.S. uses this model Much larger force → specialization increases efficiency. U.S. artillery operates in large batteries with abundant support personnel. Logistics and ammunition flow are handled by bigger unit structures. Digital systems eliminate some manual tasks. Bottom Line Canada’s system is optimized for small-force flexibility and redundancy, while the U.S. system is optimized for mass, specialization, and efficiency in large formations. Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 12, 2025 Author Report Posted December 12, 2025 On 7/28/2023 at 10:18 AM, BeaverFever said: As for the P-8, many of the missions for that “multi-mission” aircraft are domestic, or are unarmed/low threat and don’t need a big expensive B737 at 40,000 feet For example, circling above a Manitoba flood to take photos and relay communications between agencies on the ground. Or patrolling our waters for illegal fishing and maritime polluting. A Bizjet platform would be a more economical option for those types of missions but can still carry a combat payload for medium threat/deterrence missions. So you would still have P-8s but also a more practical and cost efficient option for the smaller jobs where a combat payload of around 6 missiles/torpedoes instead of 12 will do. Check out the Saab Swordfish for example Now I think the way to do that without adding to fleet management / training complications is to also replace the 4-plane Challenger VIP fleet with the same Bizjet platform The Saab Swordfish is based on a Bombardier G6000 but Bombardier is pitching the 6500 for the Canadian MMA project Both the 6000 and 6500 are already in military use around the world in a variety of similar roles (AWACS, EW, communications) including in the USAF which just recently purchased 6500s to use as its BACN platform. Plus civilian versions are plentiful and the globe for parts and worldwide support. As long as they don’t do anything stupid like try to put an internal weapons bay on it, this aircraft is already a proven platform The P-8s main advantage over Bizjet alternatives is that it can lob a dozen cruise missiles at China from a safe distance whereas Bizjet platforms can only carry a few missiles/torpedoes Also with a 10-person mission crew instead of 5 it can theoretically carry out more missions during a single sortie but that’s not always going to be needed. Well I guess someone in Ottawa is taking my advice…..sorta. 2 years ago in this very thread I called for a Bombardier-Global-based Maritime Patrol aircraft like the Swordfish instead of the P8 and for efficiency replacing the current Challenger VIP transport fleet with the same Global platform at the same time. Well they went with the P-8 anyway but later announced they were seeking an AWACS capability and all signs point to that being on a Bombardier Global platform. And now… Government of Canada announces contract to deliver new multi-role aircraft for Royal Canadian Air Force From: Defence Investment Agency News release December 12, 2025 - Mississauga, Ontario The Government of Canada is committed to rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Today, the Honourable Stephen Fuhr, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement), the Honourable Rechie Valdez, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism), and Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, announced that Canada has awarded a contract to Bombardier to acquire 6 Canadian-built Global 6500 aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force under the Airlift Capability Project – Multi-role Flight Service. As one of the initial procurements under the new Defence Investment Agency (DIA), the investment in the Global 6500 will provide a modern, versatile replacement for the current CC-144 Challenger fleet to perform worldwide utility flights and support missions such as aeromedical evacuations, disaster relief, humanitarian aid and national security operations. The estimated value of the contract is approximately $753 million (CAD), with the first aircraft expected to be delivered by summer 2027, and initial operational capability achieved by the end of 2027, prioritizing a streamlined approach with the DIA. The contract also includes training for aircrew and maintenance personnel as well as military modifications. The Government of Canada has selected a world-leading Canadian-based firm with global reach that will leverage its footprint across the country to help meet the needs of the CAF, and will invest in Canada’s industrial base. This includes the more than 60 Canadian suppliers who will support the production of the aircraft. Through this contract, Bombardier will support Canada’s aerospace ecosystem by working with small and medium-sized businesses and advancing research and development initiatives that benefit the domestic supply chain. This contract is also projected to create over 900 direct and indirect Canadian jobs associated to the aircraft manufacturing activities, including the supply chain. https://www.canada.ca/en/defence-investment-agency/news/2025/12/government-of-canada-announces-contract-to-deliver-new-multi-role-aircraft-for-royal-canadian-air-force.html Quote
Army Guy Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 I just found this, It may interest some of you.....it is not recent but it does give you a glimpse of what is to come from the Army, and what is being preached at most combat units. This has nothing operational or secret information all of it is public knowledge, and has been released to media and other sources...Note this is in concept phase, and CAF is concentrating on soldier items , vice any real Equipment purchases. It also gives you an idea on our current status, and what we are lacking in capabilities and equipment... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 More on the CAF new replacement rifle .... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 On 12/11/2025 at 11:26 AM, Army Guy said: 1...Are they generous, please explain , perhaps provide some examples...Military has some very strict arcs of fire, in which they have to operate, Yes the generals and everyone in the military has their own agendas, how to improve their jobs and completion of tasks, and the lives of their subordinates...other than that they are controlled on what they can or can not do... 2....Very few of NATO Countries have the same abilities, but they all have one thing in common, the ability to conduct ground , air and Naval combat in high intensity environments...And although we do not have marine units, , our Infantry bns do exercise in amphibious landing with our naval forces...And yes the US does have a huge SAR force, Coast Guard, army, air force, and navy, along with many civilian organizations... 3.... Thats a myth, Our regular forces may exercise maybe twice a year due to lack of funds, fuel, ammo, and other support units maybe once a year if they are lucky....As for the trades being more specialized, thats what happens when you have a small military does not mean we are better just that our troops have a wider knowledge base....In the Canadian military a mechanic trains on specific veh types, each type requires a special course ie LAV, Leopard tank, wheeled vehs, etc... 4.... I think it is a little more than a division, US airborne forces are not conventional in any means... US army has always had a ground force in Alaska...Anyone operating in the artic has to have a high degree of winter warfare, that's what the specialize in ...Just because we have winter here in Canada not all troops are qualified for winter warfare... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Alaska LAV does have "some" advantages over track...But nothing out performs a tracked veh in all environments, LAVs get stuck constantly in rough terrain or heavy mud...which tends to be where they operate the most.. 5...What RO -RO ships do we have....anything we do use is rented or contracted....and they do not do hostile areas . We have LAVs because they are much cheaper to operate, "That's our militaries theme, brought to you by the cheapest bidder"..........yes they provide superior operating parameters in built up areas..., but they are lightly armored, limited weapons, less survivability limited movement in mud, and extreme terrain. If you had seen the vehicle grave yard in Afghanistan i think you would change your mind about LAVS....ask the Russians what they think of their wheeled IFV...ask the Ukrainian what they think of their Bradly's... Canada does operate on the same battle field as the US, we use the same tactics, as the US for the most part on every operation we are part of a much larger US force...Our battle groups or Brigades are Light mechanized Infantry, and will be used like any US light mechanized unit... Our doctrine and roles are the same, as any matching NATO unit, which is why we are interoperable....Take our Battle group in Latvia, it comprises 6 or 7 different NATO units which make up the brigade everyone operates the same way... FLYER perhaps you can point out what you don't like about what i posted instead of taking the easy way out and giving it a down arrow, some what your signature move, seems a little lazy myself...but that's just me Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
John Stone Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 21 hours ago, Army Guy said: More on the CAF new replacement rifle .... Only one military organization can hold and gain ground in war-a ground army supported by tactical aviation with supply lines guarded by the navy. — Omar N. Bradley Quote
Army Guy Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 57 minutes ago, John Stone said: Only one military organization can hold and gain ground in war-a ground army supported by tactical aviation with supply lines guarded by the navy. — Omar N. Bradley One day when we grow up maybe, or when the next crises gets here and forces us...which is how we role historically.. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.