Canadian Defence News

[Dougie93]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Canada “needs” to contribute to the defence of North America for political reasons   Not because it’s necessary for our security but because the less we contribute to continental defence , the more USA dominates us. . 

fool's errand

America will dominate you regardless

the only way to win would be to do as little as possible

which is Canada's actual strategy

there is no need for a navy nor an air force, unless you are going to project power overseas

projecting power on behalf of the Americans is ultimate American domination

hence why Canada invented UN Peacekeeping

the whole point was to project power independent of the Americans

the problem was simply that Canada lacked the courage of convictions

and the UN doesn't have a chain of command

none the less, Continental Defence is a fake mission, Canada serves no purpose there

the only threat to the continent is nuclear submarines, and Canada does not participate therein

the Americans & British defend the continent with SSN's under the polar ice

thus, if you want to gain independence from Washington, you will need your own foreign policy

only then would you have a justification for a navy and an air force

if you're going to spend the billions, it should all be spent on expeditionary capability

then you deploy those capabilities where the Americans decline to go

basically what the French do

to wit, if Canada is not going to be a British country anymore

then Canada defaults back to being a French country

at which point, you might as well go all the way

Quebec already runs Canada by default ; so just lean into it

kowtowing to Washington doesn't work, that just makes them take you for granted

the way to get their attention, is to be a thorn in their side, as Quebec is to Ottawa

just acknowledge that Canada is no longer loyal to the Anglo-American hegemony

Canada fears & loathes America

 Canada not only resents but actually despises its own British origins

so much so, that Canada actually wants to cut a deal with the Chinese Communists in Beijing

Canada literally desires to be the Chinese Communist fifth column against Washington

which really leaves you with one alternative, which is joining treasonous Versailles in Paris

Canada is obviously not trusted to be in AUKUS for these reasons

so Canada should go to the French and buy into their SSN program instead

in broad strokes, stop buying American, start buying French

the biggest threat to Canadian arctic sovereignty is the Americans

so you buy some French SSNs and start following the Americans around up there

you don't have to shoot a torpedo at the Americans

just hit them with active sonar to give their position away, that does the job

 there is only one kind of nationalism in Canada, and it is Bourbonite French

you can't beat them, so might as well join them

Je me souviens

Edited April 11 by Dougie93

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

fool's errand

America will dominate you regardless

the only way to win would be to do as little as possible

which is Canada's actual strategy

there is no need for a navy nor an air force, unless you are going to project power overseas

projecting power on behalf of the Americans is ultimate American domination

hence why Canada invented UN Peacekeeping

the whole point was to project power independent of the Americans

the problem was simply that Canada lacked the courage of convictions

and the UN doesn't have a chain of command

none the less, Continental Defence is a fake mission, Canada serves no purpose there

the only threat to the continent is nuclear submarines, and Canada does not participate therein

the Americans & British defend the continent with SSN's under the polar ice

thus, if you want to gain independence from Washington, you will need your own foreign policy

only then would you have a justification for a navy and an air force

if you're going to spend the billions, it should all be spent on expeditionary capability

then you deploy those capabilities where the Americans decline to go

basically what the French do

to wit, if Canada is not going to be a British country anymore

then Canada defaults back to being a French country

at which point, you might as well go all the way

Quebec already runs Canada by default ; so just lean into it

kowtowing to Washington doesn't work, that just makes them take you for granted

the way to get their attention, is to be a thorn in their side, as Quebec is to Ottawa

just acknowledge that Canada is no longer loyal to the Anglo-American hegemony

Canada fears & loathes America

 Canada not only resents but actually despises its own British origins

so much so, that Canada actually wants to cut a deal with the Chinese Communists in Beijing

Canada literally desires to be the Chinese Communist fifth column against Washington

which really leaves you with one alternative, which is joining treasonous Versailles in Paris

Canada is obviously not trusted to be in AUKUS for these reasons

so Canada should go to the French and buy into their SSN program instead

in broad strokes, stop buying American, start buying French

the biggest threat to Canadian arctic sovereignty is the Americans

so you buy some French SSNs and start following the Americans around up there

you don't have to shoot a torpedo at the Americans

just hit them with active sonar to give their position away, that does the job

 there is only one kind of nationalism in Canada, and it is Bourbonite French

you can't beat them, so might as well join them

Je me souviens

OMG...he is off in never never land again. LOL

[SpankyMcFarland]

I know nothing about this topic. Based on my own ignorance, I’d like to suggest that politicians should not make major military purchases into political issues at election time. We civilians just don’t know enough to decide which helicopters, boats or fighter aircraft should be bought. The main thing is buy SOMETHING in a timely fashion, based on the collective expertise of our military, before the older equipment becomes useless and or dangerous. 

[Dougie93]

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OMG...he is off in never never land again. LOL

I am not the one seeking to throw off the chains of American domination

quite the opposite in fact

as I am a Republican in the classical sense

to wit, an American imperialist

but if Beaverfeaver has the courage of his convictions

then he should stop kowtowing to us and assert his independence by way of another patron

otherwise, he is forever reduced to a fake country colonial, in the face of the American religion

 

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I am not the one seeking to throw off the chains of American domination

....

as I am a Republican in the classical sense

to wit, an American imperialist

but if Beaverfeaver has the courage of his convictions

then he should stop kowtowing to us and assert his independence by way of another patron

....

 

Wake up and smell reality....todays reality... not your reality of hundreds of years ago!!!

The one that "should stop kowtowing to us" is you for gawds sake.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Agreed but our problems with military spending and a coherent long-term military policy precede this particular government by a fair few decades. It seems difficult to change this in a democracy unless we have an imminent military threat on our doorstep. At least Putin has managed to wake Europe up a bit. 

Not only to Europe, but across DND and MDND, people have been stepping up and telling anyone that will listen, that we are in need of deep investment...Everyone already knows most of the globe has noticed our lack of participation, and have said politely hey your a loser time to step up...We are losing capability's along with the expertise in using them every year, once they are gone we will have to pay other nations to teach us the basics on all of these lost capabilities...

Lets not forget there is 1/2 a dozen or so european countries that have stepped up to a war footing, are desperately thinking conscription,and boosting their defense budgets into the 3 percent range...We are one of the few that seems to be still riding the wave to the beach....as history has shown, we have always cashed in the peace bonds hard, and paid a price when crises happens in lives...history repeats itself over and over here in canada. 

[Army Guy]

53 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I know nothing about this topic. Based on my own ignorance, I’d like to suggest that politicians should not make major military purchases into political issues at election time. We civilians just don’t know enough to decide which helicopters, boats or fighter aircraft should be bought. The main thing is buy SOMETHING in a timely fashion, based on the collective expertise of our military, before the older equipment becomes useless and or dangerous. 

Military procurement is a mess...the military places an order in based on specs, civilians search the market that some what meets those, in other cases major companies will build something hoping to meet those specs...the people with the most influence over what is purchased is politicians..what offsets does the manufacture offer, how many canadians does it employ, can it be built in Canada, all of those over ride what DND wants...and finally what is the cheapest shit available...DND does not have a great track record of purchasing either, Take a look at some of the Army equipment we bought....all the good stuff was a mistake in disguise...HLVW, is a good truck, nobody could figure out why we bought it...we would later find out it placed 3 out of all the competition...sometimes everything is a good choice...

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

because they are in Europe

but do Canadians feel threatened by the war in Europe ?

not really

what Canadians fear, is America

with good reason in fact

because ultimately, the American religion is bound to overthrow Canada

you don't have free speech

you don't have gun rights

you allow unrestricted abortion

by that alone, America should depose the Chinese Communist treasonous proxy Canadian government

Rangers, lead the way

 

War in Europe just means more Canadian men and women will die...being unprepared just means more of them will die sooner and quicker....

[Dougie93]

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

War in Europe just means more Canadian men and women will die...being unprepared just means more of them will die sooner and quicker....

preparedness can be a deterrent to a war breaking out in the first place

but if deterrence fails, such as if you are facing a madman like Adolf Hitler

then preparedness does not reduce casualties per se

the Germans were the most prepared in both World Wars by far

yet they were totally annihilated in both cases

in the case of Canada, being unprepared has actually reduced casualties before

because in the Second World War, Canada didn't put large numbers of boots on the ground until 1944

instead Canada focused on the bombing campaign against Germany

this was the Canadian government's strategy to reduce casualties, and it was successful for the most part

it's the same situation with NATO now

because if NATO goes to war, and wholly unprepared Canada doesn't have many troops to send

that will prevent casualties not increase them

the more prepared Canada is to send troops right away, the more casualties Canada will suffer

thus it is better for Canada to stick to the World War Two strategy

send some navy and air force to the fight, but hold the troops back until as late as possible

the Navy SEALs have an axiom which is :  "don't rush to your death"

so if Canada has to spend years building up an army in Canada

that's not a bad thing in terms of avoiding casualties

Canada suffered its highest casualty rate in the First World War

why ?

because Canada was too prepared

Canada rushed in, putting large numbers of boots on the ground right away, at the Ypres Salient

if Canada had instead done what the Americans did, which was wait until 1917 to go in

then Canada would have suffered vastly fewer casualties overall

bear in mind that NATO Article V within the Washington Treaty ;

does not actually demand that Canada send large numbers of troops to Europe

all it says is that Canada must "assist" its NATO allies

it doesn't stipulate that Canada do anything specific therein however

the treaty allows all member states to contribute only what they "deem necessary"

so Canada is in fact free to hang back and consider its options, even if NATO goes to war

furthermore, in terms of Latvia, it's not a good idea for Canada to deploy more forces there

that's just a tripwire

in the event of war however, that force could be cut off by way of Lithuania & Kaliningrad

you don't want to get caught in a "Dunkirk on the Baltic" scenario

so in terms of avoiding casualties, Canada should minimize the tripwire force, not expand it

like if you were going to reactivate 4 CMBG and send it to Europe, don't send it to Latvia

just like World War Two ; you send them to England, and then just wait out from there

you're really only bound, constitutionally, to defend the Commander-in-Chief at Buckingham Palace

there's nothing actually binding Canada to save Latvia at any cost, even under Article V

Edited April 12 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

preparedness can be a deterrent to a war breaking out in the first place

but if deterrence fails, such as if you are facing a madman like Adolf Hitler

then preparedness does not reduce casualties per se

the Germans were the most prepared in both World Wars by far

yet they were totally annihilated in both cases

in the case of Canada, being unprepared has actually reduced casualties before

because in the Second World War, Canada didn't put large numbers of boots on the ground until 1944

instead Canada focused on the bombing campaign against Germany

this was the Canadian government's strategy to reduce casualties, and it was successful for the most part

it's the same situation with NATO now

because if NATO goes to war, and wholly unprepared Canada doesn't have many troops to send

that will prevent casualties not increase them

the more prepared Canada is to send troops right away, the more casualties Canada will suffer

thus it is better for Canada to stick to the World War Two strategy

send some navy and air force to the fight, but hold the troops back until as late as possible

the Navy SEALs have an axiom which is :  "don't rush to your death"

so if Canada has to spend years building up an army in Canada

that's not a bad thing in terms of avoiding casualties

Canada suffered its highest casualty rate in the First World War

why ?

because Canada was too prepared

Canada rushed in, putting large numbers of boots on the ground right away, at the Ypres Salient

if Canada had instead done what the Americans did, which was wait until 1917 to go in

then Canada would have suffered vastly fewer casualties overall

bear in mind that NATO Article V within the Washington Treaty ;

does not actually demand that Canada send large numbers of troops to Europe

all it says is that Canada must "assist" its NATO allies

it doesn't stipulate that Canada do anything specific therein however

the treaty allows all member states to contribute only what they "deem necessary"

so Canada is in fact free to hang back and consider its options, even if NATO goes to war

furthermore, in terms of Latvia, it's not a good idea for Canada to deploy more forces there

that's just a tripwire

in the event of war however, that force could be cut off by way of Lithuania & Kaliningrad

you don't want to get caught in a "Dunkirk on the Baltic" scenario

so in terms of avoiding casualties, Canada should minimize the tripwire force, not expand it

like if you were going to reactivate 4 CMBG and send it to Europe, don't send it to Latvia

just like World War Two ; you send them to England, and then just wait out from there

you're really only bound, constitutionally, to defend the Commander-in-Chief at Buckingham Palace

there's nothing actually binding Canada to save Latvia at any cost, even under Article V

Boots on the ground are but one part of the total commitment we made, Canada scrambled to get ships to assist with convoy duty, during this struggle good men paid for the life's for sub par equipment....and the airforce, they had weeks of training and then shipped over to bomb germany during the night...during their time in the air they learned what it took to survive or were scraped out of the hull in buckets ...So young Canadians were paying the price from day one...and lets not forget that small Dieppe raid for the army, which seen a sizable chunk of the army gone in a blink of an eye...

One just has to look at the all 3 elements before each of the great wars...there was not enough full time soldiers to train the amount we needed, not that it matter as the equipment they had at the time was relics...and with everyone around the globe looking for the same equipment, we got what we got... Ross rifle, and the rest of the junk we ended up buying...cost lifes, which is my point...

The next conflict will be come as you are, it takes months to build main battle tanks, and aircraft, and years to build ships...so we won't have the time to get ready or build new...we will fight in what we have and what little we can build before the main fight...we'll run out of ammo in a week.....and when your your looking at just 40 main battle tanks, because the rest are training tanks, LAV 6 and now rebuilt M113...in a world were new IFV will tear us a new one before we get past the embarkation line...good Canadians will die, while the rest of Canadians will shrug their shoulders and say nothing....good thing it its not me...

 

[Gaétan]

In the conflict between Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians, Iran, the good ones are the Palestinians and the Iranians. Israel's provocative acts against Iran is a plot by Israel to make Iran go to war and the United States to go after them, and while the focus is on the war, they will be able to kill all Palestinians.

Edited April 13 by Gaétan

[Army Guy]

Interesting take our our nations Military, and some creative solutions...an outside perspective.

 

[Aristides]

On 4/13/2024 at 7:19 AM, Gaétan said:

In the conflict between Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians, Iran, the good ones are the Palestinians and the Iranians. Israel's provocative acts against Iran is a plot by Israel to make Iran go to war and the United States to go after them, and while the focus is on the war, they will be able to kill all Palestinians.

Iran has made it very clear that its object is to make Israel disappear. Israel has expressed no such intent toward Iran.

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Interesting take our our nations Military, and some creative solutions...an outside perspective.

 

OMG I cannot stand this guy, he’s always popping up in my YouTube feed. Not that I have a problem with what he says but something about the way he looks and talks just drives me nuts 

[Army Guy]

I feel the same way about Justin, the way he looks and how he talks...my wife will get pissed off becasue when he comes on the news station i turn off the TV...There are a million people right now that are saying the same stuff....including some of the left wing media in the states...they all can't be wrong...

[Gaétan]

All the rich arm sellers got a bunker on ilands far from US and European countries.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Gaétan said:

All the rich arm sellers got a bunker on ilands far from US and European countries.

Far from the us and asians.

Sooooo -  austrailia? The asian countries? Doesn't seem very likely  

[BeaverFever]

Initial construction to begin in June on new Canadian warships

The work is proceeding even though the Canadian government has yet to sign the actual construction contract to start building the 15 warships.

Get the latest from David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen straight to your inbox 

Published Apr 30, 2024  •  Last updated 5 hours ago  •  3 minute read

 

An artist rendering of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Photo by Lockheed Martin Canada /SUBMITTED

Initial construction of the first of the new Canadian warships estimated to cost as much as $80 billion will begin in June even though an actual contract to build the vessels has yet to be signed.

National Defence’s procurement chief Troy Crosby recently told parliamentarians that low-rate production activities on the Canadian Surface Combatant will begin sometime next month. That will include building a small section of the first structure on the vessel at Irving Shipbuilding on the east coast.

That work is proceeding even though the Canadian government has yet to sign the actual construction contract to start building the 15 warships.

National Defence spokesman Kened Sadiku explained the contract to build the first ships — known as the implementation contract — won’t be awarded until later this year or early 2025.

But under the current existing deal, low-rate production activities on the ships are covered and building a small section allows for construction techniques to be further refined. “Full-rate production is expected to begin under an implementation contract in 2025,” Sadiku noted.

The first completed CSC was originally to be delivered in the early 2020s. But in February 2021, National Defence admitted the delivery of the first vessel wouldn’t take place until 2030 or 2031.

The project has already faced significant increases in cost from the original estimated price tag of $26 billion. Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux now estimates the cost of the ships to be around $84 billion.

National Defence maintains the cost will be between $56 billion and $60 billion, and its officials have insisted that figure will not go up.

Critics have labelled the CSC project, the largest single purchase in Canadian history, as a bottomless money pit with little accountability or oversight. Since the construction contract has yet to be signed, they have called for the project to be halted or at least reviewed.

National Defence remains steadfast it will not alter course and that the project, which will acquire ships to replace the current Halifax-class frigates, is a success so far.

Conservative MP Kelly McCauley said he and other MPs believed the construction of the CSC alone would eventually cost more than $100 billion.

This newspaper reported Jan. 24 that National Defence has brought in a new and unprecedented shroud of secrecy around the CSC costs.

After withholding documents for almost three years, the department released nearly 1,700 pages of records that were supposed to outline specific costs and work done so far on the CSC program.

But all the details of what taxpayers have so far spent and what type of work has been done by Irving Shipbuilding for that money were censored from the records.

In an April 8 appearance before the Senate defence committee, Crosby pointed to ongoing problems with the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships being built for the Royal Canadian Navy. He testified that National Defence’s handlings of those problems “gives me great confidence in our ability to take on the much more complex delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatant in the coming years.”

As reported earlier by Postmedia, the CSC program was pitched as a relatively low-cost, off-the-shelf replacement for the Halifax class of warships with a high level of Canadian industrial content.

But, over time, the navy has asked for changes that have frequently replaced Canadian-built content with U.S. technology, the net effect being the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadian industry and an increase in overall cost, the Postmedia report added.

As costs increased, federal officials have also made it more difficult to get details on spending on the project.

Federal officials have on two occasions tried to stymie attempts by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to obtain details and budget outlines of the CSC project, as well as those of other vessel construction programs under the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy.

Industry executives have previously pointed out that the secrecy is not based on security concerns, but on worries the news media and opposition MPs would be able to use the information to keep close tabs on the problem-plagued military procurement system.
 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/initial-construction-to-begin-in-june-on-new-canadian-warships

[BeaverFever]

Tactical vehicle on the fast track

 

by Chris Thatcher

If you are among the handful of companies considering submitting a proposal for the Light Tactical Vehicle (LTV) project, know this: If you don’t have vehicles in your warehouse ready to be shipped in the next months, put the brakes on your submission.

Product availability and ability to meet the Army’s delivery schedule are two of the critical criteria for a rapid procurement project that will acquire up to 108 off-road vehicles for the brigade in Latvia.

Since 2017, the Army has been kicking the proverbial tires on a tactical vehicle for the light infantry battalions, as well as reconnaissance, intelligence, electronic warfare, and other light units — a rugged four-wheel platform capable of transporting dismounted troops and their gear closer to an objective.

Through a “buy and try” in 2017 and 2018, various units have put 36 Polaris MRZR-D utility task vehicles through a variety of scenarios over varied terrain to better understand the Army’s longer-term requirements for what is known as the Light Forces Enhancement (LFE) project. Most recently, members of the 3^rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment (3 RCR), conducted weapons tests, mounting a .50 calibre heavy machine gun, a 40 mm grenade launcher, and a BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) heavy anti-tank missile on the platform.

While LFE remains ongoing, the Army has determined it will need light tactical vehicles in Latvia for dismounted sub-units and platoons within the mechanized battalions that will make up a significant portion of the Canadian-led multinational brigade. And, it will need them delivered, with trained operators, for a NATO exercise in November.

Consequently, LFE is now being conducted in two phases. Under the LTV project, the Army will acquire up to 108 vehicles in the coming months, for delivery in early August. The legacy LFE project will then acquire up to 222 more vehicles in the coming years, informed in part by feedback from the units employing the first batch in Latvia.

Both projects are being treated independently and procured under separate budgets, one as part of Operation Uplift for Latvia, and the other through the Army’s normal capital procurement program. The combined value is over $100 million.

“For LTV, we are removing all parts (from the Statement of Requirements) that are not necessary to buy a vehicle that is already in service with allies, NATO or Five Eyes,” said Major Samir Khelil, the project lead for the Directorate of Land Requirements.

“We don’t want a prototype; we don’t want to test a vehicle and then need to do some upgrades. We want one in service and combat proven. If we decide we want some specific additional capabilities or requirements, those will be put into Phase 2 of LFE for the remaining 222 vehicles.”

To have vehicles in Latvia ahead of the NATO exercise in November, the Army will need to take delivery of a significant portion of the 108 LTV fleet by late summer, to then complete final checks and conduct initial operator training — a critical step to understand the limits of the off-road ride — before the platforms are shipped to Europe, he said.

“It will take a month to ship the vehicle overseas … so we’ll need them by the start of August. That is why availability is a top criteria.”

A request for information (RFI) — the third since the LFE project launched — was issued last year with the primary intent of gathering market data on vehicle availability. If a company can meet the project specifications, but only after a modification that could take several months to complete, their vehicle will likely be ruled out because it will not be delivered on time, he added.

Almost 10 companies responded, and one more has come forward with an offer since the RFI closed in December, so Khelil expects at least three or four strong contenders to respond to the request for proposals, released on April 19.

The U.S. Army Infantry Squad Vehicle. Photo: GM Defense

WEIGHT OF EXPECTATIONS

The overall project might now be on two tracks, but the core requirements remain the same, said Khelil. The Army is ultimately seeking 330 vehicles in two variants, a personnel carrier with four to nine seats and a flatbed cargo platform with two to four seats. It will also acquire up to 33 tactical trailers.

The platforms must be large enough to carry ammunition, fuel, water, food, and gear to sustain soldiers for at least 72 hours, but light enough to be transported and airdropped by a CH-147 Chinook helicopter.

“The weight is a very important factor for us,” said Khelil.

“We don’t want to rely on the trailers to mitigate the fact we carry a lot of weight,” he added, noting the difficulty of manoeuvring a vehicle towing a trailer on a dark and narrow track at 3:00 o’clock in the morning.

Weight will be a determining factor as well in whether the project seeks a hardtop for the vehicle. It might provide protection, but it could also mean sacrificing personal gear. “We can have a protective cabin, but that comes with a price — weight,” he said.

Trials in Petawawa over the past 18 months with the MRZR-D and various weapons have given the project team a good idea of platform requirements when firing from a stationary position and on the move. The weapon systems that will be incorporated onto the LTV tranche are still being determined.

“Every weapon has its own challenges,” Khelil observed. “We are looking at different systems, from the C6 (general purpose machine gun) with a calibre of 7.62, to the .50 calibre, the anti-tank guided missile system, and the 40-millimetre grenade launcher.”

The small MRZR has proven to be a “very good buy and try to inform the [LFE] project — we learned a lot of information from that platform,” he said. But it confirmed that the Army “requires something way more robust” for its light troops.

To help determine exactly what the eventual LFE solution should include, the project team will be gathering feedback from units in Latvia on the performance of the LTV.

“We’ll keep an eye on what is happening in theatre,” he said. “We have a liaison officer overseas, and we can [get] information in different ways.
 

https://canadianarmytoday.com/tactical-vehicle-on-the-fast-track/

Edited 2 hours ago by BeaverFever