herbie Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 delayed until proven to work in the Arctic, eh? Maybe they're cautious after buying those British subs that didn't work in the ocean? 1 Quote
Aristides Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 I always thought a brigade was a unit consisting of more than one battalion. Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 21, 2023 Author Report Posted December 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Aristides said: I always thought a brigade was a unit consisting of more than one battalion. A brigade is usually 3-5 battalions but at the brigade level these are of different trades. For example while an infantry battalion is 100% infantry, an infantry brigade consists primarily of infantry battalions but also includes armour, artillery, as well as administrative units such as field ambulance, intelligence, military police and so on. A Brigade is the smallest official combined arms administrative formation, (Battle Groups being temporary ad-hoc operational formations). Multiple Brigades make a Division, multiple Divisions make a Corps, and multiple Corps make a Field Army. Quote
I am Groot Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 13 hours ago, BeaverFever said: So the MULTINATIONAL brigade will be ~4,000 total troops (from what I can tell), of which at least 2,200 will DEFINITELY be Canadian (plus additional light infantry companies and Chinooks in Canada that will periodically “surge” to the the theatre). The remainder of the brigade will be from the other participating countries. Canada will have up to 2200 persistently deployed Canadian Armed Forces members as part of the enhanced Forward Presence and "Up to" 2200 is not "2200". AFAIK isn't 2200 just about half our entire infantry? 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 21, 2023 Author Report Posted December 21, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: "Up to" 2200 is not "2200". AFAIK isn't 2200 just about half our entire infantry? Sure it will fluctuate but it’s the core of the multinational brigade and it’s already 1,000 as the core of a simple Battle Group. Army boots on the ground are actually 1600 with regular planned surges to at least 2200, I had initially read that as 2200 hundred plus surges. There’s a lot more to a deployment and leading a brigade than just infantry. There’s armour, artillery and engineers, plus admin and staff personnel working in HQ, communications, intelligence, electronic warfare, medical, tactical aviation, logistics, mechanics and technicians of all kinds, and so on Canada is the framework nation for a NATO Brigade which means we are providing the core of the force in addition to the leadership. Specifically we will be supplying 2 of the brigade’s 3 battle groups. On the Army Podcast it was recently stated that the Latvia mission will consume 75% to 80% of the Army’s deployable force: This is not some small or short term side project Latvia is the army’s primary occupation for the next several years. They are literally constructing new buildings in Latvia to accommodate this mission: Edited December 21, 2023 by BeaverFever Quote
I am Groot Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: On the Army Podcast it was recently stated that the Latvia mission will consume 75% to 80% of the Army’s deployable force: This is not some small or short term side project Latvia is the army’s primary occupation for the next several years. And how pathetic is that? Supply a couple of thousand people with often barely functioning equipment basically takes up the whole available resources of our 'army'. 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 On 12/19/2023 at 11:03 PM, Aristides said: With a 1000 NM range, unless they can carry a lot external fuel they will have a tough time even reaching the Arctic from Comox and Greenwood. Not being a Air force guy, but i think the better drone for the artic is more like the Global hawk or something similar that the US navy/ Air force is using... Reaper would be an excellent tool for things like convoy escort, like in Afghanistan...or for or for patrolling the borders LATVIA, or over any battle field, or spec ops operations... it will get used, and I'm sure the Air force will be eager to get another opportunity to get out of the hanger... Drones are the future in many Airforce future ops we should be getting on board faster than we are. 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.
Aristides Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 14 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Not being a Air force guy, but i think the better drone for the artic is more like the Global hawk or something similar that the US navy/ Air force is using... Reaper would be an excellent tool for things like convoy escort, like in Afghanistan...or for or for patrolling the borders LATVIA, or over any battle field, or spec ops operations... it will get used, and I'm sure the Air force will be eager to get another opportunity to get out of the hanger... Drones are the future in many Airforce future ops we should be getting on board faster than we are. The Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, they aren't armed. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 21, 2023 Report Posted December 21, 2023 (edited) On 12/20/2023 at 12:07 PM, ExFlyer said: Help a poor Air Force guy out. You have spoken many times of a "Battle Group" and "Brigade". Exactly what are they and more importantly, how many personnel are supposed to be in each? From Google, a battle group is a temporary organization seemingly made up of what is needed for the operation. Can be less than 50 or more than 100 persons. A brigade can be an entire army, 3000+? Your use of the terms seems like it is impossible for Canada to put together any of them but it seems they are the number that is needed not some imaginary number of personnel ( and support). Front normally consists of 3 or more corps( Canada has never had a front size formation in it's history) Corps normally consists of 2 or more Divisions...(we have not had these numbers since WWII) Division normally consists of 2 to 3 Brigade groups, surpassing at times 25,000 troops plus ATTachements and DETchments. (currently Canada does use divisions to denote its regions, like (Atlantic, Central, Western), however we do not have the troop strength to make anything but one under strength Division, Brigade group can be anywhere from 4000 to 10,000 troops , 4 Brigade group Germany was 7500 troops, plus 2000 support troops....normally can be split into x 2 battle groups, normally x 3 Inf Bn's, Armor Regt, Arty Regt, Combat Eng Regt, Field Amb, svc bn, HQ and Sigs Regt, Utility Helo sqn, and ATS and DETS, if any like MP support, etc.... Battle group is the Smallest fighting organization used by NATO command, normally between 1500 to 2500 troops...normally a full Inf BN, with tank troop or sqn and some arty support, like Afghanistan. Anything smaller is normally a unit responsibility. likely a Attachment, detachment or patrol, etc... From what i here across the Royal Regiment, things are gloomy, with very little funding for training, soldiers get bored and start to leave...in this case by the droves, more are getting out than are being recruited... CDS says publicly that he is short 16,000 troops those numbers are a year old, NAVY commander recently said he is short a full 20 % of his numbers and soon will not be able to man all his ships...he use to have 20 % over age to maintain things like courses, holidays births etc...Im sure the Air Force are in the same shape, the Army is even worse...you can't have A type personalities sitting around doing nothing...they will find another Career, and thats what is happening...and is happening is the good ones leave and it dilutes the quality, and experience of soldiers you need to sustain operations, and bring home others home safely from operations...WWI frontal attacks were the norm, proving costly to lives, near the mid to end of the war other tactics were invented and saved lives...which is why it is so critical to constantly train, train, train...when i first joined we would train 8 months out of the year was the norm...sometimes more...today they might get 2 to 3 months of training for the entire year...if your going on operations, if your not that number of training months gets very small... 7 hours ago, Aristides said: The Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, they aren't armed. I get that but if your talking artic/ Ocean patrol , it has the legs you need, want to engage something send a fighter... Edited December 22, 2023 by Army Guy 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.
BeaverFever Posted December 21, 2023 Author Report Posted December 21, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: And how pathetic is that? Supply a couple of thousand people with often barely functioning equipment basically takes up the whole available resources of our 'army'. Extremely pathetic. The military is in rough shape, I believe the job vacancy rate service wide is something like 16% and many critical positions are worse than that. And even if those positions were magically filled the force is still probably too small. I think the manpower deficiencies are far more serious than the vehicle and equipment deficiencies because the greatest kit in the world means nothing if you don’t have the people to use them. 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Posted December 22, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, Army Guy said: Reaper would be an excellent tool for things like convoy escort, like in Afghanistan...or for or for patrolling the borders LATVIA, or over any battle field, or spec ops operations... Considering we’re only expecting delivery 5 years from now and full operational capability ten years from now, I have my doubts about how effective it will be for combat missions at that time. Drone and counter-droune tech is evolving rapidly. Edited December 22, 2023 by BeaverFever Quote
Army Guy Posted December 22, 2023 Report Posted December 22, 2023 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: Considering we’re only expecting delivery 5 years from now and full operational capability ten years from now, I have my doubts about how effective it will be for combat missions at that time. Drone and counter-droune tech is evolving rapidly. It is how we role, the purchase of the C-17 was some of the last off the line, most items we but are nearing the end or well past it's mid life....of their existence. shit it has taken us 50 plus years to purchase a new 9 mm pistol...How hard would that be....a purchase in the millions ...my instructor said you'd almost be better to throw it at the target and thats was in the 80's- 90's...In Afghanistan every man women got issued a pistol and rifle.. the pistol was never anything more than a transition tool when your rifle ran out of ammo, it made lots of noise but didn't hit a damn thing...you'd be better off using your rifle as a club or throwing rocks... 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.
BeaverFever Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Posted December 22, 2023 (edited) 9 hours ago, Army Guy said: It is how we role, the purchase of the C-17 was some of the last off the line, most items we but are nearing the end or well past it's mid life....of their existence. shit it has taken us 50 plus years to purchase a new 9 mm pistol...How hard would that be....a purchase in the millions ...my instructor said you'd almost be better to throw it at the target and thats was in the 80's- 90's...In Afghanistan every man women got issued a pistol and rifle.. the pistol was never anything more than a transition tool when your rifle ran out of ammo, it made lots of noise but didn't hit a damn thing...you'd be better off using your rifle as a club or throwing rocks... At least the C-17 and the new Sig pistols remain relevant and capable today and remain “best in class” (Sig-haters and critics notwithstanding). I doubt the same will be said of the MQ-9 in 2033. Even the Latvia mission might have ended by then. For domestic duties, while it may still be adequate for routine surveillance tasks, surely by then better options will be available, with better performance, battery power/zero emission etc. Usually the rationale for buying old tech is that it is available for immediate use, but for the life of me I just can’t get over deliberately buying old tech with a plan to implement it ten years from now. Edited December 22, 2023 by BeaverFever 2 Quote
Aristides Posted December 22, 2023 Report Posted December 22, 2023 (edited) What is the new tech, is it being developed and who is doing it? Is there a replacement for the MQ-9 in development and how long would we have to wait until it is. Some designs just have very long operational lives and are capable of being continually upgraded, B-52, C-130, U2, F-15, F-16, Harrier etc. A drawback to getting the latest is always having to deal with its teething problems and continual updates. One of the upsides of dithering so long on the F-35 purchase is we will be getting the latest Block 4 model which is far more capable than earlier versions and avoid many of its early problems. The price has also come down. Edited December 22, 2023 by Aristides 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Posted December 22, 2023 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Aristides said: What is the new tech, is it being developed and who is doing it? Is there a replacement for the MQ-9 in development and how long would we have to wait until it is. Some designs just have very long operational lives and are capable of being continually upgraded, B-52, C-130, U2, F-15, F-16, Harrier etc. A drawback to getting the latest is always having to deal with its teething problems and continual updates. One of the upsides of dithering so long on the F-35 purchase is we will be getting the latest Block 4 model which is far more capable than earlier versions and avoid many of its early problems. The price has also come down. Yeah I hear that about advantages of buying proven vs new, but that would make more sense in this case if we were buying a proven platform for immediate use, not full use 10 years from now when many of the existing users will have already retired it from service in favour of more advanced platforms, and at any rate would likely be selling used models at a steep discount As for what could potentially replace MQ-9, here are some apparent top candidates in USAF’s program which have stealth features, greater and more varied payloads, air-air capability and AI-powered autonomous/semi-autonomous capability. Note that Australia has significantly contracts for a model still in development and testing that is STILL expected to be delivered years before our MQ-9s Valkyrie, Avenger, and Ghost Bat An MQ-20 Avenger over California in June 2021. General Atomics Air Force officials have indicated that because of the array of missions CCAs are expected to conduct, there likely won't be a single model. At least three UCAVs in development could be candidates for the Air Force's program: the XQ-58 Valkyrie from Kratos Defense, the MQ-20 Avenger from General Atomics, and the MQ-28 Ghost Bat from Boeing. The XQ-58A has a maximum launch weight of 6,000 pounds and can cruise at 550 mph. Its operational altitude is 45,000 feet and it has a range of 3,000 nautical miles. Since first flying in 2019, it has done multiple test flights for the Air Force, including being used as a datalink for F-22s and F-35s and work with the Skyborgprogram. The Valkyrie's unique rocket-assisted takeoff system also gives it what Kratos and the Air Force call "runway independence." It uses parachutes and airbag cushions to land. The MQ-20 Avenger first flew in 2009 and an upgraded version with increased fuel capacity flew in 2016. It has a top speed of about 460 mph and a 20-hour flight endurance and can reach altitudes over 50,000 feet. It can carry 6,500 pounds of ordnance, including missiles and precision-guided bombs. The MQ-20 can also be fitted with sensors and cameras, making it suitable for intelligence-gathering and electronic warfare. An MQ-28 Ghost Bat at the Australian International Airshow in February. REUTERS/Jamie Freed The Avenger's angular shape and internal weapons bay give it stealth properties. Only a few have been built, but it has been heavily involved in the Skyborg program. The MQ-28 was developed by Boeing Australia for the Royal Australian Air Force and was originally known as the Airpower Teaming System, a nod to its intended role as a "loyal wingman" to manned aircraft. Boeing has been very secretive about the Ghost Bat, which first flew in 2021. The company has said the drone can fly more than 2,000 nautical miles and carry sensor packages for intelligence-gathering and early-warning missions. Australia has signed contracts for 10 MQ-28s, which are expected to enter service between 2024 and 2025. The US Air Force has acquired at least one MQ-28 for testing….. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-collaborative-combat-aircraft-drones-fighter-jets-2023-5?amp Edited December 22, 2023 by BeaverFever Quote
Aristides Posted December 22, 2023 Report Posted December 22, 2023 The range of the MQ=28, 2000 miles and XQ-58, 3000 miles are less than half of the MQ-9. The Avenger is not in service and to date, only 9 have been built. Although there has been foreign interest, none have been ordered. Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Posted December 22, 2023 26 minutes ago, Aristides said: The range of the MQ=28, 2000 miles and XQ-58, 3000 miles are less than half of the MQ-9. The Avenger is not in service and to date, only 9 have been built. Although there has been foreign interest, none have been ordered. I have a feeling that will be solved by 2033 either with these platforms or with others identified under the MQ-Next program. I promise that if the MQ-9 is a relevant combat platform against a near-peer state adversary in 2033 I will owe you a coke! 1 Quote
Aristides Posted December 22, 2023 Report Posted December 22, 2023 22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: I have a feeling that will be solved by 2033 either with these platforms or with others identified under the MQ-Next program. I promise that if the MQ-9 is a relevant combat platform against a near-peer state adversary in 2033 I will owe you a coke! Maybe but how long will we have to wait for those. I see the Brits have just ordered some of the Protecter version of the MQ-9 Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 22, 2023 Author Report Posted December 22, 2023 2 hours ago, Aristides said: Maybe but how long will we have to wait for those. I see the Brits have just ordered some of the Protecter version of the MQ-9 Brits ordered in 2015, and it will enter service in 2024 ) perhaps order was increased recently?). Interestingly the Brits claim 40H endurance. Somehow we canucks are losing 12 hours! https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/protector-rg-mk-1-mq-9b/ Quote
Army Guy Posted December 22, 2023 Report Posted December 22, 2023 8 hours ago, BeaverFever said: At least the C-17 and the new Sig pistols remain relevant and capable today and remain “best in class” (Sig-haters and critics notwithstanding). I doubt the same will be said of the MQ-9 in 2033. Even the Latvia mission might have ended by then. For domestic duties, while it may still be adequate for routine surveillance tasks, surely by then better options will be available, with better performance, battery power/zero emission etc. Usually the rationale for buying old tech is that it is available for immediate use, but for the life of me I just can’t get over deliberately buying old tech with a plan to implement it ten years from now. I agree, but even a clock is right twice a day....so there will be a few examples of good buys...but not many, look at the Iltis, LSVW, MLVW, Cougar Tank trainer, we have 4 types of Leopard tanks, that require 4 lines of parts in a lot of cases...even the air force and the griffon helos... Our procurement system is not for buying equipment on short time frames, unless it buys votes, C-17 is an example , Leo 6M another, M777...and here there is very little to be gained by any one side of the political spectrum....it will be held in limbo forever, but it does make for good reading right now...when our allies are seeing our lack of will to buy stuff... 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.
Aristides Posted December 22, 2023 Report Posted December 22, 2023 2 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Brits ordered in 2015, and it will enter service in 2024 ) perhaps order was increased recently?). Interestingly the Brits claim 40H endurance. Somehow we canucks are losing 12 hours! https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/protector-rg-mk-1-mq-9b/ That is for reconnaissance and targeting, hanging a bunch of missiles under the wings will hurt endurance and range. More weight and more drag. 5 hours ago, BeaverFever said: I have a feeling that will be solved by 2033 either with these platforms or with others identified under the MQ-Next program. I promise that if the MQ-9 is a relevant combat platform against a near-peer state adversary in 2033 I will owe you a coke! The only way to get more range is more fuel. Quote
BeaverFever Posted December 23, 2023 Author Report Posted December 23, 2023 51 minutes ago, Aristides said: That is for reconnaissance and targeting, hanging a bunch of missiles under the wings will hurt endurance and range. More weight and more drag. The only way to get more range is more fuel. Well I note at the link provided the Brits say their version will be able to slinging missiles AND guided bombs (presumably not together at the same time). My best guess is they’re using the manufacturer’s best possible number (ie naked) while CAF is using the number when it’s loaded with camera sensors etc. Other ways to improve include lighter-weight materials and systems, more efficient engines/propulsion , improved geometry and aerodynamics, etc. For many designs there are features and improvements are technologically feasible but not economically feasible due to cost but eventually the cost comes down. For example for a long time now the standard for flight controls on most systems is “fly by wire” meaning the aircraft control inputs are transmitted to control surfaces electronically rather than hydraulically. But new aircraft like Japan’s Kawasaki P1 maritime patrol aircraft are fly-by-fibre optics, which is not only faster but immune to electronic attacks I don’t know if this is part of MQ-Next or currently feasible for new drone designs but considering that electronic warfare is one of the key anti-drone defences being explored developed it wouldn’t surprise me in the latest. Quote
Army Guy Posted December 24, 2023 Report Posted December 24, 2023 On another note if it has hard points and carries weapons' it might be possible to carry fuel in external tanks, or develop air to air refueling options, where UAV's are now part of the US naval refueling capabilities...it would be able to fly forever until mechanical failure. 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.
BeaverFever Posted January 10, 2024 Author Report Posted January 10, 2024 Air force worried about keeping new maritime helicopters' weapons systems operational DND searching for outside consultant to 'define' options for the future of the Cyclone fleet Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 10, 2024 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 4 hours ago A CH-148 Cyclone helicopter from 12 Wing Shearwater, home of 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, flies near the base in Eastern Passage, N.S. on Tuesday, June 23, 2020. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press) The air force is worried about keeping the aging weapons systems aboard its CH-148 Cyclones operational into the future, according to leaked documents obtained by CBC News. It's an understatement to say that the $5.8 billion maritime helicopters project is a work-in-progress for the Department of National Defence (DND) and the aircraft's U.S. manufacturer, Sikorsky. It will soon be 20 years since a previous Liberal government ordered the aircraft to replace its fleet of CH-128 Sea Kings, 1960s-era workhorses which saw decades of service flying off the decks of Canadian warships. But even after two decades and billions of dollars spent, not all of the 28 Cyclone helicopters the federal government originally ordered have been delivered. And DND doesn't consider the Cyclones delivered so far to have reached their final "operating capability" — an important designation that indicates the military is satisfied it got what it paid for. Late Tuesday, the defence department acknowledged in a media statement that it's searching for an outside consultant to "define potential options" for the fleet. Retired colonel Larry McWha — an aviation expert who commanded 423 Squadron when it flew CH-124 Sea Kings — said maintaining and upgrading the Cyclone's weapons system will be a huge, costly challenge because Canada is the only country flying the CH-148, a militarized version of the Sikorsky S-92. Components will become harder to find and may even have to be specially manufactured, said McWha, who has followed the Cyclone program from the beginning. The leaked documents — a Sept. 23, 2023 PowerPoint presentation and a spreadsheet that details technical concerns cited by air bases and air force wings across the country — show that 12 Wing in Shearwater, N.S., where many of the Cyclones are based, questioned the "sustainability of the CH-148 Weapon System" in the medium and long-term. WATCH | Weapons systems for maritime helicopters may soon be outdated: Air force worried 'new' helicopter's weapons systems will be obsolete A leaked internal report warns the Canadian Armed Forces Cyclone helicopters have weapons systems that are becoming obsolete as the Forces continue to wait for the final two helicopters' delivery — almost 20 years after they were initially procured. The documents, which were verified by CBC News, were presented to senior military leaders last fall. "Operational Relevance is in question as critical systems such as secure SECURE COMMUNICATION / TACTICAL DATA LINK / PRIMARY WEAPON are set to expire without replacement pathways," says the spreadsheet. In a written statement, DND said the air force is aware of the concerns. An optimistic timeline "The replacement of secure comms, tactical datalink and weapons (an upgraded torpedo) are all being actively pursued and funding is being sought to complete all the upgrades," said the statement. Air force planners still don't anticipate getting the replacement systems installed and run through the initial testing phase until 2031. The department said stopgap measures are being considered. "However, investigations are ongoing to identify and implement limited interim capabilities for both the torpedo and secure comms by 2025 in order to reduce the operational impact," the DND statement said. "Investigation of a limited interim tactical data system is also ongoing." When the Cyclones were first ordered in 2004, the Liberal government of then-prime minister Paul Martin predicted that the helicopter would be in service by 2010-2011 at the latest. That proved to be a wildly optimistic timeline, as neither DND nor the manufacturer anticipated the technical complications that came with converting a civilian chopper to military use. Sunk costs By 2013, the Conservative government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper (which also hired an outside consultant) was looking at scrapping the Cyclone project altogether as costs and delays mounted. But the government — which had already spent $1.7 billion on the project by that point and had received just four test helicopters — opted to stick with the program. Under the terms of a revised contract with Sikorsky, signed almost a decade ago, the air force would start to receive 28 "fully capable" CH-148 Cyclone helicopters in 2018. In its statement, DND acknowledged that the helicopters have not reached their full capability and likely won't be fully operational by the stated 2025 deadline. "Given current personnel and resource constraints, it is unlikely 12 Wing and the RCAF will achieve FOC [Full Operating Capability] by 2025," the statement read. A scarcity of personnel, parts The air force blames shortages of skilled personnel — a problem that plagues the military across the board. It says it can't assign enough skilled people to the airbase in Shearwater to bring the fleet up to standard. "An additional reason for the delay involves disruptions in the global supply chain that are creating delays across most industries," said the DND statement. "As such, there has been a delay in the delivery of the 27th and 28th aircraft as Sikorsky waits for parts. The delivery of the 27th aircraft is expected in the first part of 2024 and in [second quarter] 2025 for the 28th and final aircraft." A Royal Canadian navy CH-148 Cyclone helicopter deploys flares in a training exercise in November 2022. (Royal Canadian Navy/Twitter) McWha said it's significant that the department is acknowledging the impact of the parts shortage. "Sustainability of the Cyclone fleet has been a problem and will only get worse," he said. "If the manufacturer cannot get delivery of the parts necessary to deliver a contracted product to the customer, one can only imagine the difficulty that the customer must have in getting replacement parts to support products that have already been delivered." An 'orphan' system The problem, said McWha, relates to the fact that the Cyclone is what the military calls an "orphan weapon system" — no other countries are flying it and it draws on a small pool of replacement parts. The communications and combat system the air force is now struggling to replace may have been state-of-the-art in 2004, he said, but it was also unique to the helicopter. "Even if it is possible to find a supplier willing to produce replacement parts or repair failed components for such a small fleet, the cost of doing so will inevitably be very high," said McWha. "This was entirely foreseeable back in 2004." Unless the government throws lots of money at them, he added, the "manufacturers have no incentive to retain the technicians and engineering to service or support a tiny obsolescent fleet that is no longer on their production line." Dave Perry, a defence analyst and president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said it's interesting the defence department has chosen to get outside advice. He added that, given all the problems with the Cyclone project to date, he's wondering whether federal officials are considering replacing the Cyclone with something less troublesome. "There's been some Canadian allies recently that have done essentially exactly that, moved to cut their losses on some helicopters which were underperforming and look at alternatives. I don't know whether or not we're quite at that situation," said Perry, whose organization has hosted conferences that occasionally have been sponsored by defence contractors. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-canadian-forces-1.7079088 Quote
I am Groot Posted January 10, 2024 Report Posted January 10, 2024 The cost of the new frigates the government has ordered continues to rise even as doubts about their worthiness do too. They are large, heavy, slow and absurdly expensive compared to any other ship we could order. We could get US frigates for half the price and use the saved money to buy subs. I don't think we will ever get the 15 ships announced, not at this price. The government is just waiting until after the next election to cancel or reduce the order. Our Navy sinks toward impotence because Ottawa can't procure ships | National Post Quote
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.