BeaverFever Posted February 15 Author Report Share Posted February 15 Canada to acquire Swedish-made anti-aircraft system to protect troops in Latvia Murray Brewster - CBC News New portable anti-aircraft system and counter-drone equipment to arrive later this year Posted: 3 Hours Ago Unidentified soldiers carrying out a teat of a Swedish designed RBS 70 NG portable air defence system in this undated handout. Canada will acquire a number of the systems to deploy with troops serving in Latvia. (Saab India/Handout) Canadian troops in Latvia will soon be protected by a $227 million Swedish-designed short-range anti-aircraft system, Defence Minister Bill Blair announced Thursday in Brussels as NATO allies met to assess both the war in Ukraine and perceived threatening moves by Russia. The Canadian Army has been without a dedicated air defence to protect ground troops from attack helicopters and fast-moving jets for more than a dozen years. The Liberal government last year ordered a new system be purchased on an urgent operational basis, an avenue to fast-track large equipment purchases. ADVERTISEMENT Ahead of a meeting with his NATO counterparts, Blair announced the deal to buy the RBS 70 NG short-range Air Defence System from Saab Canada. The portable system will begin arriving later this year, he said. $46 million for anti-drone system Separately, the defence department is still working to acquire a broader, more sophisticated air defence system that will tackle incoming air to surface missiles and rocket-based artillery. Also on Thursday, Blair announced that the Canadian government will spend $46 million on the first phase of a ground-based system intended to counter the threat of small drones, which have become a sophisticated and deadly feature of the war between Russia and Ukraine. CBC in Ukraine Building brigades: Canada, NATO allies struggle to shore up Baltic defences against Russian threat The anti-drone contracts will be shared among TRD Systems of Singapore, which builds the ORION-H9 dismounted drone gun; CACI Inc., from Reston, Va., which produces omni-directional scanners; and Leonardo UK Ltd., which builds fixed-site systems. ADVERTISEMENT All of the equipment will be deployed with the Canadian-led NATO brigade in Latvia and the purchases — when they arrive — will complete the Liberal government's pledge to close major equipment gaps for troops in the field, whose mission is to deter potential Russian aggression in the Baltic states. A photo from the Canadian Armed Forces shows soldiers at Camp Adazi in Latvia on July 26, 2022. Canadian soldiers are in Latvia as part of Canada's military contribution to NATO's deterrence mission, known as Operation Reassurance. (Submitted by Canadian Armed Forces) In December, Blair announced Canada would spend $32 million with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems to acquire a modern anti-tank system, which is also expected to arrive in Latvia midway through this year. The short-range, laser-guided RBS 70 and the counter-drone system will protect not only Canadian troops, but others participating in the multinational brigade, the minister said. "By investing in air defence and anti- drone capabilities for Canadian troops, we are also bolstering the defensive capabilities of the NATO battle group in Latvia as a whole," Blair said. Sweden set to join Canadian-led brigade in Latvia once roadblocks to NATO membership end ADVERTISEMENT The equipment holes that are now being plugged are long-standing. More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan came to conclusion, the army drew up a plan to reconstitute and replace worn-out equipment. The list included modern air defences for ground troops and better anti-tank weapons. The plan withered and died over several years — a victim of deficit reductions schemes, changing defence fashions, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference. Analysis More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere The Defence Department has been scrambling for more than a year and a half to buy the equipment while Canadian troops in Latvia have been staring across the border at a wounded Russian army that has learned many bloody lessons fighting the Ukrainians. The gaps in Canadian capability have been — to this point — covered by allies serving with the multinational battle group. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7115841 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 That's all very nice but it seems from the numbers as if they cheaped out again. That this is only enough to equp the people in Latvia, with the rest of the army getting nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: That's all very nice but it seems from the numbers as if they cheaped out again. That this is only enough to equp the people in Latvia, with the rest of the army getting nothing. But do we need portable anti-aircraft system and counter-drone equipment in Canada to sit here in warehouses until needed or is it more prudent to buy it for when and where we need it? Not arguing but sometimes common sense needs to be applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 15 Author Report Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: That's all very nice but it seems from the numbers as if they cheaped out again. That this is only enough to equp the people in Latvia, with the rest of the army getting nothing. Yeah no mention of how many systems they’re buying I guess there’s the question of how many we really need considering Latvia basically is our entire deployable force. and the usual MO for Canada would be to Keep the vehicles and systems in theatre and just rotate personnel through. As for the actual system chosen, I was expecting a more recognizable name like US Stinger (which gets all the headlines and attention simply because it’s American), or the British Starstreak or French Mistral. I’ve never been up to speed on all the MANPAD systems out there and had never heard of the RBS-70 before. Here’s what I’ve found out about it: Original RBS-70 was produced in the 1970s, the latest “NG” (New Generation) version was developed in 2011 PROs: Has ~50% more range and altitude coverage compared to Stinger (>8km and 15,000 ft) Laser-based “Beam rider” guidance makes it impervious to jamming, decoys, flares and electronic warfare, the latter being something which Russians are particularly skilled at Can be networked with mobile radar (which Canada also bought in this pkg), other launchers, and a command/control centre allowing for a centrally co-ordinated air defence system and allowing connected operators to “aim” at approaching targets before they come into the weapon’s range Can be operated by remote control, allowing the operator to remain safely under protective cover CONS ”Man portable” but requires a tripod (like UK and French systems) but not truly “shoulder launched” like stinger Laser guidance means it is not “fire and forget” like the French and US systems, the operator has to keep the laser on the target (as does UK system). This means that unobstructed line-of-sight to target is required throughout the engagement (an automated target track system helps ensure the operator doesn’t “lose” the target, I couldn’t find a detailed description but I m imagining it’s something like an arrow on the screen that tells you which way to turn if you somehow come off target amd lose sight) List of current countries using the system or it’s 70s era predecessor is unimpressive: a few of the smaller NATO countries, a few countries that don’t fight foreign wars like Brazil, UAE and Thailand. Maybe its an ok system but not great? I guess every system especially man-portable ones have their limitations and trade-offs. This one definitely doesn’t have a lot of attention or content on the internet, beyond a few notable kills of Russian fighters and helicopters in Ukraine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 On 2/11/2024 at 9:55 AM, ExFlyer said: I agree somewhat but lets put this in perspective. CAF, Canadian Armed Forces is not just Army. Yes, there is a recruiting problem for the Army but, when I joined in 1969, the Army also had problems recruiting as did the Navy. The recruiter has always had problems getting people to join the Army and Navy. They pushed very hard for the potential recruit to join Army or Navy careers, especially to become a grunt or ordinary seaman. No disrespect to those that did but, foot soldiers and deck mates were not a very attractive career and are still not. The recruitment problem is now for the Armed Forces as a whole. The Air Force has taken to contracting out a lot of it. First line maintenance (on the hangar line) on most of it's fleet has been contracted out. Overhauls and repairs has been contracted out for decades. Hence, all the air force needs at this time is basically aircrew. (yes, there are still aircraft maintainers but they are small numbers and primarily on fighters, tactical helicopter squadrons and with maritime helicopters. As for the CAF, the entire leadership has become a political pawn for whomever is in control. Trudeau 1 and 2, as well as the conservatives in between did not respect the military and only when it was politically necessary did they use the military but, always to the benefit of the political agenda. The Military leadership is not leading a military but being subservient to political whim. They are ordered to follow or to enforce policies that are not "military" but social. The military is not a social organization and by making it one, less and less people want to be part of it. To be honest, all the elements are not really trying that hard to recruit, nor is it really dealing with it's image problem the government created.. It needs to be in the media and in Canadians faces constantly, Hire a company that deals with images, start making new recruiting ads for the media, redo those recruitment films for each trade. Army we used to go to every major town event set up static displays let the locals talk to actual soldiers, crawl all over the equipment...instead we have soldiers literally sitting doing nothing....we pay them anyways, might as well use them.....We also used to have exercises in Canadian towns and cities, let them see what we do, talk to soldiers, see some of what happen in day to day life of a Army guy...airforce used to be at every airshow across the country, I remember the Airborne putting on a show at an airshow, with helos emerging form a huge bank of smoke and soldiers repelling down to the ground, and firing blanks....it got me hooked Thats all i talked about until i was 17 years old.... navy at every port city...For a recruiting crises we are not pulling out all the stops. Take a look at some of the programs that other militaries offer like huge bonus for education, home buying, health insurances, free medical for family members , cheaper rents the list goes on and on... Educate Canadians on what our military does for this nation on a day to day basis...get the public excited about all of it...showcase new equipment, showcase what is coming on line, start investing into modern capabilities, like IT, drones, cyber warfare, the list goes on and on... Of course we can't do that until the government gets excited about it as well , but DND can do a lot on it's own...Including getting the government to cut the red tape surrounding purchasing..taking most of the politics out of it...reshaping our procurement system..people don't get excited when your showcasing 30 year tanks, 40 year fighters, and 50 year ships... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 24 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: But do we need portable anti-aircraft system and counter-drone equipment in Canada to sit here in warehouses until needed or is it more prudent to buy it for when and where we need it? Not arguing but sometimes common sense needs to be applied. Yes, it needs to be at those units that are expected to use it in combat....we need to train on it, over and over again, see it's capabilities, see how it reacts to counter measures, so in times of severe stress such as combat we can operate it without thinking but through muscle memory... You don't give a sar tech a parachute for the first time on a SAR call, here strap this on, pull this handle and slap him in the ass with a good luck... he has got to make dozens and dozens of jumps before he is proficient... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Army Guy said: To be honest, all the elements are not really trying that hard to recruit, nor is it really dealing with it's image problem the government created.. It needs to be in the media and in Canadians faces constantly, Hire a company that deals with images, start making new recruiting ads for the media, redo those recruitment films for each trade. Army we used to go to every major town event set up static displays let the locals talk to actual soldiers, crawl all over the equipment...instead we have soldiers literally sitting doing nothing....we pay them anyways, might as well use them.....We also used to have exercises in Canadian towns and cities, let them see what we do, talk to soldiers, see some of what happen in day to day life of a Army guy...airforce used to be at every airshow across the country, I remember the Airborne putting on a show at an airshow, with helos emerging form a huge bank of smoke and soldiers repelling down to the ground, and firing blanks....it got me hooked Thats all i talked about until i was 17 years old.... navy at every port city...For a recruiting crises we are not pulling out all the stops. Take a look at some of the programs that other militaries offer like huge bonus for education, home buying, health insurances, free medical for family members , cheaper rents the list goes on and on... Educate Canadians on what our military does for this nation on a day to day basis...get the public excited about all of it...showcase new equipment, showcase what is coming on line, start investing into modern capabilities, like IT, drones, cyber warfare, the list goes on and on... Of course we can't do that until the government gets excited about it as well , but DND can do a lot on it's own...Including getting the government to cut the red tape surrounding purchasing..taking most of the politics out of it...reshaping our procurement system..people don't get excited when your showcasing 30 year tanks, 40 year fighters, and 50 year ships... I know what you are saying. I did a number of airshows every summer. Navy has ships in every port LOL (Halifax and Victoria). Army, well, I am not sure what public relations they do anymore. As I said though, the Air Force has the ability to contract out and has been doing so so the personnel shortage is minimal. The Army has a problem, as you say. It cannot get young folk to wanna be a soldier. I am not so sure that participating in parades and mini work ups will encourage a young person to want to carry a rifle or slog in the muck. I understand that every Army person is not an infantryman but, what does the Army have to offer? You certainly cannot sell defend your country. Allegiances are no longer valued, be it to a company, employer let alone your country. Nay has equal problems the Army does. What does the Navy have to offer? Airforce has technical trades that can be used in civilian employment. The military is called out for many aid to civil power missions, Be it fires or floods an din my career, search and rescue. The public is made aware in a 30 second tv blurb or a one inch newspaper column but he, who watches the news or reads a newspaper anymore. We still educate our officers and give them degrees. That is why we have such an elitist leadership. Edited February 15 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Yeah no mention of how many systems they’re buying I guess there’s the question of how many we really need considering Latvia basically is our entire deployable force. and the usual MO for Canada would be to Keep the vehicles and systems in theatre and just rotate personnel through. As for the actual system chosen, I was expecting a more recognizable name like US Stinger (which gets all the headlines and attention simply because it’s American), or the British Starstreak or French Mistral. I’ve never been up to speed on all the MANPAD systems out there and had never heard of the RBS-70 before. Here’s what I’ve found out about it: Original RBS-70 was produced in the 1970s, the latest “NG” (New Generation) version was developed in 2011 PROs: Has ~50% more range and altitude coverage compared to Stinger (>8km and 15,000 ft) Laser-based “Beam rider” guidance makes it impervious to jamming, decoys, flares and electronic warfare, the latter being something which Russians are particularly skilled at Can be networked with mobile radar (which Canada also bought in this pkg), other launchers, and a command/control centre allowing for a centrally co-ordinated air defence system and allowing connected operators to “aim” at approaching targets before they come into the weapon’s range Can be operated by remote control, allowing the operator to remain safely under protective cover CONS ”Man portable” but requires a tripod (like UK and French systems) but not truly “shoulder launched” like stinger Laser guidance means it is not “fire and forget” like the French and US systems, the operator has to keep the laser on the target (as does UK system). This means that unobstructed line-of-sight to target is required throughout the engagement (an automated target track system helps ensure the operator doesn’t “lose” the target, I couldn’t find a detailed description but I m imagining it’s something like an arrow on the screen that tells you which way to turn if you somehow come off target amd lose sight) List of current countries using the system or it’s 70s era predecessor is unimpressive: a few of the smaller NATO countries, a few countries that don’t fight foreign wars like Brazil, UAE and Thailand. Maybe its an ok system but not great? I guess every system especially man-portable ones have their limitations and trade-offs. This one definitely doesn’t have a lot of attention or content on the internet, beyond a few notable kills of Russian fighters and helicopters in Ukraine. It is a good system,Swedish made, rated among some of the best in the world, but it does have it's limitations, might work great in the defensive, but offensive ops, thats quit a large load for 3 or 4 guys to be humping in woods...and lets face it today if your in an aircraft that is not at tree top level your going to die...and your sight picture is going to be limited to maybe a dozen seconds or less, stinger would sound like a better option, not very many times will you get to take advantage of the longer range, unless your in the very high ground... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Yes, it needs to be at those units that are expected to use it in combat....we need to train on it, over and over again, see it's capabilities, see how it reacts to counter measures, so in times of severe stress such as combat we can operate it without thinking but through muscle memory... You don't give a sar tech a parachute for the first time on a SAR call, here strap this on, pull this handle and slap him in the ass with a good luck... he has got to make dozens and dozens of jumps before he is proficient... I kinda disagree. We buy, train, shoot once a year and have the public complain we are wasting time and effort but never using. Some equipment training can be effective and be done on software on your desk. Just in time procurement works. Took 5 jumps to get your parachute wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: I know what you are saying. I did a number of airshows every summer. Nvt has ships in every port LOL (Halifax and Victoria). Army, well, I am not sure what public relations they do anymore. As I said though, the Air Force has the ability to contract out and has been doing so so the personnel shortage is minimal. The Army has a problem, as you say. It cannot get young folk to wanna be a soldier. I am not so sure that participating in parades and mini work ups will encourage a young person to want to carry a rifle or slog in the muck. I understand that every Army person is not an infantryman but, what does the Army have to offer? You certainly cannot sell defend your country. Allegiances are no longer valued, be it to a company, employer let alone your country. Nay has equal problems the Army does. What does the Navy have to offer? Airforce has technical trades that can be used in civilian employment. The military is called out for many aid to civil power missions, Be it fires or floods an din my career, search and rescue. The public is made aware in a 30 second tv blurb or a one inch newspaper column but he, who watches the news or reads a newspaper anymore. We still educate our officers and give them degrees. That is why we have such an elitist leadership. Contracting out serves well in peace time, but what happens when we go to a crises, who fixes what and where...Army does this also with new equipment, when we go to the field nobody really has the experience to fix much, Our military has to be self sufficient in all regards... Those old recruitment films did not show all the physical work that goes into being a soldier, it showed all the fun stuff, flying in helo's with your legs dangling out the sides, driving tanks, and LAVS, blowing stuff up...the sexy stuff that happens once a year...get them in the door... What does the army have to offer, lots of trades that have civilian applications, even the basic grunt has lots of offer, security, body guards, EOD, small arms instructor, para instructor, leadership, team work, discipline, working under stress, language skills, The military has endless possibilities any employer is looking for...that are often overlooked even by military people once they get out... You build allegiances in basic training...when i joined it was all about being part of something bigger, regular Canadians were no more than dirty civies... it was the military that was going to defend the country, with our very lives if needed be...after basic i could not walk past a Canadian flag with out coming to attention and saluting...why becasue i was [art of something bigger,better, than the average Canadian...i had invested my life for the country...other Canadians were just along for the ride...still are...Military members care more about them than they do about us... You would be surprised the education level the enlist have now, most infantry have university degrees in some field, , before they were in a crises that is, now they take you if you can breath, but when i was a CSM , i say 3 out of every 4 had degrees...So enticing them with a funding for a university education could still work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 On 7/26/2023 at 8:39 PM, BeaverFever said: Story2: Cabinet shuffle sees Bill Blair replace Anita Anand as Minister of National Defence, Anand moves to President of Treasury Board The move surprised some political observers as Anand was widely regarded as one of the more capable Ministers and managers unafraid to tackle tricky/controversial issues. However analysts have noted 2 key elements: First Treasury Board Pres is the holder of the public purse and considered an “economic” position. When looking at the other “highly regarded” Ministers they are all now concentrated in these economic positions therefore some tough/controversial financial decisions such as large spending cuts may be in the works. Second: Anand’s replacement is Bill Blair, the former Toronto Chief of Police whose heavy-handed police tactics at the time were cheered by conservatives and criticized by the left. and who later became Minister of Public Safety and Canada’s counter-terrorism Czar. This could be a sign that Canada will be pursuing a more aggressive Defence policy and possibly will not be subject to any aforementioned controversial budget cuts. The fact is anand won't stand out as much in the new position and trudeau considers her to be a little on the disloyal side. I suspect she and a few others will get shuffled again before "the end" unless an election is called immediately. Which may happen. BTW _ for those of you who aren't political junkies - at the end of april 5 new ridings come on line in canada that were authorized after the last census and almost all will likely go cpc. So april 26 is a hard date for the ndp and the libs - if they're going to trigger an early election they'll want to do it before that date. Giving the Tories 5 free seats won't be to their liking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: I kinda disagree. We buy, train, shoot once a year and have the public complain we are wasting time and effort but never using. Some equipment training can be effective and be done on software on your desk. Just in time procurement works. Took 5 jumps to get your parachute wings. Would you trust a aircraft mech that only fixed one plane a year, or only had sim time..Not me...take a look at how well the russian army is making out with the lack of training...Sim is a great tool to keep current but it does not replace actual hands on experience on the system... Yes it can, be done in a simulator, but you can't do a SAR call from a sim can you...lots of things a sim can't teach you... 7 jumps to get your static line , not free fall...and expecting 2 SAR techs to land on a moving Small sheet of ice in the middle of the ocean to save a young inuit kid, would be a mistake with only 5 jumps...sh*t hitting the jump zone after 5 jumps would be a challenge...But i'm not a SAR tech, and I'll leave that to you, but in the infantry, training is required as often as you can get it, until it is muscles memory, it saves time, lives, when you get to a crisis zone... Of course if your going to give me 6 months to get trained up every time then sure...but in my experience 6 months is not always the case...most skills will fade...and when my life is on the line i don't want the guy next to me thats skills have faded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Would you trust a aircraft mech that only fixed one plane a year I would trust him with Justin Trudeau's holiday aircraft. Apparently. Actually now that I think about it even he gets to work more often than that now Edited February 15 by CdnFox 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 Here is another media story about our military and it's state....and the lack of interest by all parties to engage in the topic, or fix the issue that have plagued our nation for decades, what makes this a little more interesting is they mention our procurement cells and their issues... If we as a nation don't want a military then lets get on with disbanding it...It's not that Canadians care about defense, or for that matter our entire security Apparatus...where it is in the same or worse state... i had a laugh when Trump said he would not come to the aid of any NATO country that was not spending 2 %...Canadians now think they are spending 1.3 % which is complete bullshit, the liberal government adds in other things like RCMP budget, military pensions, emergency preparedness budgets...also spending on troop deployments overseas. all to build it up .3 percent...To most Canadians this is a joke....but we should all stop and ask ourselves out of the 158 soldiers killed and 300 WIA in Afghanistan how many could have been avoided because we where to cheap.. It use to eat me up on the inside to think how callous our nation treated it's soldiers and how cheap life truly was... Canadians have spoken loud and clear, our soldiers lives don't mean squat, it is cheaper to bury them than to equip them...says alot about Canadians...we were never like this as a nation....maybe someone can explain to me what happened to make us this way... Canada Undefended: Our military isn't prepared for a new era where geography doesn't shelter us (msn.com) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: Contracting out serves well in peace time, but what happens when we go to a crises, who fixes what and where...Army does this also with new equipment, when we go to the field nobody really has the experience to fix much, Our military has to be self sufficient in all regards... Those old recruitment films did not show all the physical work that goes into being a soldier, it showed all the fun stuff, flying in helo's with your legs dangling out the sides, driving tanks, and LAVS, blowing stuff up...the sexy stuff that happens once a year...get them in the door... What does the army have to offer, lots of trades that have civilian applications, even the basic grunt has lots of offer, security, body guards, EOD, small arms instructor, para instructor, leadership, team work, discipline, working under stress, language skills, The military has endless possibilities any employer is looking for...that are often overlooked even by military people once they get out... You build allegiances in basic training...when i joined it was all about being part of something bigger, regular Canadians were no more than dirty civies... it was the military that was going to defend the country, with our very lives if needed be...after basic i could not walk past a Canadian flag with out coming to attention and saluting...why becasue i was [art of something bigger,better, than the average Canadian...i had invested my life for the country...other Canadians were just along for the ride...still are...Military members care more about them than they do about us... You would be surprised the education level the enlist have now, most infantry have university degrees in some field, , before they were in a crises that is, now they take you if you can breath, but when i was a CSM , i say 3 out of every 4 had degrees...So enticing them with a funding for a university education could still work... Unfortunately once the contracting out action has begun and run, there is no turning back, in a time of crisis or not.The skill set has long diminished and requiring it , in the case of aviation, would take ears to recover. Perhaps the Army recruiting should highlight what a soldier can do after service. I have not ever seen that. I know the American system has rewards, be they education or trades training for departing their servicemen. While nice to have and can be lifelong, allegiances do not put food on the table after your time in service. No question, military members do and always honour and respect the Canadian flag and their Country. They served without prejudice. Can I change your sentence to say "Military member care more about us Canadians, than themselves" I may be surprised at the level of education but I question "most infantry have university degrees in some field". If so, I question why become an infanteer with such low pay when you can use your degree. No disrespect intended, I know ta number of great infantry folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: Would you trust a aircraft mech that only fixed one plane a year, or only had sim time..Not me...take a look at how well the russian army is making out with the lack of training...Sim is a great tool to keep current but it does not replace actual hands on experience on the system... Yes it can, be done in a simulator, but you can't do a SAR call from a sim can you...lots of things a sim can't teach you... 7 jumps to get your static line , not free fall...and expecting 2 SAR techs to land on a moving Small sheet of ice in the middle of the ocean to save a young inuit kid, would be a mistake with only 5 jumps...sh*t hitting the jump zone after 5 jumps would be a challenge...But i'm not a SAR tech, and I'll leave that to you, but in the infantry, training is required as often as you can get it, until it is muscles memory, it saves time, lives, when you get to a crisis zone... Of course if your going to give me 6 months to get trained up every time then sure...but in my experience 6 months is not always the case...most skills will fade...and when my life is on the line i don't want the guy next to me thats skills have faded. Actually, much of the aviation training, including diagnosis, removal and replacement of parts is done with software. Interesting you bring up Russians. I had occasion to be face to face with Russian helicopter designers when I was in the SAR helicopter replacement program, they wanted us to buy Russian (LOL),and when asked about maintenance and repair, they had no plans. They said if a part breaks, they do not repair, they just replace. The aircraft did not even have an overhaul heavy maintenance cycle LOL. I was talking maintenance actually.. But yes, we have SAR and Maritime Helicopter full function flight simulators so realistic, they can make you airsick. The only thing not do-able is dropping a SAR tech out but we do have physical hoist simulators. The discussion of very specialty training SAR tech with medical, physical, mountain rescue, sea. rescue, jump training is an ongoing career long thing. So yes, some things need more training than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 3 hours ago, ExFlyer said: I kinda disagree. We buy, train, shoot once a year and have the public complain we are wasting time and effort but never using. I have never seen nor heard of such a complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 4 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Yeah no mention of how many systems they’re buying I guess there’s the question of how many we really need considering Latvia basically is our entire deployable force. and the usual MO for Canada would be to Keep the vehicles and systems in theatre and just rotate personnel through. That falls completely apart if you suddenly find yourself in a situation where all of your infantry needs to be deployed at once, as in a war. What do you do then? Every small single infantry unit needs to have the proper equipment, including trucks, flack vests, helmets and missiles. And probably drones now. 4 hours ago, BeaverFever said: As for the actual system chosen, I was expecting a more recognizable name like US Stinger (which gets all the headlines and attention simply because it’s American), or the British Starstreak or French Mistral. I’ve never been up to speed on all the MANPAD systems out there and had never heard of the RBS-70 before. All we have to do is look at Ukraine to see what western missiles are working against Russian gear. Mobile artillery, javelin anti-tank missiles, and stingers for anti-air. Though good luck getting those for some time as the US is running out and the company is building a factory to restart production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 (edited) 10 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Canada to acquire Swedish-made anti-aircraft system to protect troops in Latvia Murray Brewster - CBC News New portable anti-aircraft system and counter-drone equipment to arrive later this year Posted: 3 Hours Ago Unidentified soldiers carrying out a teat of a Swedish designed RBS 70 NG portable air defence system in this undated handout. Canada will acquire a number of the systems to deploy with troops serving in Latvia. (Saab India/Handout) the problem with this sort of solution is that you have to see the drones coming to shoot them down not to mention that RBS70 is SACLOS like a TOW missile, the operator has to guide missile manually but it's quite apparent in all the FPV drone videos that the targets don't see them coming they're so small and low profile that they strike without warning furthermore, missiles are way too expensive to expend on drones which are a tiny fraction of that cost really what is required is some sort of automated system which detects, tracks & engages drones all at once like a mini version of a CIWS on a warship, except every armoured vehicle is going need one 360º defensive gun system with airburst munitions guided by active phased radar arrays and/or focal plane array infrared search/ track fully autonomous, because only the computers can process the engagement in time as if you are under swarming drone attacks, the algorithms are going to have to do the work because you would only have time to press a "shoot" button to give permission to open fire similar to Mk.16 Phalanx there would be a manual mode, to use the system as a general purpose RWS a semi-autonomous mode with man in the loop to avoid fratricide then a fully autonomous mode for adverse conditions, wherein the computers decide when to shoot Edited February 15 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 24 minutes ago, I am Groot said: I have never seen nor heard of such a complaint. You ha e never heard of complaints about military waste and spending? About buying stuff they don't need? About over buying? About over budget procurements? Groot, I thought you came up for air and smelling the real world ocassionally LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 16 Report Share Posted February 16 4 hours ago, ExFlyer said: You ha e never heard of complaints about military waste and spending? About buying stuff they don't need? About over buying? About over budget procurements? Groot, I thought you came up for air and smelling the real world ocassionally LOL That wasn't what I replied to. I said I had never heard anyone complain about We buy, train, shoot once a year and have the public complain we are wasting time and effort but never using. I've never heard anyone complain about the military training or getting needed equipment. Complaining about vastly overpriced equipment is something entirely different. I've also complained about the new AOPs, given their almost complete lack of weapons or sensory systems. But I'm all for buying new tanks, armored vehicles, self-propelled artillery, trucks, subs, helicopters, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 16 Author Report Share Posted February 16 On the quantity debate: 1) IMO it’s totally feasible to keep the weapons overseas in theatre and a small “skeleton crew” worth of fully functional weapons in Canada for training, to be used alongside various simulators, replicas, outsourced civilians training etc I don’t think you need to fully equip every single unit who could ever possibly touch these weapons Routine training often involves waiting your turn at the firing range, using blank ammunition during force-on-force training, firing sub-caliber and inert training rounds and IIRC doing Immediate Action drills on inert or replica weapons In addition, with soldiers regularly posting out and posting back in from different units, as I believe I heard the Army say was part of it’s Latvia plan, would ensure units always have some number of experienced soldiers who have already been to Latvia using these weapons. . Besides as Army Guy once pointed out, in the months leading up to deployment, the troops preparing to go train intensely on mission-specific equipment and tactics In the case of Latvia units will be preparing much longer in advance as the 3-yr rotation schedule will be known 2)When we last had air defence systems, all 3 AD weapons (Javelin, ADATS and 35mm AAA) belonged to various batteries of a single artillery regiment, 4th Air Defence Regiment, RCA, which was based in Gagetown NB after returning from Germany and supported the entire army as a force-level asset not as individual Mech Brigade assets. The Brigades did not have their own organic Air Defence, batteries or detachments from 4AD Regt were assigned to operations as needed. Assuming that’s the model now, there’s only one unit in the army to equip, the question is how many batteries? It will be interesting how the Artillery will absorb these weapons. After the previous AA weapons were decommissioned, 4AD Regt was reconstituted as 4th Artillery Regiment (General Support), RCA It remains a force level asset basically as an artillery spotting /counter-battery unit using the mobile Medium Range Radar and rue CU-172 Blackjack surveillance drone. Army has already said Combat Support units like that will be in Latvia every tour anyway. Will they be the ones to get the new MANPADS or will it be some new unit? 5 hours ago, Dougie93 said: really what is required is some sort of automated system which detects, tracks & engages drones all at once The anti-drone detection and defence is a separate contract not the MANPAD contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 On 2/15/2024 at 4:45 PM, ExFlyer said: Unfortunately once the contracting out action has begun and run, there is no turning back, in a time of crisis or not.The skill set has long diminished and requiring it , in the case of aviation, would take ears to recover. Perhaps the Army recruiting should highlight what a soldier can do after service. I have not ever seen that. I know the American system has rewards, be they education or trades training for departing their servicemen. While nice to have and can be lifelong, allegiances do not put food on the table after your time in service. No question, military members do and always honour and respect the Canadian flag and their Country. They served without prejudice. Can I change your sentence to say "Military member care more about us Canadians, than themselves" I may be surprised at the level of education but I question "most infantry have university degrees in some field". If so, I question why become an infanteer with such low pay when you can use your degree. No disrespect intended, I know ta number of great infantry folks. This is a huge red flag...i know in combat most of the books get thrown out, including maintenance standards, as if crews don't have enough to worry about getting ordnance on targets , but now in their back of their minds do they have to worry about that kid putting parts on the aircraft does he really know what he is doing... Army does offer a lot of programs most of them to injured or medical release personal, but there are some limited education programs offered to those that have earned pensions...do they advertise them , not very well. Your right being a patriot to your country earns you nothing...in Canada's case it earns you even less, all one has to do is examine how they treat our vets, or our retired folks that made it through intact...and in good times you might get a hand shake, or a coffee... I like to think both statements are some what true, although at one point in my career, i'd could not give a shit about other Canadians, i would do my job as a professional soldier, but would not give them a second thought.... and instead gave my allegiance to the men and women in uniform, to my Regiment, and the men and women on the left and right of me on the battle field... To tell you the truth, it's the challenge, jumping out of planes , blowing shit up, the chance to serve in units that very few get to, the mental and physical challenges, to test your body and mind to the very brink...The Infantry attracts a lot of A type personalities, and they crave the challenges, adrenal junkies... i spent 3 tours in combat, and can tell you there is not better high than putting it all on the line...it is addictive...It also destroys your mind.....you won't find many jobs that do that, every element has them...Many Infantry soldiers go on to tougher more challenging roles like in peace time, like SAR tech, Spec ops, Advance courses like path finder, free fall parachuting, the list is to long to right here, but it is like a Itch you can't scratch... Can't do any of that behind a desk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 22 hours ago, BeaverFever said: On the quantity debate: 1) IMO it’s totally feasible to keep the weapons overseas in theatre and a small “skeleton crew” worth of fully functional weapons in Canada for training, to be used alongside various simulators, replicas, outsourced civilians training etc I don’t think you need to fully equip every single unit who could ever possibly touch these weapons Routine training often involves waiting your turn at the firing range, using blank ammunition during force-on-force training, firing sub-caliber and inert training rounds and IIRC doing Immediate Action drills on inert or replica weapons In addition, with soldiers regularly posting out and posting back in from different units, as I believe I heard the Army say was part of it’s Latvia plan, would ensure units always have some number of experienced soldiers who have already been to Latvia using these weapons. . Besides as Army Guy once pointed out, in the months leading up to deployment, the troops preparing to go train intensely on mission-specific equipment and tactics In the case of Latvia units will be preparing much longer in advance as the 3-yr rotation schedule will be known 2)When we last had air defence systems, all 3 AD weapons (Javelin, ADATS and 35mm AAA) belonged to various batteries of a single artillery regiment, 4th Air Defence Regiment, RCA, which was based in Gagetown NB after returning from Germany and supported the entire army as a force-level asset not as individual Mech Brigade assets. The Brigades did not have their own organic Air Defence, batteries or detachments from 4AD Regt were assigned to operations as needed. Assuming that’s the model now, there’s only one unit in the army to equip, the question is how many batteries? It will be interesting how the Artillery will absorb these weapons. After the previous AA weapons were decommissioned, 4AD Regt was reconstituted as 4th Artillery Regiment (General Support), RCA It remains a force level asset basically as an artillery spotting /counter-battery unit using the mobile Medium Range Radar and rue CU-172 Blackjack surveillance drone. Army has already said Combat Support units like that will be in Latvia every tour anyway. Will they be the ones to get the new MANPADS or will it be some new unit? The anti-drone detection and defence is a separate contract not the MANPAD contract. Most units have in their lines now simulators, in an infantry unit we have rifle, LMG, GPMG, Carl G weapons' that they train on regularly infact before going out to any range, it is a requirement you train on the sat range first...all combat unit train to certain levels, depending on your readiness levels, going to the ranges is a little more detailed than firing your weapon at 300 meters, or using sub cal ammo...there is day and night fires, jungle lanes ( day and night with NVG's), section attacks with live ammo, platoon attacks , company attacks day and night...training is as real as the real thing, except everything is a one way range... I want to notre if a small battle group like say latvia is the army's focus then the training group is actual pretty small, todays contribution is at most going to reach a little over 2500 troops in a few years...Here is the red flag, thats about all we can deploy on a regular basis...That has got to tell you something...and the fact we don't have all the equipment they need should be another huge red flag....This problem plagued us in Afghanistan, where equipment was lost on a regulars basis and training stocks were at the end very limited...today we have the same problem... and while there is one force already in theater, one training , and one on standby...replacements, training is always ongoing... Tommorrow if the crises blows up and more than 2500 soldiers are needed how do you equip them, it takes years to plan a purchase, it also takes up to a year to build complicated equipment like a fighter or ship, and most other countries are going to be in the same boat, so now the free market crashes there is not enough supply, take ukraine for example and arty ammo, almost every NATO country is being bleed dry arty ammo, they are just now ramping up production...and still not meet the demand from one country ukraine... what if the next crisis involves all NATO, the war is going to be short...and a lot of people are going to die... Hence why they say the next conflict is come as you are... When we we in Germany we had a war surplus depot in Germany, it is scattered to the wind now , cost savings measures... 4 AD was located in Gagetown, but also had a sqn in Cold lake, to sharpen the Airforce fighter fleet...Who is going to get these new Manpads, the old air defenders i guessing..it really does not matter, the skills are almost gone, or faded past their due date so all that tactics and expertise is going to have to be grown one again.. In my opinion these Manpads should go to the combat arms branch, Air defenders are going to have their hands full once the new BMD sites get built up north, plus they get the mobile Shorad ,med and high alt air defense system that have been promised... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 (edited) Large-scale military procurements offer all the hazards of civilian megaprojects with added political complications too. The unfolding warship disaster shows that the military top brass can’t be let change requirements again and again as new gadgets appear on the market. In addition, we shouldn’t have bought local because such people can always bring pressure to bear in Ottawa that foreigners can’t. I’ve never seen a country agonise so long over helicopters, submarines, fighter aircraft and boats. Quote The U.S. paid a fixed price of about US$1.66 billion a ship; using the Parliamentary Budget Office’s latest estimate, Canada will pay up to $5.6 billion per ship. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ivison-canadas-uncontrolled-military-program-plundering The trick is to ringfence enough funds to pay for the equipment required and protect it from political interference but have remorselessly strict oversight of cost overruns. Not an easy problem to solve. Edited February 17 by SpankyMcFarland 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.