Canadian Defence News

[Dougie93]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Timely editorial in the Globe and Mail:

 

 

It’s about time Canada’s lagging counterdrone industry gets a revamp

Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo is a Milan-based correspondent for Defense News.

After years of underfunding, it is high time that Canada’s lagging counterdrone industry gets the revamp it desperately needs to effectively defend its skies against unmanned aerial systems.

This rapidly evolving technology, commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft that can fly without a human pilot. Drone threats come in many shapes and sizes, including miniature ones – dubbed “mini” and “micro” aerial vehicles in defence jargon – which weigh less than 250 grams.

The wide-scale deployment of these weapons in the Ukraine war has military experts warning of the serious threat they pose to civil and military targets, as their low-altitude flights allow them to operate outside traditional radar coverage and go undetected by existing air defence systems.

“We’re seeing the pervasive use of micro and mini drones on the battlefield in Ukraine and every major military is taking note – they are cheap, fast and the technology is evolving on the time scale of months rather than years,” Jae Daniel, co-founder of AIM Defence, a Melbourne-based anti-drone company, told me.

The Canadian military seems to be paying attention. Concerns about the country’s military readiness to confront new threats from adversaries were voiced by the new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jennie Carignan, during a press conference after her appointment ceremony in July.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is increasingly conducting exercises with a focus on countering these unmanned systems. One official told me at a recent training event in Romania that they view small drones as one of the most significant current threats in military conflicts.

Canada recently became the fifth NATO country to test above-the-horizon lasers to defeat drone threats in open space as part of the Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program’s Counter Uncrewed Aerial Systems contest in Suffield, Alta.

Dubbed the Sandbox, the three-week initiative was organized by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to accelerate the testing of a variety of counterdrone technologies.

Three prior editions have been held at Defence Research and Development Canada’s Suffield Research Centre, as it possesses one of the world’s largest outdoor laboratories, with about 500 square kilometres of terrain, essential for conducting these types of demonstrations. Participants hailing from Canada, Australia, the United States, Israel and Britain competed for three monetary prizes based on their performance and growth potential as assessed by the DND and the CAF.

“This was the first time that directed energy [weaponry] was allowed to enter the Sandbox – prior years have focused on more traditional defeat technologies, such as jamming and bullets,” said Jessica Glenn, the other co-founder of AIM Defence, which took home the $1-million first prize. Fractl:1 was the system brought by AIM, which integrates a high-power laser with the company’s own AI tracking system, able to precisely target specific parts of the drone and neutralize it from more than a kilometre away.

“During the testing, a provided ‘Red Team’ flew a range of drone types, including first-person-view, fixed-wing and quadcopter drones, in different patterns and with different payloads – some of these were representative of real-world engagements and others were designed to safely push the edges of Fractl,” Ms. Glenn said.

The joint second-place prize went to Canadian company DARIT Technologies and the University of Toronto’s Prandtl Dynamics, which both won $375,000.

High-energy lasers are optical devices that produce a very focused beam of light, through which they can destroy an unmanned aerial vehicle’s electronics. These systems have gained interest in recent years owing to their lower cost and their ability to mitigate threats more quickly than other counterdrone technologies on the market.

According to Matt Ceh, who was the lead defence scientist at this year’s contest, Canada is increasingly exploring this type of equipment, as lasers “can provide a solution that minimizes collateral damage when compared to guns.”

While investments in both research and development in the counterdrone sector should have been made years ago, these types of events and the expansion of the IDEaS program are a good indication that Ottawa is taking drone threats seriously.

In order to be a technologically advanced fighting force, as highlighted in the latest national defence policy, the DND and the CAF must double down on efforts to match the pace of drone proliferation. This begins by dedicating greater funding to the maturing industry and committing to acquiring effective weapons.

Dr. Daniel said his company is hopeful that their win will represent the beginning of a long-term partnership with the Canadian military.

Ultimately, what will be paramount is for the DND to translate this testing and interest into concrete orders to acquire a variety of counterdrones systems. Only then will Canada be ready to protect soldiers from the imminent threat posed by drones.
 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-about-time-canadas-lagging-counterdrone-industry-gets-a-revamp/?login=true

the problem is that drones have become cheap and easy

while the counter drone systems are expensive and complex

if you look at how these novel weapons systems progress, tanks, airplanes, submarines, etc

it's not long before the platforms start to fight each other

thus I suspect that the best way to kill a drone swarm will end up being another drone swarm

it's not going to be long before remote control is replaced by A.I.

in that the drones will simply have their own "eyes" and "brains" to see and decide on their own

then the drones can start fighting each other

the Ukrainians are reportedly working on this already

in that the remote control is increasingly the weak link

so the drones need to become fully autonomous in contested environments

bearing in mind that you already have the computing power to pull that off;  in a smartphone

so rather than a reactive defence, such as a laser

you have an active defence ; a swarm of kamikaze drones made to kill other drones

Nano & Micro sized, like the Teledyne FLIR Black Hornet or Aeronviroment Switchblade

again, it's the commodification of warfare, wherein the drones are essentially ammunition

in that it would be much cheaper and easier

to have a box launcher of small defensive drones on your vehicles

than it would be to mount lasers on everything

it's a natural evolution of the Active Defence Systems / Explosive Reactive Armour

except the advantage of a defensive drone screen is that it would be recoverable

in that any drones which didn't go kamikaze, can be recovered

if undamaged, you just stick them back in their box launcher to recharge the batteries

the Anduril Roadrunner already being the nascent version of this drone killing drone defence

the problem for Canada in this venue would be two fold

one, pathologically central planning Canada does not do start ups well

Shopify is the exception not the rule

and two, even if you did get a Canadian Anduril off the ground

it would almost certainly get bought out by an American defence contractor, such as Anduril

Edited August 18, 2024 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

the new trucks....old news but some more info ...

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

the new trucks....old news but some more info ...

it's hard to get worked up about the GoC wasting $36 million

the City of Toronto burns through more than that, in a single day

Edited August 19, 2024 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it's hard to get worked up about the GoC wasting $36 million

the City of Toronto burns through more than that, in a single day

One would think so, but what about all the other programs that take 20 to 30 years to purchase that don't really add up to much  take a look at our pistols for instance...have you seen the replacement for the SMG yet, ya that is still a thing....

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One would think so, but what about all the other programs that take 20 to 30 years to purchase that don't really add up to much  take a look at our pistols for instance...have you seen the replacement for the SMG yet, ya that is still a thing....

again tho

the Ontario debt is $353 billion

the debt servicing on that is $84 million a day

so these trucks cost what Ontario spends before noon every single day, on literally nothing at all

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

.have you seen the replacement for the SMG yet, ya that is still a thing....

that is honestly amusing, since nobody uses SMG's anymore

zombie legacy project

again tho, Canada is a basket case on trajectory to a catastrophic financial crisis which will incite civil unrest

even the RCMP has said so in an official report

so I got bigger problems than the idiocy at DND by now

 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

the new trucks....old news but some more info ...

 

Meh I saw that. The complaints he raises are years old. Taylor fails to mention that the early deficiencies have since been addressed and that the US Army since went on to purchase 2500 vehicles afterwards. Also this is not a combat vehicle it is light infantry mobility vehicle   When light infantry are marching on foot or riding ATVs they are not armoured or sheltered I don’t hear anyone complaining about that. 

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 When light infantry are marching on foot or riding ATVs they are not armoured or sheltered I don’t hear anyone complaining about that. 

in fairness tho

if you are in the back of an unsheltered truck driving along in -30C

you are going to be frozen solid in no time flat

that much wind blowing on you is a recipe for frostbite

like if you only had to endure for a few minutes, it would be okay

but if you are talking extended periods of being wind chilled in the back of an open truck ?

I'd rather march the whole way instead

in fact, when you march in winter, you are warm, you actually have to ditch the parka you get so hot

Edited August 20, 2024 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

39 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One would think so

you know what the saddest part is ?

the cost of 90 BAE Beowulf tracked arctic carriers is only $153 million

Canada is the most penny wise pound foolish state on earth

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Meh I saw that. The complaints he raises are years old. Taylor fails to mention that the early deficiencies have since been addressed and that the US Army since went on to purchase 2500 vehicles afterwards. Also this is not a combat vehicle it is light infantry mobility vehicle   When light infantry are marching on foot or riding ATVs they are not armoured or sheltered I don’t hear anyone complaining about that. 

I think he did address the fact they will used in a near peer conflict, meaning mechanized or armored type battles....where having LT infantry in these vehs would be insane....I could understand if they were being used to haul around heavy weapons like tow, or mortars, Heavy MG...even in Afghanistan LT infantry would train on the LAVs as a source of transport...atleast they had the 25 mm...Don't get me wrong there is a time and place for LT infantry, just not in a mechanized outfit...give them something armored like BV 210, now that they could use...as the British LT infantry used in Afghanistan...open air vehicles proved deadly as a form of transport in Afghanistan which is why we stop using open air ilitis....Weather has already been mentioned...Latvia is an arctic country with some brutal winters...not to mention they are still cramped...cramped means a slow dismount...which is bad in a fighting situation

The only unit that i seen with open air vehicles has been JTF...with HumVes while in Canada, in Afghanistan they used armored Toyota land cruisers... So of all the vehicles or equipment we could have purchased i ask myself why these...when there is so much more and better on the market...besides the cool factor not sure why this vehicle......wonder how many bugs you would eat..or how much the troops would modify the sh1t out of it.....

[BeaverFever]

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

think he did address the fact they will used in a near peer conflict, meaning mechanized or armored type battles.

Being “used in a conflict” doesn’t mean it’s being used on the battlefield or in the presence of the enemy, it just means it’s in theatre. As you surely know, not every piece of equipment in theatre is intended for the battlefield.  

30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Don't get me wrong there is a time and place for LT infantry, just not in a mechanized outfi

There’s Light Infantry fighting in trenches and forests and built-up areas in the Ukraine conflict now.  They have a role to play and this vehicle helps them move and reposition quickly. Also note that this is an interim vehicle and that the CF is still looking for a permanent vehicle under a different Light Forces Enhancement Project which I believe could potentially be more of an actual combat/assault light vehicle. 

[Army Guy]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Being “used in a conflict” doesn’t mean it’s being used on the battlefield or in the presence of the enemy, it just means it’s in theatre. As you surely know, not every piece of equipment in theatre is intended for the battlefield.  

There’s Light Infantry fighting in trenches and forests and built-up areas in the Ukraine conflict now.  They have a role to play and this vehicle helps them move and reposition quickly. Also note that this is an interim vehicle and that the CF is still looking for a permanent vehicle under a different Light Forces Enhancement Project which I believe could potentially be more of an actual combat/assault light vehicle. 

If it is a SMP type vehicle it will see battle field usage, if it is strictly an administration vehicle, and not see battle field usage, why not just buy an civilian market truck or van for a much cheaper price...Not sure what you see in this vehicle...it really does not have much value...and the whole pushing this purchase through quickly is confusing at most...plenty of equipment the army could use in Latvia with a higher priority that could be pushed through...It also begs the question what is the reserve LAV 6.0 for if not prepositioned for fly over formations...

True enough, Ukraine marines are involved in the incursion into russia, but they are also backed up by tanks and IFV's such as BMP's or Bradly's...armored Humvees, 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

If it is a SMP type vehicle it will see battle field usage, if it is strictly an administration vehicle, and not see battle field usage, why not just buy an civilian market truck or van for a much cheaper price...Not sure what you see in this vehicle...it really does not have much value...and the whole pushing this purchase through quickly is confusing at most...plenty of equipment the army could use in Latvia with a higher priority that could be pushed through...It also begs the question what is the reserve LAV 6.0 for if not prepositioned for fly over formations...

True enough, Ukraine marines are involved in the incursion into russia, but they are also backed up by tanks and IFV's such as BMP's or Bradly's...armored Humvees, 

It is for use outside the wire and offroad, as well as airdrop, air mobility which is why the original more

civi version wasn’t up to snuff and they had to remaster it. I don’t think that guarantees it will see battle damage though. Look at the current Polaris MRZR ATVs that light forces currently use  as your point of reference. This is like a MRZR that carries an entire infantry section 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It is for use outside the wire and offroad, as well as airdrop, air mobility which is why the original more

civi version wasn’t up to snuff and they had to remaster it. I don’t think that guarantees it will see battle damage though. Look at the current Polaris MRZR ATVs that light forces currently use  as your point of reference. This is like a MRZR that carries an entire infantry section 

This is a political purchase by the liberal government to make it look like they support the military...and at 30 to 40 million it is a deal of a deal...liberals get air time and liberal voters get to feel good about their government...This vehicle has so many drawbacks it does not make sense in any role in latvia...Kind of like a skidoo only good in the winter, this one only really good in the summer or fall...would it not make more sense to buy something that could be heated, used all year round......enclosed, armored of some type....

What does not make sense is placing a LT infantry force in a light role mixed in with a mechanized battle group, both have very different roles and mission sets...like oil and water..they don't mix well...

MRZR were to carry heavy weapons like TOW, Mortars, heavy HMG's....combat support vehicles...not troop transports...

 

[Dougie93]

20 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

This is a political purchase by the liberal government to make it look like they support the military...

indeed

and at a very constrained cost

because they will have to spend the money on the navy & air force

the army is going to have to tighten its belts, just to pay for Type 26, F-35 & P-8

[taxme]

On 7/27/2023 at 5:02 AM, Dougie93 said:

the military states that it is in a personnel crisis, more than 10,000 under strength

and there are shortages of basic equipment such as uniforms, sleeping bags & helmets

so this is like your house is falling down

but you go out an buy 9 Rolls Royce's to park in the driveway

typical Canada

The military has a woke problem. The military is hiring not on merit but who and what group does one belong too. They hire a mish-mash of odds and ends looking people. The military use to hire big and tough looking men. Now they hire on genders and what group someone belongs too. They hire short people and tall people and fat people and skinny people and when they all stand in line, it looks like a funny warped looking line. They call it equity. Some women get promoted to generals who have not seen a day in combat bypassing qualified men. 

Maybe if the Marxist dictator in Ottawa would stop sending billions of Canadian tax dollars to Ukraine and use that money instead on their own military personal, there probably would be no need for a shortage of uniforms, sleeping bags and helmets.

You are right though? Typical Canada alright. One of the most leftist liberal woke countries in the world. It's no wonder that the Canadian woke military is short on personal. We have way too many woke personal running the Canadian military. Just my opinion. 😇

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, taxme said:

The military has a woke problem.

because the military is the most hierarchical institution of them all

all the Woke have to do is seize control of the government

the first place they can impose their rule thereafter is the military

because the military has to obey orders and will obey orders

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

This is a political purchase by the liberal government to make it look like they support the military

No this came from the army not politicians they have been talking about acquiring thai capability for quite a while and evaluating different vehicles. I even posted an article about it from Canadian Army Today in this thread once where they fast-tracked a limited interim vehicle acquisition for Latvia, which is what this LTV is.
 

AGAIN I will point out that US Army developed this vehicle and has purchased 2,500+ for 82nd Airborne and I believe also 101st Airborne 

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.

….

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.….

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

 

Tactical Mobility for Light Forces

Dec 23, 2020 

La version française de cet article est disponible après le texte anglais.

by Chris Thatcher

When Canadian Army Light Forces next deploy into a conflict zone, it could be on a fleet of four-wheeled, lightweight, off-road vehicles. A request for information (RFI) went out to industry this fall to help the Directorate of Land Requirements project team fine-tune a capability that would help light infantry reach off-road objectives far quicker and easier than by foot.

“I’ve written the statement of requirements (SOR) for this vehicle based on feedback from the user community and the Canadian Army Land Warfare Center (CALWC), and it will go out along with the RFI to gauge how much of it they can meet and at what cost,” said Major Tony Ross, the project director for what is known as Light Forces Enhancement (LFE).

 

https://canadianarmytoday.com/tag/light-forces-enhancement/

Edited August 20, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

AGAIN I will point out that US Army developed this vehicle and has purchased 2,500+ for 82nd Airborne and I believe also 101st Airborne

in fairness tho, the Pentagon is not to be trusted

like if you look at the vehicle and can see that it is junk

but then are told that it is a GM product bought by the Pentagon

then you know that Canada has simply been pressured into buying some junk by the Americans therein

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

This is a political purchase by the liberal government to make it look like they support the military...and at 30 to 40 million it is a deal of a deal...liberals get air time and liberal voters get to feel good about their government...This vehicle has so many drawbacks it does not make sense in any role in latvia...Kind of like a skidoo only good in the winter, this one only really good in the summer or fall...would it not make more sense to buy something that could be heated, used all year round......enclosed, armored of some type....

What does not make sense is placing a LT infantry force in a light role mixed in with a mechanized battle group, both have very different roles and mission sets...like oil and water..they don't mix well...

MRZR were to carry heavy weapons like TOW, Mortars, heavy HMG's....combat support vehicles...not troop transports...

 

Because only light infantry can fight from tenches, from inside buildings, in forests and other terrain where heavy vehicles can’t go. And light infantry can deploy faster. You can’t surge mech infantry into theatre in a matter of hours so LI is the surge force. It’s not unheard of to attach LI Bn to a mech brigade. Itself a combined arms force where different assets have different roles. 
 

As for the MRZR I’m not sure what it’s future is but it was found to be too light a platform for weapons, the .50 in particular was completely unusable because the vehicle bounced too much

Can your light off-road vehicle handle a .50 cal?
 

..,The battalions have in general given the capability favourable reviews. The MRZR-Ds have proven the Army’s concept of getting soldiers and gear to a target more quickly and in better condition than if they had hiked in on foot. But the off-road tests revealed the need for a sturdier platform to navigate obstacle crossings in wetlands, forests, and other difficult terrain.

…

https://canadianarmytoday.com/can-your-light-off-road-vehicle-handle-a-50-cal/
 

Notably the new LTV currently has no weapons capability, and is only being used for mobility. I assume that’s because it’s an interim vehicle that they will still be evaluating tactics and refining their requirements for the actual LFE vehicle they will finally acquire. 

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

in fairness tho, the Pentagon is not to be trusted

like if you look at the vehicle and can see that it is junk

but then are told that it is a GM product bought by the Pentagon

then you know that Canada has simply been pressured into buying some junk by the Americans therein

I think people just don’t understand the vehicle’s mission and purpose. All the criticism centres around the expectation that it will be used like LAV or Bradley 

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I think people just don’t understand the vehicle’s mission and purpose. All the criticism centres around the expectation that it will be used like LAV or Bradley 

but point blank against the Russian 6th Combined Arms Army in Latvia is a mechanized tasking

so basically the Liberals are pretending that they are doing something usefull

by purchasing what are in essence Jeeps

for a tasking which calls for Infantry Fighting Vehicles

because those Jeeps are cheap and made by General Motors

but nobody in Canada will notice, so the Liberals can claim that they are supporting NATO with new equipment

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

for a tasking which calls for Infantry Fighting Vehicles

 

No.  Dismounted forces will be conducting the taskings that call for dismounted forces. 

The vehicle is just what they will use to move long distances in, instead of walking or school buses.  Why is that so hard to understand?

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No.  Dismounted forces will be conducting the taskings that call for dismounted forces.

dismounted is not a role

and if you are driving in a jeep

because the Commie Government of Canada is too cheap and/or treasonous to provide proper kit

you  are still mounted in those jeeps

[BeaverFever]

59 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

dismounted is not a role

and if you are driving in a jeep

because the Commie Government of Canada is too cheap and/or treasonous to provide proper kit

you  are still mounted in those jeeps

There are and always will be tasking and missions that require troops to operate on foot which is why light infantry exists 

As for your claim that this requirement was invented by the liberal government and not the army itself, not only does it lack evidence but you’ve been provided evidence to the contrary. Don’t let your rabid Trudeau Derangement Syndrome lead you astray.
 

There are more than enough reasons to criticize them heavily on the defence file without having to fabricate crazy irrational ones. 

[Dougie93]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 Don’t let your rabid Trudeau Derangement Syndrome lead you astray.

I have governance in Canada derangement syndrome

the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals on defence procurement

TAPV is junk, so is AOPS

and Trudeau is buying F-35 & P-8 reversing his previously nonsensical position

it's back to the 1970's, when the Liberals were forced to get with the program under American pressure

buying Leopard 1, CP-140 & CF-18

but the idea that these trucks are useful for NATO in Latvia ?

nah, that's obviously just PR

I mean, these trucks could not even be used in Afghanistan against the Taliban

so they are obviously not suitable for high intensity near peer war against the Russians

these trucks would be limited to driving around in the Administrative echelon

they could not be brought forward into the Fighting echelon

and if you're just driving around in the A echelon,

you could just use the trucks Canada already has, MSVS

that being said, $36 million is small beer by the standards of Canadian boondoggles

so the damage is comparatively minimal as opposed to blowing $6 billion on the AOPS

Edited August 21, 2024 by Dougie93