Canadian Defence News

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

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

The TAPV wasn’t requested by the Army, DND decided that Army requirements for a Coyote replacement and MRAP replacement could be merged into one vehicle that’s not ideal for either role. 
 

The LTV is neither a combat platform nor an admin vehicle, those are not the only 2 options. Again you have no objections to light infantry using MRZR whey would you object to this is just a sturdier MRZR that can carry am entire infantry section 

[Dougie93]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

The LTV is neither a combat platform nor an admin vehicle, those are not the only 2 options. Again you have no objections to light infantry using MRZR whey would you object to this is just a sturdier MRZR that can carry am entire infantry section 

Light Infantry is only useful in certain situations

like if you have to fight in the Central Highlands of Vietnam

or on the Falkland islands

but on a flat open plain like Latvia against the Russian 6th Combined Arms Army ?

I don't see any useful role for Light Infantry

[Dougie93]

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 Again you have no objections to light infantry

Again, what DND should do is pull the Parachute Companies out of the 3rd Battalions

then reform those Company Groups into a Battle Group

then make that Parachute Battle Group the Light Infantry Force

then re-Mechanize the 3rd Battalions into Heavy Combat Teams with tracked vehicles,

same as the Australians;  pick the Lynx or the Redback

you concentrate the Heavy Battle Groups at the CTC/MTC

RCR & Vandoos at Gagetown, Patricia's at Wainwright

then you base the Parachute Battle Group at Petawawa

back to the future

Edited August 21, 2024 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

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 

Your misunderstanding what the different roles are especially mech and Lt Infantry roles...Mech Infantry does fight from trenches, buildings, forrests, and other complex terrain, their IFV is just another fighting tool......Both are Infantry soldiers one rides in an IFV, the other by Aircraft,  Helo, truck, or some other form of transport, both share most of the same tactics...Only major difference is mode of transport how they arrive on the battlefield...

Mechanized forces use prepositioned equipment, such as the 2 companies worth of LAV 6.0 sitting in storage...mech Infantry get on a plane , just like Lt infantry land jump into the prepositioned equipment and go...

It may not be unheard off, but if you go back in Canadian military history it is rare...as both have very different roles to play....one is highly mobile, the other is not, one can is designed to fight near peer forces such as other mechanized or armor forces, the other is not..LT forces are used to attack lt targets such as airfields, helo domes, bridges, targets in the enemies' rear....

These problems with the MRZR could be over come with a few good maintainers and a small amount of funding... the rear deck could be extended, suspension reinforced or rear hydraulic stabilizer arms installs like those on wheel mounted arty...i mean lets be real if your engaging on the move your not going to be hitting many targets accurately... 

Besides a 50 cal has a huge beaten zone...meaning all rounds are not hitting in the same area...the further the target the larger the beaten zone...

I understand the LT infantry role, done it many of times....It is not a concern it will used LIKE a LAV or Bradly , but it will be used in the same environment as BMP's, BTR's and Main battle tanks, That's what the existing LAV force will be engaging.......

Unless your telling me they are not going to operate with the mechanized forces but rather have their own mission....and if that is the case not much good as a fly over force for reinforcements are they....

No weapons' mounted as of yet....besides one can mount a GMPG or LMG on bipods or slings/ straps hanging off the roll bars like the old ilitis 

[Army Guy]

24 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The TAPV wasn’t requested by the Army, DND decided that Army requirements for a Coyote replacement and MRAP replacement could be merged into one vehicle that’s not ideal for either role. 
 

The LTV is neither a combat platform nor an admin vehicle, those are not the only 2 options. Again you have no objections to light infantry using MRZR whey would you object to this is just a sturdier MRZR that can carry am entire infantry section 

TAPV is a disaster, and it is employed in roles it was not designed for....Its huge to start with,for a recce vehs it's massive ...no surveillance mast... top heavy, there is a u tube out of one tumbling down a highway in quebec....after being cut off by some civy...it has a limited crew....Coyote is being replaced by a LAV 6.0 platform still in the works...

Anyone that has carried the tow, .50 cal, or c-16 will tell you any lift you give them is going to be appreciated...In the winter they get help by Skidoo or BV-206....bringing us back to a heated platform that can be used in all environments and would thrive in Latvia an near artic nation...not to mention here in Canada....Shit the british even mounted TOW, 40MM , and 50 cals on them...even have 120 mm mortars, air defence systems, EW systems there is a huge list of applications...

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your misunderstanding what the different roles are especially mech and Lt Infantry roles...Mech Infantry does fight from trenches, buildings, forrests, and other complex terrain, their IFV is just another fighting tool......Both are Infantry soldiers one rides in an IFV, the other by Aircraft,  Helo, truck, or some other form of transport, both share most of the same tactics...Only major difference is mode of transport how they arrive on the battlefield...

Mechanized forces use prepositioned equipment, such as the 2 companies worth of LAV 6.0 sitting in storage...mech Infantry get on a plane , just like Lt infantry land jump into the prepositioned equipment and go...

It may not be unheard off, but if you go back in Canadian military history it is rare...as both have very different roles to play....one is highly mobile, the other is not, one can is designed to fight near peer forces such as other mechanized or armor forces, the other is not..LT forces are used to attack lt targets such as airfields, helo domes, bridges, targets in the enemies' rear....

These problems with the MRZR could be over come with a few good maintainers and a small amount of funding... the rear deck could be extended, suspension reinforced or rear hydraulic stabilizer arms installs like those on wheel mounted arty...i mean lets be real if your engaging on the move your not going to be hitting many targets accurately... 

Besides a 50 cal has a huge beaten zone...meaning all rounds are not hitting in the same area...the further the target the larger the beaten zone...

I understand the LT infantry role, done it many of times....It is not a concern it will used LIKE a LAV or Bradly , but it will be used in the same environment as BMP's, BTR's and Main battle tanks, That's what the existing LAV force will be engaging.......

Unless your telling me they are not going to operate with the mechanized forces but rather have their own mission....and if that is the case not much good as a fly over force for reinforcements are they....

No weapons' mounted as of yet....besides one can mount a GMPG or LMG on bipods or slings/ straps hanging off the roll bars like the old ilitis 

HM Canadian Army of the 1980's was actually optimal in terms of this onset of Cold War Two

1st Canadian Division ( Mechanized ) consisting of four Mechanized Brigade Groups

one Mechanized Brigade Group forward deployed to Europe

with the Special Service Force at Petawawa

as the Parachute/Light/Motorized Defence of Canada/Mobile Striking Force

ain't broke, don't fix it

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

How is this not defined by the liberal government, i mean every purchase must go through a stringent vetting process, including being vetted by the liberal government, "Most" of all our government purchases have been decided by the government inn charge , Military gives procurement officials a list of specs...the government decides what brand they buy, then the military tests it sends the results back to government and poof They decide good or bad, it is the government that decides everything....I mean look at the LSVW that veh was tested and failed dozens of times before government just told them to buy it, it was a piece of crap...

And if we are criticizing the defense file lets not forget the conservatives, they got their share of screw up,s and success stories...like the C-17....total failures not buying/ Renting Chinooks fast enough lots of blame to go around....every Canadian owns a bit of that shit sandwich as well. 

 

[Dougie93]

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

.every Canadian owns a bit of that shit sandwich as well. 

 

the problem is at the strategic level and it is actually cultural

in that the Canadian military is a British Institution allied to America

when the vast majority of Canadians reject their British origins and fear & loathe America

Canadians actually view their military personnel as "victims" therein

those naive fools who swore an oath to the King to fight overseas for the American Hegemony

hence there is massive friction against all things military in Canada

the vast majority of Canadians actually harbour completely unrealistic fantasies about being Neutrals

that's nonsensical of course, since they would never be willing to pay for it

none the less, they are not willing to pay for the Anglo-American wars neither

once this sort of disloyalty was limited to Quebec

but it has long since expanded to the rest of the Confederation, with the exception of British Alberta perhaps

[herbie]

No the problem is thinking you can't drive yourself to work in a Smartcar because you really want an F350 4x4.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

How is this not defined by the liberal government, i mean every purchase must go through a stringent vetting process, including being vetted by the liberal government, "Most" of all our government purchases have been decided by the government inn charge , Military gives procurement officials a list of specs...the government decides what brand they buy, then the military tests it sends the results back to government and poof They decide good or bad, it is the government that decides everything....I mean look at the LSVW that veh was tested and failed dozens of times before government just told them to buy it, it was a piece of crap...

It’s one thing to complain about the build quality of a vehicle it’s another to complain about the role and concept 

The complaints seem to be mostly about the role and concept of a  light infantry/paratroop vehicle that can be transported by helicopter and dropped by parachute. But the Army has been working on the light infantry vehicle concept since 2017, its not something that was suddenly foisted upon them by the political leadership. Same in the USA.  Which is why Canada and US have been using M-RZRS and SPEC Ops have been using Dagors. The primary reason is that  near-peer adversaries have advanced in long-range air defence so airmobile/airborne troops must be dropped further and further away from their objective, up to 100km away apparently. Without a vehicle they are covering that distance on foot.   Note this doesn’t mean they’re taking the vehicle all the way to the enemy, they’re going part of the way then stashing the vehicle and finishing the route on foot  

 

Here’s another scenario:  Light infantry is deployed to an urban environment to take up defensive positions inside the town’s buildings and structures. On short notice, a platoon is ordered to reposition from one side of town to the other, or to another nearby town  The LI vehicle allows them to do so much more rapidly so they can be in place before the enemy arrives  

Note that the LI procurement project is still open and ongoing. This is a limited interim purchase that was fast/tracked for Latvia and will be used to refine the requirements for the actual purchase. As the article I posted earlier states, quick delivery in 2024 was a requirement for the interim vehicle purchase. It would be interesting to know what other options there were.
 

Interesting to note that mounted weapons are a requirement for the final vehicle to be chosen, but there’s no mention of them for this vehicle and I think that’s because it’s an interim vehicle and they’re still learning and refining requirements, tactics doctrine etc so have no intention of getting this vehicle anywhere near the enemy for now.   However the future vehicle still to be selected  I believe could be used for “light reconnaissance”, ie scouting so would theoretically employ weapons under some circumstances. The US Marines have had all sorts of light and ultralight vehicles with heavy weapons mounted they even have a VSHORAD Polaris MRZR ATV

 

 

BTW I am no fan of TAPV especially for the reconnaissance role they’ve pushed it into while the develop the coyote replacement. MAYBE it has usefulness as a MRAP but MRAPs are so GWOT/COIN that’s why the US military dumped so many on law enforcement about a decade ago. 

Edited August 21, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

No the problem is thinking you can't drive yourself to work in a Smartcar because you really want an F350 4x4.

otherwise known as the Canadian military has Champagne tastes on a Beer budget

but the truth is, it's not just the Canadian military

the entire Canadian population has Champagne tastes on a Beer budget

hence why Canada is going broke

[herbie]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the entire Canadian population has Champagne tastes on a Beer budget

More or less what I implied.
The days of buying the plans for an updated Panzerkamfwagen, shelling out billions to build a factory in Quebec to create jobs and paying $85,000 each when the Jeep dealer on the corner had better stuff and spare parts for only $12,000 are over.
That from the ex of someone who built all those Army trucks in the 1980s that sat idle in parking lots until they were too rusty to even move.

Seeing as how you like everything British, you must be familiar with the term "make do".

 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Seeing as how you like everything British, you must be familiar with the term "make do".

oh I am more than willing to make do

since the real threat to Canadians is the breakdown of civil order in the streets

the arm of decision therein would a massive expansion of the citizen soldier Militia

the future is not actually World War Three, the future is Aid to the Civil Power

there's really nothing America can do about Canada refusing to spend big on American military hardware

anything America threatens to do about it, in terms of punishing Canada, America was going to do anyways

thus if Canada was concerned about its own interests, assuming Canada is not a colony nor a fake country

then Canada should look to the 1885 solution rather than the 1945 solution

[herbie]

Well seeing these vehicles are going to be used 99% for moving troops and supplies where they aren't going to be dodging bullets and IEDs and use civilian GM parts, they seem more than adequate.
Contrasting to your opinion no one is going to shoot anyone for voting Tory or Liberal or NDP or Green. Though we do have our share of malcontents, they're nothing that a bulldozer or genuine horseback charge wouldn't disperse.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s one thing to complain about the build quality of a vehicle it’s another to complain about the role and concept 

The complaints seem to be mostly about the role and concept of a  light infantry/paratroop vehicle that can be transported by helicopter and dropped by parachute. But the Army has been working on the light infantry vehicle concept since 2017, its not something that was suddenly foisted upon them by the political leadership. Same in the USA.  Which is why Canada and US have been using M-RZRS and SPEC Ops have been using Dagors. The primary reason is that  near-peer adversaries have advanced in long-range air defence so airmobile/airborne troops must be dropped further and further away from their objective, up to 100km away apparently. Without a vehicle they are covering that distance on foot.   Note this doesn’t mean they’re taking the vehicle all the way to the enemy, they’re going part of the way then stashing the vehicle and finishing the route on foot  

 

Here’s another scenario:  Light infantry is deployed to an urban environment to take up defensive positions inside the town’s buildings and structures. On short notice, a platoon is ordered to reposition from one side of town to the other, or to another nearby town  The LI vehicle allows them to do so much more rapidly so they can be in place before the enemy arrives  

Note that the LI procurement project is still open and ongoing. This is a limited interim purchase that was fast/tracked for Latvia and will be used to refine the requirements for the actual purchase. As the article I posted earlier states, quick delivery in 2024 was a requirement for the interim vehicle purchase. It would be interesting to know what other options there were.
 

Interesting to note that mounted weapons are a requirement for the final vehicle to be chosen, but there’s no mention of them for this vehicle and I think that’s because it’s an interim vehicle and they’re still learning and refining requirements, tactics doctrine etc so have no intention of getting this vehicle anywhere near the enemy for now.   However the future vehicle still to be selected  I believe could be used for “light reconnaissance”, ie scouting so would theoretically employ weapons under some circumstances. The US Marines have had all sorts of light and ultralight vehicles with heavy weapons mounted they even have a VSHORAD Polaris MRZR ATV

 

 

BTW I am no fan of TAPV especially for the reconnaissance role they’ve pushed it into while the develop the coyote replacement. MAYBE it has usefulness as a MRAP but MRAPs are so GWOT/COIN that’s why the US military dumped so many on law enforcement about a decade ago. 

So i guess i cross the line then....I mean what would i know about Infantry roles be it LT infantry or mechanized...Just becasue it was our government that made the choice it does not mean it was the right one...

We don't have any Helos or aircraft capable of dropping them in Latvia...Yes the Army has been working on this project for years, and will be for many more years...Perhaps talk to exflyer he worked on military national procurement...ask him how much pull the military has on getting specific equipment? Who finally picked the F-35, ...the new Frigate design, AOP's the list goes on and on...all were picked by our political masters they have the final say...The program may have been driven by the military need but the choices are done by our government .... Military submitted Specs...on very few procurement has the military pointed to the government and said we want this...C-17 was one of those buys...they are rare..

Every nation in NATO still has airbourne and airmobile troops on the roaster, Helo bourne troops fly NAP of the earth tree top to avoid radar and most air defenses...I'm sure if airborne forces where to be used they would be escorted by aircraft with jammers etc etc...once again landing maybe 10 KM from objective and walking in with all their kit....

Mission that are 100 KM into the enemies rear are rare for regular force troops, more a spec ops mission....to much risk...See the bridge to far...

i don't see any of them trading in Trillions of dollars in Helicopters, or transport planes becasue enemy air defense are good...they might land 10 kms away from the objective, but one things is always sure they are humping to the objective...heavy weapons systems are broken down and distributed among the troops...No one drives 100 km through enemy held territory let alone in a lt veh like this one...not even Mechanized troops operate that way.....not since patton did it in WWII...

Canada agreed to man and command a mechanized Brigade...LT forces might be flown over, but it is not to act as LT forces but part of a mechanized unit...

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

More or less what I implied.
The days of buying the plans for an updated Panzerkamfwagen, shelling out billions to build a factory in Quebec to create jobs and paying $85,000 each when the Jeep dealer on the corner had better stuff and spare parts for only $12,000 are over.
That from the ex of someone who built all those Army trucks in the 1980s that sat idle in parking lots until they were too rusty to even move.

Seeing as how you like everything British, you must be familiar with the term "make do".

 

Your joking right...Canada just invested tens of billions in EV battery plants and making EV's ...i guess you did not get that memo....

I doubt very much the jeep dealer had the same vehicles that meant the same spec's for 12 k....the MLVW built in quebec was priced at 50 K each and thats in the 80's...Jeep could not even touch the specs of those trucks....besides military contracts are not for the military,  they enrich our MP's and other rich people who jack the shit out of prices once DND is mentioned....And in the end they did sit in the fields rusting because they were 35 plus years old and spare parts were no longer available....and the government cut funding to have them fixed...

Yes make do,  this coming from someone i can only assume does not make do.......let me ask you is your car 35 plus years old, and yet you are telling todays soldiers to make do...Thank you for your support...I can tell you for a fact next flood, ice storm, earth quake, forest fire , DND will not be telling you to make do...they'll walk if they have to...when they arrive tell them how much you support them...

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Well seeing these vehicles are going to be used 99% for moving troops and supplies where they aren't going to be dodging bullets and IEDs and use civilian GM parts, they seem more than adequate.
Contrasting to your opinion no one is going to shoot anyone for voting Tory or Liberal or NDP or Green. Though we do have our share of malcontents, they're nothing that a bulldozer or genuine horseback charge wouldn't disperse.

What a load of crock...Afghanistan the only safe roads where inside the camp...leaving the camp meant you were going to get shot at or blown up by an IED...that was insurgency warfare one of the tammer ones...Latvia is or will be a high intensity warfare...and it won't matter what your moving or driving it will be shot at or blown up...as for GM parts i mean GM has dealer ships all over europe, to bad they don't have north american truck parts... 

[herbie]

Oh FFS I attended an auction for those VW things. all rustier and more gutless than some hobbyist's old CJ. The floor price was more than they were worth. And my JK 30 years after sold for less than half the price of those THINGs (that's what they were).

We ain't IN Afghanistan, nobody's even asked for us to do peacekeeping anymore, we have a handful of troops in the Balkans.
We're talking about trucks, not ammo and vests or guns. No need to order tanks instead.

[Dougie93]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

Contrasting to your opinion no one is going to shoot anyone for voting Tory or Liberal or NDP or Green. Though we do have our share of malcontents, they're nothing that a bulldozer or genuine horseback charge wouldn't disperse.

an expanded  Militia ( Army Reserve ) fulfills a broad spectrum of Canada's National Security roles

in Aid to the Civil Power

Arctic Sovereignty

Border Security

Riot Control

Crowd Control

Escort to the Police

Escort to Other Emergency Services

Humanitarian Assistance

Disaster Response

Vital Point Security

Close Protection Detail

Military Footprint in the Community

Basis of Recruitment for the CAF in general

Source of Augmentation to the Regular Force

Deep pool of Personnel selectable to CANSOFCOM

Framework of Mobilization for a Global War

Last Line of Defence in the face of invasion

from Queenston Heights to Juno Beach

Vigilamus Pro Te

[Army Guy]

On 8/22/2024 at 12:06 AM, herbie said:

Oh FFS I attended an auction for those VW things. all rustier and more gutless than some hobbyist's old CJ. The floor price was more than they were worth. And my JK 30 years after sold for less than half the price of those THINGs (that's what they were).

We ain't IN Afghanistan, nobody's even asked for us to do peacekeeping anymore, we have a handful of troops in the Balkans.
We're talking about trucks, not ammo and vests or guns. No need to order tanks instead.

Because that was what the government choose to buy,like i have said a million times The military sends in a sheet of specs, civilians then go out and pick 1/2 dozens or so what they think meets those specs...IN most cases it is the Government that picks what they are going to buy, and in most times it is not what DNDN picked but rather what they considered the best vehicle, kind of like having your wife pick out your power tools.

You do know that all government auctions for military equipment are sealed bids , the highest bids win, those that want crappy army vehs over bid...got nothing to do with the government setting prices or controlling prices if no one bids you could have gotten it for a dollar...

NO we Ain't but our government has a proven record of sending us any where in the world in or out of combat...and we go with what ever equipment they decide to buy...I know of atleast 8 soldiers that died in Ilits in Afghanistan, before they went out and purchased the lowest protection in a G wagon...only to have more soldiers and a diplomat die in those before they purchased MRAPS, which everyone had on day one....`159 soldiers died in Afghanistan most of them from IED's we went 4 years before they decided to rent off the US Chinook helos to keep us off the roads...

Easy to sit in your arm chair and say we ain't in Afghanistan, when a new conflict could blow up tommorrow and we still would not have the right equipment, but soldiers don't get to decide where they are going....but it sounds like your good with burying them instead of equipping them to do the job right....

We are talking about trucks, ones that are unsuited to do the job....they are open are in an artic country, have you read any of the posts....that fact alone should tell you it is the wrong veh...there are plenty of other reasons..

[Army Guy]

 

[BeaverFever]

On 8/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Army Guy said:

We don't have any Helos or aircraft capable of dropping them in Latvia

Our Chinooks, which will be a permanent part of the Latvia brigade can sling one underneath or even carry one internally (but apparently not both simultaneously for safety/stability reasons even though it has the lift and power to do so). When slinging a vehicle it still has ample power and stability left over to carry troops and gear internally Also Latvia being a multinational brigade presumably coalition aircraft are also available. 
 

On 8/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Army Guy said:

Perhaps talk to exflyer he worked on military national procurement...ask him how much pull the military has on getting specific equipment? Who finally picked the F-35, ...the new Frigate design, AOP's the list goes on and on...all were picked by our political masters they have the final say...The program may have been driven by the military need but the choices are done by our government .... Military submitted Specs...on very few procurement has the military pointed to the government and said we want this...C-17 was one of those buys...they are rare..

Yeah I don’t disagree but I think this vehicle is another of those decent buys that were “Urgent Operational Requirements” like C-17, C-130J, Chinooks, Leopard 2s, Cougar MRAP, Buffalo MRAP,  M777 howitzers for Afghanistan.  All were decent buys, if limited in quantity. All were procured under the expedited “urgent operational requirement” protocol same as this LTV and the Spike ATGMs.  MAYBE the RBS-70 NG MANPAD which is also a UOR I believe will also be a good buy, but I’m not so certain or knowledgeable about it.   If anything UOR seems to be sign that the procurement won’t be screwed up by politicians and bureaucrats. 
 

On 8/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Army Guy said:

Every nation in NATO still has airbourne and airmobile troops on the roaster, Helo bourne troops fly NAP of the earth tree top to avoid radar and most air defenses...I'm sure if airborne forces where to be used they would be escorted by aircraft with jammers etc etc...once again landing maybe 10 KM from objective and walking in with all their kit....

I dunno, the experience out of Ukraine suggests airborne/ air assault is severely hampered if not dead.  I’m sure they’ve considered nap-of-the-earth flying…even though much of Ukraine is flat prairie…

On 8/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Army Guy said:

Mission that are 100 KM into the enemies rear are rare for regular force troops, more a spec ops mission....to much risk...See the bridge to far...

It’s not 100km to the enemy’s rear that they’re worried about. It’s the fact that the enemy can now theoretically effectively defend airspace up to 100km to their FRONT and FLANKS.   So no matter where you approach from, the last stretch, possibly up to 100k,  is on the ground. 
 

On 8/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Army Guy said:

i don't see any of them trading in Trillions of dollars in Helicopters, or transport planes becasue enemy air defense are good...they might land 10 kms away from the objective, but one things is always sure they are humping to the objective...heavy weapons systems are broken down and distributed among the troops...No one drives 100 km through enemy held territory let alone in a lt veh like this one...not even Mechanized troops operate that way.....not since patton did it in WWII...

No way they’re flying choppers within 10k of sophisticated air defences. How far they go into enemy territory will depend upon mission and threat environment but the general overarching principle is soldiers dismount well before entering any are with elevated threats. Look in many missions involving light forces there’s a component where they are en route via foot or crammed into civilian vehicles or school buses and this simply gives them a better alternative 

 

On 8/21/2024 at 9:02 PM, Army Guy said:

Canada agreed to man and command a mechanized Brigade...LT forces might be flown over, but it is not to act as LT forces but part of a mechanized unit...

From the sounds of everything officially communicated, they certainly seem to expect some soldiers will need to be conducting “dismounted” operations one way or the other…whether that’s by mech infantry being assigned to dismounted tasks as needed or just light forces being flown in remains to be seen   I expect that the mission requires a flexible force that run the spectrum of operations as needed under the circumstances be it mounted or dismounted 

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

From the sounds of everything officially communicated, they certainly seem to expect some soldiers will need to be conducting “dismounted” operations one way or the other…whether that’s by mech infantry being assigned to dismounted tasks as needed or just light forces being flown in remains to be seen   I expect that the mission requires a flexible force that run the spectrum of operations as needed under the circumstances be it mounted or dismounted 

dismounted is not a role

mechanized infantry fight dismounted, as soon as you reach towns, woods and/or defensive positions

the real reason that Canada has three "Light" battalions, is that they are cheap

it allows to the department to fail to equip three of its nine battalions with manoeuvre fighting vehicles

simply as a cost savings exercise imposed by budgetary constraints

[Dougie93]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

the key point here is that the military no longer has the capacity to replace,  never mind recover its losses

there's just not enough instructors left in the combat arms to run sufficient courses

even Bill Blair is calling it a "death spiral"

[Dougie93]

Admiral's (ret.) Norman, Davidson & Cassivi talk submarines for the CDA Institute