Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

Bombardier does not stand a chance trying to sell they could build a tank. However GDSL most certainly could, In a competition I could possibly see GDSL teaming up with SK to build/assemble K2's in Canada.

GDLS Canada isn’t going to be able to do that. It’s controlled by its American parent.
The best one could hope for from a GDLS standpoint is AbramsX for Canada built in London.

Then lobbying BAE to build a CV-90 line in Canada as well. Maybe Bombardier could partner in that

 

[brihard]

Bombardier does not stand a chance trying to sell they could build a tank.

Like that would stop them.

 

[dapaterson]

Then lobbying BAE to build a CV-90 line in Canada as well. Maybe Bombardier could partner in that

Finding the skilled or semi skilled labour to do that would be a big challenge in most locations that would be most politically beneficial...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Like that would stop them.

If they still had the train works here in Canada, then I suspect they make a pitch, "historical precedent" etc, etc

Bombardier Transportation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[suffolkowner]

Maybe Bombardier could build some loitering munitions since their/Rotax engines make it to Turkey and Iran for that already

 

[KevinB]

Finding the skilled or semi skilled labour to do that would be a big challenge in most locations that would be most politically beneficial...

To quote @brihard Like they would stop them

 

[Kirkhill]

It never made any sense to me. The French didnt need anything the Germans had to offer and weren't going to stand splitting the pie up smaller. Looks like we might end up with a bit of deja vu

Abrams = M1A3
Leo2 = Leo3
Leclerc = Leclerc 2
Ariete = Leo3?
Challenger = ???
??? = K2/K3

I think we are best to modernize our tanks the best we can and see if we can pick up some 2A4's from storage until this new generation of tanks is ready.

Both Leo 3 and Challenger 3 are Rheinmetall products and I saw something about Italy joining Sweden and Norway in working with Rheinmetall on building Leo 3s.

I wonder if Britain will get off the pot and ditch the AJAX and join the rest of non-French Europe in a Leo CV90 fleet?

 

[Kirkhill]

There will be a metric ass ton of M1A2 Abrams on the market if AbramsX is the A3…

Canada could probably make a compelling argument that there is no need to remove DU panels from them either as a nation that can do it (theoretically) themselves.

I swear you have shares...

 

[suffolkowner]

Both Leo 3 and Challenger 3 are Rheinmetall products and I saw something about Italy joining Sweden and Norway in working with Rheinmetall on building Leo 3s.

I wonder if Britain will get off the pot and ditch the AJAX and join the rest of non-French Europe in a Leo CV90 fleet?

Yes but not a lot of room for home grown industry. Is it worth it for 150-250 hulls?

 

[Kirkhill]

GDLS Canada isn’t going to be able to do that. It’s controlled by its American parent.
The best one could hope for from a GDLS standpoint is AbramsX for Canada built in London.

Then lobbying BAE to build a CV-90 line in Canada as well. Maybe Bombardier could partner in that

To heck with Bombardier - Quebec has already got the most lucrative portion of the tracked business sewn up for all the armoured vehicles.

The Rubber Tracks - a glorious consummable.

About Us

Soucy, founded in 1967, has 1,200 employees in 10 locations in North America and Asia.

www.soucy-group.com

CRT Systems | Soucy Defense Division

CRT SYSTEMS Our Composite Rubber Track systems have been operationally deployed in several theatres, meeting the specific requirements of militaries worldwide.

soucy-defense.com

CRT Systems | Soucy Defense Division

CRT SYSTEMS Our Composite Rubber Track systems have been operationally deployed in several theatres, meeting the specific requirements of militaries worldwide.

soucy-defense.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes but not a lot of room for home grown industry. Is it worth it for 150-250 hulls?

Some of the signals coming out of the UK might suggest that they are leaning away from making hardware and moving towards electronics, cyber and software as more profitable ventures.

 

[Spencer100]

Maybe Bombardier could build some loitering munitions since their/Rotax engines make it to Turkey and Iran for that already

To be pedantic BRP makes the Rotax engine in Austria. BRP has no relation at all to the Bombardier Corp that makes just biz jets now.

I would not worry about the BRP or Bombardier on any of this. BRP is not even trying in the defense much like there US competitor Polaris. They didn't complain when Polaris was selected by the CAF.

 

[KevinB]

I swear you have shares...

Realistic view from the South.

1) GDLS London can’t continue building LAV’s forever. There is a limit as to what can be done with a wheeled platform, despite what the CA thinks

2) Rhienmetall isn’t going to be building a tank facility in Canada.

3) Commonalities with the US on major capital equipment make a great deal of sense as our logistics chain is second to none.

 

[Kirkhill]

Realistic view from the South.

1) GDLS London can’t continue building LAV’s forever. There is a limit as to what can be done with a wheeled platform, despite what the CA thinks

2) Rhienmetall isn’t going to be building a tank facility in Canada.

3) Commonalities with the US on major capital equipment make a great deal of sense as our logistics chain is second to none.

Items 2 and 3 I fully accept.

Item 1 I would parse.

I agree there is a limit to what can be done with a wheeled platform. And personally I think the CA has moved into Maus territory with its LAV upgrades.

But

There is a limit to what can be done with a tracked platform.

I can see a continuing need for both wheeled and tracked platforms. I could see GDLS building LAVs forever.

I could see them continuing in the Stryker mode as lightly armoured buses with the armament limited to some sort of hybrid Trophy C-RAM / C-UAS RWS system. A reactive system.

Equally I think there will be a continuing need for something like the JLTV and something like the BvS10 as well as something like 8x8 HVs and HMTVs.

It has been pointed out be better folks than me that everything from railway tracks to rocket boosters have their design constraints set by the width of two horses (or oxen). Surface transport standards were established when we became beastmasters and remained unchanged until we developed steam power and the internal combustion engine. Even with their advent the infrastructure inherited from the wagons impacted the design of new transport.

I think that flight has opened new opportunities but also exposed some new limitations. It has shown that there are limits to certain flying forms and the numbers that can be economically produced. After more than 100 years of experimenting some forms, some aircraft, it seems to me are showing themselves to have staying power. To my mind two of those are the Chinook and the Hercules. They are profitable niche carriers. Their also seems to be a degree of consensus about the dimensions of air freighters and sea lifters. Another area of broad consensus is the specs of vehicles that can travel on highways and rails - again driven by those two ancient oxen.

For me that means

	Ultra-Light	Light	Heavy	Super Heavy
	2 Tonnes	7 Tonnes	15 tonnes	50 Tonnes
	Blackhawk	Chinook	Hercules	Highways
Wheeled	Logistics	Logistics	Logistics	Logistics
Tracked	ATV	ATV	ATV	Assault

I can easily see GDLS Canada continuing to produce armoured wheeled vehicles in the 7 to 15 tonne range for logistics purposes. They might even be amphibious, following the demonstrated preferences of the Scandinavians and the Eastern Europeans. They seem to like their armoured, amphibious, 8x8 buses - the Mowag Piranha, the Patria Sisu, the Fuchs, the Rosomak. The Japanese and South Koreans also seem to be fans of the concept. I can easily see GDLS continuing to produce Stryker type LAVs in 8x8 or even 6x6 configurations for a long time to come.

But a well fleshed out army is also going to need some of all of the other 7 vehicle types I list

ULV-W
LV-W
HV-W
SHV-W
ULV-T
LV-T
HV-T
SHV-T

We need a bigger stable, and more stablehands and farriers, to handle all the horses required by different courses.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Realistic view from the South.

1) GDLS London can’t continue building LAV’s forever. There is a limit as to what can be done with a wheeled platform, despite what the CA thinks

2) Rhienmetall isn’t going to be building a tank facility in Canada.

3) Commonalities with the US on major capital equipment make a great deal of sense as our logistics chain is second to none.

The South Koreans are disruptors in the market, because they seem to be very willing to adapt to the clients needs and wants. This is why they are grabbing AFV market share. They also don't seem to be as to concerned about how and where you use their end product, unlike the German and Americans. If Canada wanted to have a tank building program, my guess is they would offer to support it in a way that neither the US or Germans would be willing to do. Plus they might also be willing to work the economic benefits of the Sub program into it as well. In example if Canada bought 6 KS-III subs from Korea, then they would invest in a tank assemble/build factory in Canada, to build/assemble their tanks here as the domestic economic offset.

 

[KevinB]

The South Koreans are disruptors in the market, because they seem to be very willing to adapt to the clients needs and wants. This is why they are grabbing AFV market share. They also don't seem to be as to concerned about how and where you use their end product, unlike the German and Americans. If Canada wanted to have a tank building program, my guess is they would offer to support it in a way that neither the US or Germans would be willing to do. Plus they might also be willing to work the economic benefits of the Sub program into it as well. In example if Canada bought 6 KS-III subs from Korea, then they would invest in a tank assemble/build factory in Canada, to build/assemble their tanks here as the domestic economic offset.

I’m of the opinion that the CAF won’t get new subs (despite the need) simply due to cost and priorities.
I think the SK will see Canada for what it is, and not bother pursuing anything after they get a taste of bile.

Does Canada need a domestic production of heavy vehicles — absolutely and agree with @Kirkhill there need to be multiple types.

But one also needs to consider the size of the Canadian fleet.
While I may be of the opinion that Canada needs 600 tanks, I don’t think that the GoC will agree, and even if it did, I don’t think they’d fund it.
20 tanks a year would likely be a reasonable build rate, to allow for a few spares and older models to be retired and some for PRes units to train. However I suspect that 10 would be the likely number.

No one is going to open a new factory for that ROI. You may get a line in an existing factory that can do a Tank and something else.
Hence why I think GDLS London is the best choice for that sort of endeavor.

 

[GR66]

The South Koreans are disruptors in the market, because they seem to be very willing to adapt to the clients needs and wants. This is why they are grabbing AFV market share. They also don't seem to be as to concerned about how and where you use their end product, unlike the German and Americans. If Canada wanted to have a tank building program, my guess is they would offer to support it in a way that neither the US or Germans would be willing to do. Plus they might also be willing to work the economic benefits of the Sub program into it as well. In example if Canada bought 6 KS-III subs from Korea, then they would invest in a tank assemble/build factory in Canada, to build/assemble their tanks here as the domestic economic offset.

Canada won't be buying enough tanks to make building a new factory and developing the associated supply chain economically viable.

GDLS in London is an existing facility with an existing supply chain and support infrastructure for building armoured vehicles already. Having them switch to building Abrams instead of/in addition to LAVs is much more feasible.

The only way I could see a new production facility would be a joint venture between Hanwha and Hyundai to build a full suite of armoured vehicles for Canada including the K2 Black Panther Tank, K9 Thunder SP 155mm and K21 IFV. There could be enough business between the three vehicle types (and supporting variants) to be economically viable if Canada uses the facility to replace the LAVs in the Reg Force Mechanized units.

The political issue (besides the Government not liking to buy things that go "bang") is that it would hurt GDLS-Canada...and those existing jobs. Canada could support both facilities IF we made the decision to equip the Reserves with LAVs, but I think that's a bridge too far at this point.

Edit: @KevinB beat me to my main point but I hope he's wrong on the SSKs

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m of the opinion that the CAF won’t get new subs (despite the need) simply due to cost and priorities.
I think the SK will see Canada for what it is, and not bother pursuing anything after they get a taste of bile.

Does Canada need a domestic production of heavy vehicles — absolutely and agree with @Kirkhill there need to be multiple types.

But one also needs to consider the size of the Canadian fleet.
While I may be of the opinion that Canada needs 600 tanks, I don’t think that the GoC will agree, and even if it did, I don’t think they’d fund it.
20 tanks a year would likely be a reasonable build rate, to allow for a few spares and older models to be retired and some for PRes units to train. However I suspect that 10 would be the likely number.

No one is going to open a new factory for that ROI. You may get a line in an existing factory that can do a Tank and something else.
Hence why I think GDLS London is the best choice for that sort of endeavor.

Better to go the Dutch route and trade for what you need.

We have an established ability to build 15 tonne (plus/minus) LAVs (HV-Ws) in scale. Produce them in scale and trade them for SHV-Ts.
ULV-W, LV-W, HV-W and SHV-W are all produced in Canada. We also produce Tracked vehicles across the spectrum. The particular area in which we are deficient is SHV-Ts of the armoured variety.

And while I was thinking about this I realize the error in my table. Blackhawk. Silly nonsense. The correct reference, of course, should be the Griffon II (The UH-1Y) and its younger long range cousin the Valor.

Canada has lines that produce vehicles and powertrains of all sorts. We also have shops like Roshel and DEW among many others that can generate largish boutique fleets or their own design or under licence.

We have electronics and sensors and ammunition plants. We have the skeleton. We need flesh on the bones and that flesh can only come when contracts are signed and government money is spent. Apparently the money is there because we keep returning unspent money to the Treasury.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We have electronics and sensors and ammunition plants. We have the skeleton. We need flesh on the bones and that flesh can only come when contracts are signed and government money is spent. Apparently the money is there because we keep returning unspent money to the Treasury.

The government(s) are happy with that arrangement as it allows them to claim a larger amount being spent towards the 2%, make statements that they support Defence and then get money back that they can spend to balance budgets (sort of) or to spend on vote buying projects.

 

[Spencer100]

If you wanted to look at it as a pure "Canadian" industrial project. Here is one thought. Use the Colt Canada model. GDLS would be the go to shop for heavy amoured fighting vehicles. LAV, IFV, and tanks. Then I would pick another one for light combat and/or logistics types. Believe it or not I would pick Volvo AB. (not the car company) With that company you would have the largest industrial vehicle manufacturing base in Canada outside of the regular automakers themselves. Volvo also has the largest military vehicle catalog of anyone manufacturing in Canada (outside of GDLS) now. Their catalog includes all of Mack Defence and also Arquus. Their manufacturing plants are the Provost Car and Nova Bus facilites.

Volvo Group - EN

13 brands. 105,000 employees. 190 markets. Trucks, buses, construction equipment, marine and industrial engines. Complete solutions for financing and service.

www.volvogroup.com

ARQUUS | Military Vehicles | Armored Cars | Armory Personnal Carrier

Military vehicles & Armory Personnal Carrier | ARQUUS : Combination of Renault Trucks Defense, Acmat & Panhard |

www.arquus-defense.com

Homepage - Mack Defense

Mack Defense specializes in robust military trucks and advanced defense vehicles, engineered to withstand rigorous conditions and fulfill diverse defense needs.

www.mackdefense.com

Prevost The Ultimate Experience | Prevost

Prevost is the leading North American manufacturer of premium passenger coaches and conversion coaches for high-end motorhomes and specialty conversions.

prevostcar.com

Home - Novabus

novabus.com