A Canadian Foreign Military Sales Programme

[Kirkhill]

Do we need a "Good Enuff" rubber stamp?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes. Plus we need to show local support for domestic products. I would start fielding Senators as ambulances, have a small but steady buy every year, with upgrades from lessons learned incorporated. also buy smaller allotments of some of the other local manufacturers wheeled vehicles for testing and give feed back on their designs.

 

[KevinB]

As I said. A deep hole. But sitting at the bottom is no solution.

Edit.

It will take time to build a reputation. And perhaps a good place to start would be to stop asking and start buying. Recognize that we have no bargaining power and start spending money on 80% solutions that are on the market and available.

Honestly if you look at the CAF size and budget the only viable method to equip it, for at least most projects is partner ventures with allies, and building some components (and in rare cases entire items) in Canada as part of a larger scale project.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill the issue is that Canada has a bad rep as both a Defense consumer, and a broker of materials.

The GoC has derailed several sales to non NATO (and even some NATO member) countries.
That in its own right means that very few companies will invest in anything Defense related inside Canada for an external sale.

If Canada were to approach GDOTS - Canada with an order for 1,000,000 155mm M107s would GDOTS take their money?

If Canada were to offer M107s on the open market from inventory, would it find willing buyers?

 

[Spencer100]

US-based corporations retrenching to domestic production, particularly in 'right-to-work' states, and moving production to cheap off-shore labour markets apparently had nothing to do with it.

Bingo! I did say CAW.

 

[KevinB]

If Canada were to approach GDOTS - Canada with an order for 1,000,000 155mm M107s would GDOTS take their money?

If Canada were to offer M107s on the open market from inventory, would it find willing buyers?

IF pigs had wings…

Remember the parent is GD, which means it’s not a Canadian company but a subsidiary of a larger US multinational. So while it would take money, the who the products may be sold to, aren’t necessarily a strict Canadian issue.

Secondly I don’t see the GoC wanting to be in the Arms business.

 

[Kirkhill]

IF pigs had wings…

Remember the parent is GD, which means it’s not a Canadian company but a subsidiary of a larger US multinational. So while it would take money, the who the products may be sold to, aren’t necessarily a strict Canadian issue.

Secondly I don’t see the GoC wanting to be in the Arms business.

Now you are talking politics.

And offering an argument for the re-nationalisation of the GDOTS facility.

Dominion Arsenal, the first government cartridge and shell factory and proofing facility, established 1882 at Québec to provide the Canadian Militia with ammunition. A second arsenal was built in Lindsay, Ontario, during WWI, and other plants were built or converted to small arms and artillery-shell production during WWII by the Department of Munitions and Supply. In September 1945 these were brought together as Canadian Arsenals Limited, a crown corporation now reporting to the Department of Supply and Services.

Dominion Arsenal

Dominion Arsenal, the first government cartridge and shell factory and proofing facility, established 1882 at Québec to provide the Canadian Militia with ammun...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

 

[Good2Golf]

Now you are talking politics.

And offering an argument for the re-nationalisation of the GDOTS facility.

Dominion Arsenal

Dominion Arsenal, the first government cartridge and shell factory and proofing facility, established 1882 at Québec to provide the Canadian Militia with ammun...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

Ain’t going to happen.

One of many precedents: Canada let Colt Canada be bought by the Czechs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ain’t going to happen.

One of many precedents: Canada let Colt Canada be bought by the Czechs.

Understood. But can we keep doing what we have done?

If we don't make changes then we might as well pull pole and pack it up.

 

[childs56]

Ain’t going to happen.

One of many precedents: Canada let Colt Canada be bought by the Czechs.

Diemaco was bought by Colt who was bought by CZ. Let's face it Canada makes some pretty good rifles if allowed.

 

[childs56]

IF pigs had wings…

Remember the parent is GD, which means it’s not a Canadian company but a subsidiary of a larger US multinational. So while it would take money, the who the products may be sold to, aren’t necessarily a strict Canadian issue.

Secondly I don’t see the GoC wanting to be in the Arms business.

Parent company sure. But allowed Canada to invest and build one of the most successful lines of wheeled Armoured vehicles. Mainly the US has bought and or partners in every major defence contractor in the western world.
Not many countries build equipment without US defence involvement.

Don't forget many small Canadian companies have been asked to join and partner with the larger US defence contractors to build some of the most sophisticated US military equipment and even some of its less stuff.

Canada builds awesome Equipment, especially the small things that make the bigger things work together. Just because US Defence ends up acquiring most good Canadian tech doesn't mean much. They acquired most around the world. When your defence budget could run half the world's countries you have some major influence. Often agaisnt common sense

 

[Kirkhill]

Diemaco was bought by Colt who was bought by CZ. Let's face it Canada makes some pretty good rifles if allowed.

How many countries are now using rifles manufactured in Kitchener?

Canada. UK. Netherlands. Denmark. Norway.

 

[Kirkhill]

Parent company sure. But allowed Canada to invest and build one of the most successful lines of wheeled Armoured vehicles. Mainly the US has bought and or partners in every major defence contractor in the western world.
Not many countries build equipment without US defence involvement.

Don't forget many small Canadian companies have been asked to join and partner with the larger US defence contractors to build some of the most sophisticated US military equipment and even some of its less stuff.

Canada builds awesome Equipment, especially the small things that make the bigger things work together. Just because US Defence ends up acquiring most good Canadian tech doesn't mean much. They acquired most around the world. When your defence budget could run half the world's countries you have some major influence. Often agaisnt common sense

Integrated Fire Control - General Dynamics Mission Systems - Canada

General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada is a leader in providing integrated fire control solutions tailored to the unique requirements of defence platforms.

gdmissionsystems.ca

DIGITAL FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM (DFCS)​

The world's first digital fire control system for the U.S. M1 main battle tank. The Digital Fire Control System also continues to support fire control applications for major combat platforms like the 155mm Howitzer and the Stryker Mobile Gun System.

IIRC CDC produced a ballistic computer for the Carl Gustav back in the 90's.

@KevinB

Do you guys want help? Or do you just want customers?

 

[childs56]

How many countries are now using rifles manufactured in Kitchener?

Canada. UK. Netherlands. Denmark. Norway.

along with Iceland, Botswana, Romania, Ukraine, United States military and Law enforcement, British Military many Canadian Law enforcement.

 

[KevinB]

You are both making my point - partnerships, joint ventures and licensed products.

Colt Canada had the European sales side for Colt for years, now however the Colt-Cz Group is planning on European production (potentially Ukraine) for the M4/C8 line, so I don’t think Kitchener is going to be as flush as before.

Canada can’t go it alone, so the best option is to chose specific programs to partner on.

 

[Kirkhill]

You are both making my point - partnerships, joint ventures and licensed products.

Colt Canada had the European sales side for Colt for years, now however the Colt-Cz Group is planning on European production (potentially Ukraine) for the M4/C8 line, so I don’t think Kitchener is going to be as flush as before.

Canada can’t go it alone, so the best option is to chose specific programs to partner on.

And my point is that I don't care if the provider of goods is Canadian or not. I care that we have a solid reputation that allows us to trade in goods and services with reliable partners.

I believe that having a solid base of published standards and an accredited logistics organization that can buy and sell with minimum political interference is a key element in keeping the CAF supplied in a cost effective manner.

It bothers me not if our companies are owned by Canadians or if we buy from German, Swedish, Israeli or US companies.
I would like to see 80% solutions in the hands of our troops, with lots of spares in the pipeline, and the freedom to do with those solutions as we, as a sovereign nation, see fit.

And you lot don't like to play that game.

 

[KevinB]

And my point is that I don't care if the provider of goods is Canadian or not. I care that we have a solid reputation that allows us to trade in goods and services with reliable partners.

I believe that having a solid base of published standards and an accredited logistics organization that can buy and sell with minimum political interference is a key element in keeping the CAF supplied in a cost effective manner.

It bothers me not if our companies are owned by Canadians or if we buy from German, Swedish, Israeli or US companies.
I would like to see 80% solutions in the hands of our troops, with lots of spares in the pipeline, and the freedom to do with those solutions as we, as a sovereign nation, see fit.

And you lot don't like to play that game.

80% is a arbitrary number as quite often the 80% solution for the CAF is actually 80% unacceptable, and maybe 20% feasible.

But hey maybe you can try to market the abortive LAV ACS whatever giant Queen Mary thing to folks.

To me soldiers (sailors, aircrew etc) are the ultimate CAF resource and need to be given the best possible equipment for the task, not some random shitwagon.

 

[childs56]

You are both making my point - partnerships, joint ventures and licensed products.

Canadian Companies are at the whim of dirty congressmen or women who forces the hand for military contracts.

Colt Canada had the European sales side for Colt for years, now however the Colt-Cz Group is planning on European production (potentially Ukraine) for the M4/C8 line, so I don’t think Kitchener is going to be as flush as before.

I dont think Kitchener will be going anywhere any time soon. CZ does shut down Canadian production there is one or two groups interested in stepping up in their place if the Canadian gov will provide the required assurances.

Canada can’t go it alone, so the best option is to chose specific programs to partner on.

No Country can go it alone. Because the US defence budget dictates what Countries do.
In reality Canada could build up a better stand alone Defence R&D, manufacturing and technology industry. But they will still rely on international partners as does everyone else.
The United States still relies on its Partners to manufacture, design/fine tune and actually make it work for most of their Military equipment. US have the money and vision, but they don't always have the know how to make it work.

Sensor Fusion is one area where Canada has lead the way since the 1950s and still one of the tops in the world. The US depends heavily on our Tech industry to make the one black box talk to the other black box thingy so the big spiny thing works.

CAE is the leader in Simulation civilian and military training, they bought out a the simulation division of L3 Harris. Which is funny, it is not often a Canadian Company Buys out a US division.
But as shown in the 90's contracts with the US are lead by what benefits the local population. Not the best fit product, but kick backs.

The US military market is the largest in the world, with China a closer second and India third.

 

[Kirkhill]

80% is a arbitrary number as quite often the 80% solution for the CAF is actually 80% unacceptable, and maybe 20% feasible.

But hey maybe you can try to market the abortive LAV ACS whatever giant Queen Mary thing to folks.

To me soldiers (sailors, aircrew etc) are the ultimate CAF resource and need to be given the best possible equipment for the task, not some random shitwagon.

You're still not getting it. I want the CAF to be able to buy stuff that is available, from any supplier, and employ it as it sees fit. And that can include selling or donating it to people that want it.

If I buy more tanks than I need then I want to be able to transfer those tanks to somebody else who needs or wants them.

And not have to faff around for 650 days while a special, bespoke, export model is manufactured for the specific situation.

 

[KevinB]

You're still not getting it. I want the CAF to be able to buy stuff that is available, from any supplier, and employ it as it sees fit. And that can include selling or donating it to people that want it.

If I buy more tanks than I need then I want to be able to transfer those tanks to somebody else who needs or wants them.

And not have to faff around for 650 days while a special, bespoke, export model is manufactured for the specific situation.

Well unfortunately you are looking for a world that doesn’t exist.

End User licenses existed Pre-ITAR, so that isn’t a unique or new issue.

Export versions have also existed forever, and there are valid reasons.