• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,356
Points
1,110
Hey, I'd love to have a factory come in and start pumping out K2's, K9's and K21's for us but sadly your above statement kind of proved my point. "we have GDLS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada". If we have GDLS here already and they have products they could build if we ordered them but we don't order them (or even absolutely militarily necessary variants of the vehicle lines they
ARE already producing here both for us and for export) then what makes you think the GOC will suddenly see the light and bring in ANOTHER armoured vehicle builder and start ordering these types of vehicles from THEM instead?
The point was, if we want to produce military kit like artillery, and tanks here in Canada we need to partner with a company that sees us as a viable place to set-up production.

GLDS doesn't need/want more Canadian production. I suspect they'd shutter London in a heartbeat if we dropped the LAV platform. My idea was that we should be courting companies that might see a benefit in having production in North America, so it gives them access to the North American market, and means their factories aren't likely to be bombed when they need production.

I also pointed out that it isn't likely but would likely be our best bet if we wanted domestic production.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
217
Points
530
Except we have GLDS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada. Why make an Abrams in Canada when you can buy off the American production line?

The point of going Korean is to provide us with kit, while also providing Korea with a reliable source of kit if their own factoreis are impacted by war.

If Canadian factories aren't being bombed, American ones aren't. If American factories are being bombed, Canadian ones are as well...
The early LAV series of vehicles were licensed by MOWAG, built by General Motors Diesel (now General Dynamics Land Systems Canada) Has been one of the most successful Military Contracts for the Canadian Defence Industry ever and continues to adapt. We could have at the time bought an off the shelf American product. We decided to go another route.

Practical would mean no political interference. We just pumped how many hundreds of millions into a ship building plan to build various ships for the Navy and Coast Guard when it would have made more sense and cheaper to build over seas. But we invested into a Canadian System with our own twist.
The money is there the will is not.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,356
Points
1,110
The early LAV series of vehicles were licensed by MOWAG, built by General Motors Diesel (now General Dynamics Land Systems Canada) Has been one of the most successful Military Contracts for the Canadian Defence Industry ever and continues to adapt. We could have at the time bought an off the shelf American product. We decided to go another route.

Practical would mean no political interference. We just pumped how many hundreds of millions into a ship building plan to build various ships for the Navy and Coast Guard when it would have made more sense and cheaper to build over seas. But we invested into a Canadian System with our own twist.
The money is there the will is not.
You're kind of arguing my point for me.

My point is that we could buy American for less, but have no production capability, or liscense something else, and build it here at greater expense, but with greater capability in the event of war.

If a war breaks out and Canada needs APCs, we have GLDS to pump out as many LAV variants as they can. In that same war, we get whatever tanks, and artillery the supplying nations think we should have, after their people are taken care of first.

In my envisioned scenario Canda could make K2s, K9s, LAV6, etc., because we licensed and set up production in Canada rather than just buying what was cheapest.
 
Reaction score
248
Points
530
Why not an RFP to Canadian industry stating the intent to manufacture limited artillery with an emphasis on barrels and see what you get? Dollars were provided to shipyards to upgrade their facilities to enable the manufacture of new ships why not offer to upgrade existing metallurgic industry facilities the same?
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
213
Points
560
I am serious thinking you guys have drank the kool aid and do not realize it.
Canada only buys kit once, maybe twice a generation.
Examples of this purchase power. CF18, came in the 80s, no replacements yet, frigates, 1987-1996. Small arms, 1950s and 1990s with upgrades.
LavIII replaced 1960 and 1970s equipment in the 1990s

No company is going to come into Canada put a production line in, for the limited Canadian Market. Total of 37 M777s, not much of an incentive to produce towed or spg systems for Canada. Tanks, 82 Leopards, not much chance to sell enough to build a production if only replacing 82 tanks.

HLVW was built in Kingston area. A crown company of Ontario ( UDTC was set up to make street cars, commuter trains and equipment) got the deal to build the HLVW based on the Steyr 91 truck. Soon as the last HL rolled off the line, it was closed. They knew it was a limited run and no chance at more sales in Canada or the world market. HLVW entered service in 1992, ( 1212 units total) replacements almost 30 years later. LSVW made in Canada, no sales after the Canadian contract was filled. The list is endless of one time purchases. GDLS in London is able to maintain their market share because the US and other Allies purchased the LAV family, had they had to survive on the Canadian purchasing plan they would be doomed and closed years ago. Colt Canada is another company with outside Canada sales but not enough to be a stand alone company. Our lack of ship building shows this every time it is time to build a new fleet or family of ships, the skills are lost and equipment is out of date or scrapped between building programs.


Canada has to learn to join forces and sign agreements with other NATO allies and other allies to join their programs that are up and running to replace equipment, stop the Canadian content rules. Military equipment should not be political but be the best bang for the dollar.

NATO partner A is purchasing a fleet of cargo trucks, time to replace Canadian cargo trucks, we buy in and add 200 , 500 or what ever number to the purchase and share in the bulk purchase price. Build new ships, look at what other NATO Navies are buying, join the project, can build the main parts over seas, finish them in Canada.

What can be built in Canada should be purchased but unless we can produce the items in bulk, sell on the foreign market and maintain a supply chain, no one else is going to purchase it.

Unless there is a huge uptake in Canadian military purchases, there is going to be no new production in Canada. Tanks were upgraded overseas.

Helicopters are civilian models painted green, but made in Canada, but that is a purchase every 30 years if lucky.

No matter how safe Canada is from bombings, or war zones, unless our government decides to purchase more, no one will build here.

Besides the LAV family and the Canada Air copies of US jets, C7 family, we have not sold anything to world market in ages. Companies realize that our market is limited and they do not see other sales making the capital expenditures worth the effort.

just my rant , I might be wrong
 
Last edited:

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,356
Points
1,110
I am serious thinking you guys have drank the kool aid and do not realize it.
Canada only buys kit once, maybe twice a generation.
Examples of this purchase power. CF18, came in the 80s, no replacements yet, frigates, 1987-1996. Small arms, 1950s and 1990s with upgrades.
LavIII replaced 1960 and 1970s equipment in the 1990s

No company is going to come into Canada put a production line in, for the limited Canadian Market. Total of 37 M777s, not much of an incentive to produce towed or spg systems for Canada. Tanks, 82 Leopards, not much chance to sell enough to build a production if only replacing 82 tanks.

HLVW was built in Kingston area. A crown company of Ontario ( UDTC was set up to make street cars, commuter trains and equipment) got the deal to build the HLVW based on the Steyr 91 truck. Soon as the last HL rolled off the line, it was closed. They knew it was a limited run and no chance at more sales in Canada or the world market. HLVW entered service in 1992, ( 1212 units total) replacements almost 30 years later. LSVW made in Canada, no sales after the Canadian contract was filled. The list is endless of one time purchases. GDLS in London is able to maintain their market share because the US and other Allies purchased the LAV family, had they had to survive on the Canadian purchasing plan they would be doomed and closed years ago. Colt Canada is another company with outside Canada sales but not enough to be a stand alone company. Our lack of ship building shows this every time it is time to build a new fleet or family of ships, the skills are lost and equipment is out of date or scrapped between building programs.


Canada has to learn to join forces and sign agreements with other NATO allies and other allies to join their programs that are up and running to replace equipment, stop the Canadian content rules. Military equipment should not be political but be the best bang for the dollar.

NATO partner A is purchasing a fleet of cargo trucks, time to replace Canadian cargo trucks, we buy in and add 200 , 500 or what ever number to the purchase and share in the bulk purchase price. Build new ships, look at what other NATO Navies are buying, join the project, can build the main parts over seas, finish them in Canada.

What can be built in Canada should be purchased but unless we can produce the items in bulk, sell on the foreign market and maintain a supply chain, no one else is going to purchase it.

Unless there is a huge uptake in Canadian military purchases, there is going to be no new production in Canada. Tanks were upgraded overseas.

Helicopters are civilian models painted green, but made in Canada, but that is a purchase every 30 years if lucky.

No matter how safe Canada is from bombings, or war zones, unless our government decides to purchase more, no one will build here.

Besides the LAV family and the Canada Air copies of US jets, C7 family, we have not sold anything to world market in ages. Companies realize that our market is limited and they do not see other sales making the capital expenditures worth the effort.

just my rant , I might be wrong
I never suggested it was likely, I was simply pointing out the only possible way Canada could develop a capability to produce kit like howitzers, SPGs, tanks, etc.


The reality is Canada will buy too few second-rate systems, with a sprinkling of shiny first-rate systems, and the CAF will continue to diminish in both capability and self-respect. The CAF is and will continue to be a joke to the rest of the world.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
217
Points
530
I am serious thinking you guys have drank the kool aid and do not realize it.
Canada only buys kit once, maybe twice a generation.
Examples of this purchase power. CF18, came in the 80s, no replacements yet, frigates, 1987-1996. Small arms, 1950s and 1990s with upgrades.
LavIII replaced 1960 and 1970s equipment in the 1990s
Boeing Canada L3 has made a nice market in Canada providing expertise overhauling , technical specs, components etc through various suppliers who are also in Canada for those very same Fa18s. Many of those smaller companies provide services for other nations and their technical needs.
No company is going to come into Canada put a production line in, for the limited Canadian Market. Total of 37 M777s, not much of an incentive to produce towed or spg systems for Canada. Tanks, 82 Leopards, not much chance to sell enough to build a production if only replacing 82 tanks.
Yet The US has for Australia, along with South Korea. Australia has a similar number of Tanks, and Artillery as we do.
HLVW was built in Kingston area. A crown company of Ontario ( UDTC was set up to make street cars, commuter trains and equipment) got the deal to build the HLVW based on the Steyr 91 truck. Soon as the last HL rolled off the line, it was closed. They knew it was a limited run and no chance at more sales in Canada or the world market. HLVW entered service in 1992, ( 1212 units total) replacements almost 30 years later. LSVW made in Canada, no sales after the Canadian contract was filled. The list is endless of one time purchases.
Those contracts were extremally poorly ran, we wanted a built in Canada solution. With no chance of sales outside because how we butchered the vehicles to Canadianize them.
GDLS in London is able to maintain their market share because the US and other Allies purchased the LAV family, had they had to survive on the Canadian purchasing plan they would be doomed and closed years ago.
They made a product under license from MOWAG. Did a great job and is actually a success that we should have built on further offering expanded products. We have customers all over the world for the series. Success.
Colt Canada is another company with outside Canada sales but not enough to be a stand alone company. Our lack of ship building shows this every time it is time to build a new fleet or family of ships, the skills are lost and equipment is out of date or scrapped between building programs.
Diemaco was actually a Canadian Company building the rifle under license from Colt Arms. We had more then domestic customers. They were bought out/ taken over by Colt for a number of reasons. One being the quality product and added volume to their production. Another success that should have been expanded more then it has been,
Canada has to learn to join forces and sign agreements with other NATO allies and other allies to join their programs that are up and running to replace equipment, stop the Canadian content rules. Military equipment should not be political but be the best bang for the dollar.
I agree about the Politics, But we also need to provide jobs for Canadians on such large purchases.
NATO partner A is purchasing a fleet of cargo trucks, time to replace Canadian cargo trucks, we buy in and add 200 , 500 or what ever number to the purchase and share in the bulk purchase price. Build new ships, look at what other NATO Navies are buying, join the project, can build the main parts over seas, finish them in Canada.
We do tend to look at what others have ordered or about to order. The new MACK trucks are a example. They are used by a few other countries under different specs. Ships well our new Combat ships are based from our partners specs, the same as the Artic Patrol ships. If Canada could get their crap together we could be building Navy Ships for over seas sales.
What can be built in Canada should be purchased but unless we can produce the items in bulk, sell on the foreign market and maintain a supply chain, no one else is going to purchase it.
Almost every thing Canada has made so far has been under license from another company/ Country. We have done a decent job of making a quality product when we want to.
Unless there is a huge uptake in Canadian military purchases, there is going to be no new production in Canada. Tanks were upgraded overseas.
They were upgraded when we first bought them from my understanding as part of the intial lease to own program as a stop gap. I am sure any other upgrades this side of the pond will be done in Quebec
Helicopters are civilian models painted green, but made in Canada, but that is a purchase every 30 years if lucky.
The Griffon maybe,
No matter how safe Canada is from bombings, or war zones, unless our government decides to purchase more, no one will build here.

Besides the LAV family and the Canada Air copies of US jets, C7 family, we have not sold anything to world market in ages. Companies realize that our market is limited and they do not see other sales making the capital expenditures worth the effort.
Actually we have sold lots of technology integration along with drones from Medicine Hat. Rockets from Winnipeg, Avionics including flight sims for various aircraft platforms, LAV series of Armored Vehicles along with other Military Hardware. Upgrades to Foreign Military Aircraft, ships and systems.
Now we DeHaviland going to start production of Water Bombers outside of Calgary, there is talks of a possible Military light./ Medium transport aircraft being launched in the future. With the interest in the Water Bomber series and the Twin Otter who knows what is to come.
just my rant , I might be wrong
We all maybe wrong. Discussions are always good.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,096
Points
1,090
I love how this thread is a microcosm of Canada's procurement problems encapsulated in one spot.

We need howitzers.

We don't make them ourselves right now.

Should we?

Should we COTS?

What should we do?

We need Howitzers.

We don't make them ourselves right now.

etc...
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,713
Points
1,260
Diemaco was actually a Canadian Company building the rifle under license from Colt.
Actually DND held the license and TDP.
Diemaco was solely allowed to produce items for the CAF, later amended to allow RCMP sale. Later amended to allow Diemaco to sell to Europe for Colt as Colt’s production was maxed.

We had more then domestic customers. They were bought out/ taken over by Colt for a number of reasons. One being the quality product and added volume to their production. Another success that should have been expanded more than it has been.
Everything past CAF sales were as requested by Colt. Diemaco’s parent company wasn’t a Small Arms company and spun it off to Colt as soon as it was showing a profit (again a very odd Canadianism).
Since the GFM forges belong (belonged?) to DND one wonders what the agreement was on barrels sold externally.

Part of the Diemaco/Colt Canada story I added to above is one of the issues that any licensed production will face — does the OEM want its licensee to be doing anything outside of Canada. For the longest of times, Colt Defense didn’t want Diemaco selling outside of Canada - only when their financial situation grew problematic and/or Conneticut facility was maxed out with US DoD production did they entertain that aspect.

A major hiccup occurred with the Colt Canada acquisition by Colt in that the C9 and C6 production was under licenses from FN Herstal, and Colt and FN where is some tension due to Colt bidding on the M240 contract down here. I add that as a cautionary tale to what can occur with ‘one stop shop’ that’s isn’t a Crown Corp as licensed production can cause a lot of issues if multiple licenses are involved and the licenser parents get into a squabble.


Discussions are always good.
Agreed
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
191
Points
680
Have SNC-Lavalin build a plant for military automotive armaments equipment in, say Montreal, to provide long term employment = problem solved.

Did not the old DREE (Dept of Regional Economic Expansion) set up two automotive plants in Quebec for Bombardier at to produce ILTIS and MLVW?

Vehicle's (ILTIS) history considered controversial​

 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
380
Points
730
I never suggested it was likely, I was simply pointing out the only possible way Canada could develop a capability to produce kit like howitzers, SPGs, tanks, etc.
If the end game was to have a tracked/ heavy and a wheeled/medium CMBG, each on common chassis with a full suite of variants, each with 2 battlegroups worth of pre-positioned/ spare equipment, it seems like there are two non-budgetary hurdles
-giving GDLS-C the right order list
-being willing to give another company (Rheinmetal?) the GDLS-C treatment to set up that tracked line with confidence
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,834
Points
1,160
Let's say we buy the K9 SPG (and some K10 ammo vehicles and few K11's) , we could start building more capacity by having them assembled here and identify which components can be made here like tracks, wheels, driveline components. Likely hull, turret, turret ring and gun are brought in. MTU already rebuilds aircraft jet engines here in Canada (great story on how USAF stepped on their own dick trying to take their engine contract from them) and likley could expand to include the MTU power pack and other MTU products. Allison transmission appears to have some presences in Canada as well. A quick read on Wiki shows that SK is very willing to adapt the sale and technology transfer. Considering the numbers of vehicles worldwide, I suspect parts will be always in demand. We could also buy the K30 turret and mount it on the same chassis along with making a M578 type vehicle on the same hull. Now we may be looking at 70+ hulls which means a bigger parts demand. We could design and build the M578 clone ourselves and market it.
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
213
Points
560
Have SNC-Lavalin build a plant for military automotive armaments equipment in, say Montreal, to provide long term employment = problem solved.

Did not the old DREE (Dept of Regional Economic Expansion) set up two automotive plants in Quebec for Bombardier at to produce ILTIS and MLVW?

Vehicle's (ILTIS) history considered controversial​

They set up a production line for the Iltis ( I loved that jeep like toy, fun to drive but not an hostile environment vehicle )
The manufacturer VW picked Barrie Ontario as the location to build their plant, but the Government got in the way and they all agree Bombardier could build it outside of Montreal ( another way to fund the company with tax payer money). They cost Canada more money per unit then it did for Belgium to purchase off the line. They had to add some extra pieces of metal to meet the Canadian content rules ( changed the design of the frame and body to fit this extra piece to give it the desired level of Canadian content) Production was a total of 3 year, 1983 to 1986. Total of maybe less than 6200 models. Belgium purchased 2673, and Canada purchased 2500 in total. Gwagon replaced them in 2003 ( plan to replace is already the books) plus maybe some civilian models.

MLVW was also changed by Bombardier to fit made in Canada content . They replaced a truck that came out in the 1950s with the MLVW that was delivered starting 1982. Some MLVWs are still in service now pushing 40 year service life. Replacements already in service.

So who in the right mind wants to open a production line for 3 years and close it.?

Build a 105 mm gun system here in Canada, make 150 guns, make 1000 barrels, plus other spare parts, then we will call you back in 40 years for a new model?

Come build your fighter jet, open a production line at Bombardier AeroSpace, or de Havilland assemble 100 air frames, then close the line?

Build or retrofit 110 Leopard 2 tanks upgrade to the 2A6 or A7 or whatever model then close down because Canada is not going to do it again for 20 years?

Canada has to start looking, see what is on the shelf and what is offered ( CUCV over build and over purchase by the USMC, deal was made to CF to purchase the over run at a below cost price ) and see if it fits the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces first thing. If another country can build it cheaper, faster, supply spare parts, training, etc then they should look at it. Then second question is can any of it be built here, will that add to the cost or lower the cost? If the prices goes up, we stick with the stock model, can it kitted out to fit our radios, our weapons systems during production run or does it require after production mods?


We need to stop buying when it reaches 10 years past it life cycle expectations, start looking for replacements once it reaches it mid life rebuild, ships, start looking and planning at the 15 to 20 year mark , not year 40.
Aircraft, start looking after 20 years, we fly stuff for over 50 years, if the various governments would of had their way, our Seaking fleet and the US Airforce fleet of B52s would of been the oldest war birds flying not owned by museums.

AVGP family 1976, replaced in the 1990s ( those replacements are already been replaced and up shopped)
Leopards 1970s, replaced the the 2000s

Wheeled SMP, tractors, etc need to be replaced like a commercial fleet operation, mileage, age, cost of maintenace = price of new model update as other NATO fleets are updated.

Weapons, C7 family is the only weapon system they have updated before complete replacement, C1 was 40 years mine was built 1953 ( 3L5358) I believe and I was issued my C7 in 1990, it was model 89AA something.

Upgrades need to come quicker and faster then once in a career of a soldier who is expected to use in combat operations, and in aid to civil powers. The crap wears out.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
142
Points
510
If the end game was to have a tracked/ heavy and a wheeled/medium CMBG, each on common chassis with a full suite of variants, each with 2 battlegroups worth of pre-positioned/ spare equipment...
Would imagine the routine refit and "oops, broke it" churn from all of that would represent a healthy bit of work, too, especially if training is being conducted to match whatever operational needs might dictate, versus being scaled to available equipment or run "gently" lest something end up down for too long.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,841
Points
1,040

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
217
Points
530
Actually DND held the license and TDP.
Who holds the license now? Now that it is CZ Colt.
Diemaco was solely allowed to produce items for the CAF, later amended to allow RCMP sale. Later amended to allow Diemaco to sell to Europe for Colt as Colt’s production was maxed.
Who made those limits, the CDN Gov or Colt themselves?
Everything past CAF sales were as requested by Colt. Diemaco’s parent company wasn’t a Small Arms company and spun it off to Colt as soon as it was showing a profit (again a very odd Canadianism).
Since the GFM forges belong (belonged?) to DND one wonders what the agreement was on barrels sold externally.

Part of the Diemaco/Colt Canada story I added to above is one of the issues that any licensed production will face — does the OEM want its licensee to be doing anything outside of Canada. For the longest of times, Colt Defense didn’t want Diemaco selling outside of Canada - only when their financial situation grew problematic and/or Conneticut facility was maxed out with US DoD production did they entertain that aspect.

A major hiccup occurred with the Colt Canada acquisition by Colt in that the C9 and C6 production was under licenses from FN Herstal, and Colt and FN where is some tension due to Colt bidding on the M240 contract down here. I add that as a cautionary tale to what can occur with ‘one stop shop’ that’s isn’t a Crown Corp as licensed production can cause a lot of issues if multiple licenses are involved and the licenser parents get into a squabble.



Agreed
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,713
Points
1,260
Who holds the license now? Now that it is CZ Colt.
As I understood it as soon as Colt acquired Diemaco the licensing for the C7/8 was irrelevant as it was a subsidiary of Colt.
I haven’t had any dealings with Colt since the CZ buyout, and the VP’s I knew there are gone.

Who made those limits, the CDN Gov or Colt themselves?
Colt licensed certain products to DND to be produced by Diemaco. The limit was by contract, but generally that occurs when licensing an item, especially for third party production, and exactly what can be done to the product and who it is sold to is often laid out very specifically.

The entire C7 story is quite interesting, but the beginning is odd, after the M16A1E1 (which had become the M16A2 with the 3 round burst trigger) won the CAF Weapon of the 80’s SARP Trial, Colt charged an ‘engineering’ fee to ECP the M16A2 back to the A1 style rear sight to Canada, and to allow the CHF barrel to be used instead of Colt’s standard button broached barrels.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
133
Points
580
Has partial public ownership of a factory/company not been brought up?

This goes beyond just the C3 issue and should be a part of a larger approach to defence procurement. Provided a decision-maker cares enough to build an in-house solution:

Figure out what we currently use enough to make domestic production practicable and build a munitions supply program. If this list includes howitzer parts too or just the ammunition, then great, there's a large demand for both now. A sustainable and economy-boosting plan to donate shells to UKR grabs media attention and PR bonus points.

The building/retooling of an existing Canadian plant and a partnership with a foreign partner should be considered. The partners provide licensing, expertise and some $ while taxpayer $$$ contributes to a Crown Corp that will have a percentage% ownership in the plant. It demonstrates our long-term investment in the program but also in the yard and to the local industry and jobs.

Imagine if at the onset of NSS a 'Canadian Munitions Supply Board' Crown Corp invested in a (say 20%) ownership stake in the shipyard. We'd at least be partially paying ourselves whenever the CSC needs more money.

Works for Naval Group.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,834
Points
1,160
They set up a production line for the Iltis ( I loved that jeep like toy, fun to drive but not an hostile environment vehicle )
The manufacturer VW picked Barrie Ontario as the location to build their plant, but the Government got in the way and they all agree Bombardier could build it outside of Montreal ( another way to fund the company with tax payer money). They cost Canada more money per unit then it did for Belgium to purchase off the line. They had to add some extra pieces of metal to meet the Canadian content rules ( changed the design of the frame and body to fit this extra piece to give it the desired level of Canadian content) Production was a total of 3 year, 1983 to 1986. Total of maybe less than 6200 models. Belgium purchased 2673, and Canada purchased 2500 in total. Gwagon replaced them in 2003 ( plan to replace is already the books) plus maybe some civilian models.

MLVW was also changed by Bombardier to fit made in Canada content . They replaced a truck that came out in the 1950s with the MLVW that was delivered starting 1982. Some MLVWs are still in service now pushing 40 year service life. Replacements already in service.

So who in the right mind wants to open a production line for 3 years and close it.?

Build a 105 mm gun system here in Canada, make 150 guns, make 1000 barrels, plus other spare parts, then we will call you back in 40 years for a new model?

Come build your fighter jet, open a production line at Bombardier AeroSpace, or de Havilland assemble 100 air frames, then close the line?

Build or retrofit 110 Leopard 2 tanks upgrade to the 2A6 or A7 or whatever model then close down because Canada is not going to do it again for 20 years?

Canada has to start looking, see what is on the shelf and what is offered ( CUCV over build and over purchase by the USMC, deal was made to CF to purchase the over run at a below cost price ) and see if it fits the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces first thing. If another country can build it cheaper, faster, supply spare parts, training, etc then they should look at it. Then second question is can any of it be built here, will that add to the cost or lower the cost? If the prices goes up, we stick with the stock model, can it kitted out to fit our radios, our weapons systems during production run or does it require after production mods?


We need to stop buying when it reaches 10 years past it life cycle expectations, start looking for replacements once it reaches it mid life rebuild, ships, start looking and planning at the 15 to 20 year mark , not year 40.
Aircraft, start looking after 20 years, we fly stuff for over 50 years, if the various governments would of had their way, our Seaking fleet and the US Airforce fleet of B52s would of been the oldest war birds flying not owned by museums.

AVGP family 1976, replaced in the 1990s ( those replacements are already been replaced and up shopped)
Leopards 1970s, replaced the the 2000s

Wheeled SMP, tractors, etc need to be replaced like a commercial fleet operation, mileage, age, cost of maintenace = price of new model update as other NATO fleets are updated.

Weapons, C7 family is the only weapon system they have updated before complete replacement, C1 was 40 years mine was built 1953 ( 3L5358) I believe and I was issued my C7 in 1990, it was model 89AA something.

Upgrades need to come quicker and faster then once in a career of a soldier who is expected to use in combat operations, and in aid to civil powers. The crap wears out.
I full agree we need more equipment churn. However we seen what happens when everyone rationalizes their industry and then everyone scrambles to get their orders in first so they are not stuck without. The reality is that the current defense industry system in incapable of supporting a long term peer to peer conflict and would utterly fail if we had two concurrent conflicts. NATO countries are going to have accept some inefficiencies in order to maintain some surge capacity. Canada is well placed to pick up some of that slack, we just lack political will to do it.
 
Top