CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[Kirkhill]

The problem being exactly this - younger generations are less likely to trust the source if they are obviously the PAFO.

The best CAF content creators are not, and frankly cannot be, PAFOs. The Pilot project and Canadian Army pod casts are pretty good while the worst instagram account going is the Canadian Army one.

By that logic youngsters are more likely to trust this site .....

 

[markppcli]

By that logic youngsters are more likely to trust this site .....

Most of my guys will trust Reddit before the news. So close but not quite

 

[MilEME09]

By that logic youngsters are more likely to trust this site .....

goes to show CFINTCOM OSINT group should do a couple media literacy powerpoints to be taught on BMQ's, how to check sources, signs of disinformation etc

 

[McG]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808449648043897280

 

[markppcli]

Minister Blair announces $35.8 million investment to equip Canadian troops in Latvia with 90 new tactical vehicles - Canada.ca

Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, announced that Canada is investing $35.8 million (including taxes) to deliver 90 Light Tactical Vehicles (LTVs) to Canadian Army personnel deployed in Latvia under Operation REASSURANCE – Canada’s mission in support of NATO’s...

www.canada.ca

New vehicles for the LIB to be staged in Latvia.

 

[childs56]

Minister Blair announces $35.8 million investment to equip Canadian troops in Latvia with 90 new tactical vehicles - Canada.ca

Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, announced that Canada is investing $35.8 million (including taxes) to deliver 90 Light Tactical Vehicles (LTVs) to Canadian Army personnel deployed in Latvia under Operation REASSURANCE – Canada’s mission in support of NATO’s...

www.canada.ca

New vehicles for the LIB to be staged in Latvia.

Did i read that correctly, that works out to $397,777 a vehicle with spare parts for two years. Wow I am in the wrong business

 

[Fabius]

US ISV vehicle cost was estimated to be around 177,000 USD in 2020.
Program costs are different though than simply dividing the total cost by the vehicles bought.

Interestingly the US is outfitting a IBCT with 59 ISVs.
We have bought almost enough ISVs to outfit 2 US IBCTs but we are outfitting one Bn.

 

[markppcli]

Did i read that correctly, that works out to $397,777 a vehicle with spare parts for two years. Wow I am in the wrong business

Our g rides work out to around 216,000 each in 2003 dollars.

 

[markppcli]

US ISV vehicle cost was estimated to be around 177,000 USD in 2020.
Program costs are different though than simply dividing the total cost by the vehicles bought.

Interestingly the US is outfitting a IBCT with 59 ISVs.
We have bought almost enough ISVs to outfit 2 US IBCTs but we are outfitting one Bn.

i expect that’s only enough to move one Bn regardless.

 

[Fabius]

Different employment concepts I am sure.
Issuing 16 per rifle Coy vs issuing 4-6 per rifle Coy and the difference between needing to get them on the ground in a JFE vs being the main vehicle platform for a motorized infantry Bn.

Edited to add that my numbers are a SWAG only.

 

[markppcli]

Different employment concepts I am sure.
Issuing 16 per rifle Coy vs issuing 4-6 per rifle Coy and the difference between needing to get them on the ground in a JFE vs being the main vehicle platform for a motorized infantry Bn.

Edited to add that my numbers are a SWAG only.

Well I don’t know if it really qualifies as motorized, anymore than moving to the flot in an MSVS would.

 

[Fabius]

That’s the very definition of motorized, infantry moved to the FLOT by truck NOT APC or IFV.

 

[markppcli]

That’s the very definition of motorized, infantry moved to the FLOT by truck NOT APC or IFV.

I suppose, I’d argue it’s quite a dated definition though we’ve been trucking light infantry about in trucks since WW 1. If we look at the biggest user of “motorized” troops, the Russians and their motor rifles, shouldn’t that be the standard ? What light infantry isn’t “motorized” at this point ?

 

[Fabius]

Every country seems to have a different word for various types of infantry.
If the infantry is carried in vehicles that are intended to be used in close combat, they can be characterized as mechanized ( or Armoured ie the Brits, or as Motor Rifle ie the Russians).

It gets more difficult when we are looking at armoured vehicles with RWS like a JLTV or Bushmaster or TAPV. Basically infantry carried by 4x4 protected mobility vehicles. I consider these motorized infantry, specifically because of the armour and the number of vehicles being sufficient to lift everything and everyone.

Infantry considered as airborne or air assault have smaller numbers of vehicles than motorized infantry, the vehicles aren’t enough typically sufficient to lift everything and everyone in one go and are generally less armoured due to weight limitations, the majority are not armed.

For the Latvian flyover force it’s kind of a mixed bag. The vehicles will be all unarmoured like an airborne or air assault unit but with a scale of issue like a motorized unit in line with my thoughts above.

 

[FJAG]

i expect that’s only enough to move one Bn regardless.

Different employment concepts I am sure.
Issuing 16 per rifle Coy vs issuing 4-6 per rifle Coy and the difference between needing to get them on the ground in a JFE vs being the main vehicle platform for a motorized infantry Bn.

Edited to add that my numbers are a SWAG only.

The article says 36 cargo variants and 54 personnel ones. That would give one 9-man personnel vehicle per section and one for pl HQ for a total of 36. That leaves 18 personnel variants and 36 cargo variants (less whatever handful stays in Canada - 5 maybe) to outfit the coy HQs, the bn HQ, the CS coy and the CSS coy. Add in a few gunners and engineers and they're all used up. Not much VOR flex there.

 

[Fabius]

The article says 36 cargo variants and 54 personnel ones. That would give one 9-man personnel vehicle per section and one for pl HQ for a total of 36. That leaves 18 personnel variants and 36 cargo variants (less whatever handful stays in Canada - 5 maybe) to outfit the coy HQs, the bn HQ, the CS coy and the CSS coy. Add in a few gunners and engineers and they're all used up. Not much VOR flex there.

I would expect a number of MSVSs as well for the CQs, and the CSS Coy.

 

[markppcli]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1817576921569661237

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm excited for the 4 pax each one can carry.

 

[markppcli]

I'm excited for the 4 pax each one can carry.

I can’t wait to brief their fires capability…

 

[KevinB]

I'm excited for the 4 pax each one can carry.

Well just think of it as a way to make the enemy expend more resources trying to knock down an airmobile platoon