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

Canada's tanks

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.
And if you really were crazy!?......Shhhh...don't say anything but Nova Bus is for sale....They are shutting their US ops. You can really go all Canadian and put an offer to buy the Nova and have them throw in Provost Car and rights to the Arquus and Mack catalog. Insta Canadian OEM with revenue from the civil side out of the gate.
 
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.

So we have GDLS secured as a supplier
Volvo as a supplier.
How do we secure BAE and Rheinmetall? Or do we need to to? The one platform that I think we need that is not covered is the LV-T. The best solution there, I think, is the BvS10/Beowulf machines from BAE Hagglunds.
 
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.
To me that's part of the key of what Canada can handle. I don't want to minimize the complexity of the military manufacturing process - there will probably always be some items that have to be subcontracted out, like barrels. But low rate and continuous production is what matters.

We do not need large quantities but any manufacturer wants to see a reasonable rate of return on an investment. If a manufacturer can see a steady flow of business for a ten or twenty years period then they will invest. If its a crap shoot at the possibility of a two to three year feast followed by two decades of famine then not so much.

There's a certain rhythm in building custom vehicles. The RV industry is a master at this. Just take a look at the factories around Elkhart, Indiana. It has numerous small scale assembly lines and a host of parts manufacturers. Obviously there is a difference in type and scale, but the system of low-run production would work so long as there is a long term commitment to acquire which would let the assembly plant and supply chain see a steady work flow. An alternative is to go back to a federal arsenal system.

Something like that needs to scale to the CF requirements which means we need to make long term predictions for force structure (ESPECIALLY EQUIPPING THE RESERVES).

Just for a hoot, If I use the two division model I prefer (1 light/medium, 1 heavy) and with a service cycle of 10 years heavy RegF usage, 15 years light ResF usage per vehicle, you could probably do a predictable cycle like:

tanks - 3 regiments 200 total - 20/year - initial build followed by refit or replacement
IFVs - 6 battalions 400 total (common chassis with tank) - 40/year - initial build followed by refit or replacement
SP artillery - 4 regiments 100 total (common chassis with tank) - 10/year - initial build followed by refit or replacement
Tracked MPV (CP, logistics, etc) 500 total (common chassis with tank) - 50/year - initial build followed by refit or replacement
LAVs - none initially needed but 6 battalions 40/year for refit or replacement
ACSV - none initially needed but 6 battalions 40/year for refit or replacement
Towed artillery - 2 regiments using current M777 / LG1 systems - no domestic industry and handle replacement FMS
SMP Wheeled fleet - appx 3,000 (including medium and heavy logistics, light infantry transport and miscellaneous - 4 common chassis maximum) - 300/year - initial build followed by refit or replacement.

Essentially you are looking at three major facility groups - one tracked continuously producing 120 vehicles per year; a LAV/ACSV facility producing 80 vehicles per year; an SMP wheeled facility producing some 300 vehicles per year; and spare parts and 3rd and 4th line maintenance. That is a scale Canada's industry and budget should be able to handle.

🍻
 
For the tanks and SPHs you just need a licenced repair shop. If it were capable of handling something like 20 hulls a year it could refurbish/replace 100 tanks every 5 years. Replace grandfather's turret every 5 years and grandfather's hull every 10 years. Do the same for SPHs.

Export old parts and import new parts.
 
Deleted link- didn't catch who the writer was until too late. Service contact coming for Leo 2s.

:oops:
 
Deleted link- didn't catch who the writer was until too late. Service contact coming for Leo 2s.

:oops:
Yeah I saw that yesterday and then saw the writer…

Bigger issue is that it acknowledges that the Leo2’s donated aren’t getting replaced anytime soon.
 
Yeah I saw that yesterday and then saw the writer…

Bigger issue is that it acknowledges that the Leo2’s donated aren’t getting replaced anytime soon.
That should shock no one. We aren’t getting any of that equipment replaced period as far as I’m concerned.
 
That should shock no one. We aren’t getting any of that equipment replaced period as far as I’m concerned.
Then maybe we should start cross-training our tankers and gunners in Naval trades since while the CA has people but no equipment the RCN will have equipment with no people.
 
Then maybe we should start cross-training our tankers and gunners in Naval trades since while the CA has people but no equipment the RCN will have equipment with no people.
8 tanks and 4 M777 amounts to maybe 70 people total; we have enough vacancies to fill regardless.
 
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.
Should this option be considered isGdls willing or able to retrofit existing bldgs? With the exception of the old diesel loco plant I seem to remember the crane ways being a bit light as a start point. Anyone with mor current data?
 
That should shock no one. We aren’t getting any of that equipment replaced period as far as I’m concerned.
GiC has committed to funding. The problems lie in a lack of open production lines, or a lack of used equipment on the market.

Who knew that buying warfighting equipment in the middle of a war would be so difficult?
 
GiC has committed to funding. The problems lie in a lack of open production lines, or a lack of used equipment on the market.

Who knew that buying warfighting equipment in the middle of a war would be so difficult?
It's kind of curious. When Eisenhower gave his warning about the military-industrial complex, he was warning about the acquisition of unwarranted influence such a group could have on government and the democratic process. He did not criticize the existence of such a group and in fact was recognizing that in the new order of a post-war world one needed powerful armies and a powerful industry that could supply it with its materiel.

In Canada we've really lost the plot on the "industrial" side of that equation. We eventually developed a robust post-war military but after the late 1960s we've been chipping away at it until we have now reached a point where its operational deployment capabilities are marginal and its industrial sustainment capabilities in a major conflict are almost non-existent. We have no national plan to ramp up either the military or industry to meet war-time needs.

🍻
 
Who knew that buying warfighting equipment in the middle of a war would be so difficult?
And who could have guessed you would not be able to buy new 2006 model systems with compatible parts & training requirements in 2023?

Nobody makes Leopard 2A4 any more. The M777 line is closed. Even our new LAV 6.0 cannot be produced in the same as what is already in service.
 
And who could have guessed you would not be able to buy new 2006 model systems with compatible parts & training requirements in 2023?

Nobody makes Leopard 2A4 any more. The M777 line is closed. Even our new LAV 6.0 cannot be produced in the same as what is already in service.
Maybe they could make them without the HMS and save us some heart ache ?
 
And who could have guessed you would not be able to buy new 2006 model systems with compatible parts & training requirements in 2023?

Nobody makes Leopard 2A4 any more. The M777 line is closed. Even our new LAV 6.0 cannot be produced in the same as what is already in service.

That's just the shiny stuff. The lions share of this problem lays the echelons behind the pointy end. We dont have the spares to keep running what we have.

I will keep saying this, I want mass amounts of stores in close proximity to the end user depots gathering dust in case shit happens.
 
And who could have guessed you would not be able to buy new 2006 model systems with compatible parts & training requirements in 2023?

Nobody makes Leopard 2A4 any more. The M777 line is closed. Even our new LAV 6.0 cannot be produced in the same as what is already in service.
Well Ukraine is going to open a 777 line after they get the L119/M119 line moving.
So there is a possibility there to replace some.

Honestly I think Canada would be vastly better off giving all the Leo’s to Ukraine (especially any of the 2A4 variants)
 
It’s also interesting to see the reluctance and resistance of some companies to allowing the use of their IP, and that it is part of the reason for Leo parts shortages.

It does give weight to the desire or insistence that the military own the IP to their equipment or at least deal with another allied military that owns it vs a private or public corporation.

I assume the US Government owns to Abrams IP and I am curious about who owns the IP for the K2, LAV 6, etc.
 
It’s also interesting to see the reluctance and resistance of some companies to allowing the use of their IP, and that it is part of the reason for Leo parts shortages.

It does give weight to the desire or insistence that the military own the IP to their equipment or at least deal with another allied military that owns it vs a private or public corporation.

I assume the US Government owns to Abrams IP and I am curious about who owns the IP for the K2, LAV 6, etc.
Sorry old guy here, IP?
 
Back
Top