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

CBC: "An 'embarrassing' gear shortage has Canadian troops in Latvia buying their own helmets"

I agree and disagree...

Remember masks in 2020? Canada had no production. We had to stand up production to ensure we could get masks when everyone else wanted masks...

We should have basic arms production in Canada, even if NLAW/Javelin/Spike costs more per unit to make here. It puts us at the front of the line, rather than the current state of "we'll get to you when we get to you".
Production yes, R&D/Design/Engineering...... I can live with that being an afterthought.

If there are proven designs that fit our needs, let's not think we can build a better wheel than those who have actually done a lot of work perfecting theirs.

Its arrogance and pork barreling that motivates that kind of thinking
 
Production yes, R&D/Design/Engineering...... I can live with that being an afterthought.

If there are proven designs that fit our needs, let's not think we can build a better wheel than those who have actually done a lot of work perfecting theirs.

Its arrogance and pork barreling that motivates that kind of thinking
100%, license the things that make sense, and sell licenses for the things we do well.

This is why I have ben a proponent of Korean armour, they are willing to sell licenses to us, and we can sell them ISR, or small arms kit we do well.
 
Best case of course is you create an economic climate (good infrastructure, reasonable taxes, well educated work force, reasonable energy rates, permissive export policies, elimination of unnecessary red tape, logical levels of CAF demand, etc.) to encourage both Canadian defence companies to develop and grow as well as foreign manufacturers to open facilities here. This of course would benefit Canadian industry in general, not just defence industries.

As far as procurement policy goes I think it depends somewhat on the type of item and the type of wartime need for that item when looking at foreign vs domestic procurement. For things like subs, ships, tanks, fighters, etc. that have long production lead times that mean you're not realistically going to be able to replace your losses during a conflict (regardless of whether they are produced in Canada or not) then I think you simply focus on getting the most suitable product available from wherever it is produced. If it is something that is more a consumable item like ammo, small UAVs, light vehicles, etc. then I think there is a major benefit to domestic production (including licensed foreign production facilities in Canada) to ensure sufficient supply (and surge capability for wartime) even if some level of subsidization may be required to ensure sufficient supply in a crisis.

The major proviso in this is that I think we should also leverage our political, economic and physical proximity to the USA in our procurement strategy. The US is the one allied nation that stocks and has the capability to produce equipment and military supplies at scale. It is also the nation we are most likely to fight side by side with in any major military conflict. Equipment commonality with the US combined with a very conscious effort toward tight interoperability with their forces (including habitual links between our formations and specific US formations to practice interoperability) should in my mind be a priority. This would open up the US supply system to Canada in wartime and cover those supply issues where domestic production does not make economic sense.
 
The major proviso in this is that I think we should also leverage our political, economic and physical proximity to the USA in our procurement strategy. The US is the one allied nation that stocks and has the capability to produce equipment and military supplies at scale. It is also the nation we are most likely to fight side by side with in any major military conflict. Equipment commonality with the US combined with a very conscious effort toward tight interoperability with their forces (including habitual links between our formations and specific US formations to practice interoperability) should in my mind be a priority. This would open up the US supply system to Canada in wartime and cover those supply issues where domestic production does not make economic sesense.
Isn't that what won us the Second World War? We were the intermediary between America and Britian until the U.S was in the war, but, additionally, we provided the raw material they needed to make the war stocks. It wasn't until the mid to late 60s that this relationship got severed very abruptly by successive Nationalistic governments.
 
As terrible as they are, provided you get them running they aren’t too bad in the field (for some odd reason I actually enjoy driving the stupid things). Wouldn’t be my first choice if I could choose any vehicle but currently it is better than its replacement…
Hasn’t been fully replaced yet. Are you talking about the tapv or the g ride?
 
Best case of course is you create an economic climate (good infrastructure, reasonable taxes, well educated work force, reasonable energy rates, permissive export policies, elimination of unnecessary red tape, logical levels of CAF demand, etc.) to encourage both Canadian defence companies to develop and grow as well as foreign manufacturers to open facilities here. This of course would benefit Canadian industry in general, not just defence industries.

As far as procurement policy goes I think it depends somewhat on the type of item and the type of wartime need for that item when looking at foreign vs domestic procurement. For things like subs, ships, tanks, fighters, etc. that have long production lead times that mean you're not realistically going to be able to replace your losses during a conflict (regardless of whether they are produced in Canada or not) then I think you simply focus on getting the most suitable product available from wherever it is produced. If it is something that is more a consumable item like ammo, small UAVs, light vehicles, etc. then I think there is a major benefit to domestic production (including licensed foreign production facilities in Canada) to ensure sufficient supply (and surge capability for wartime) even if some level of subsidization may be required to ensure sufficient supply in a crisis.

The major proviso in this is that I think we should also leverage our political, economic and physical proximity to the USA in our procurement strategy. The US is the one allied nation that stocks and has the capability to produce equipment and military supplies at scale. It is also the nation we are most likely to fight side by side with in any major military conflict. Equipment commonality with the US combined with a very conscious effort toward tight interoperability with their forces (including habitual links between our formations and specific US formations to practice interoperability) should in my mind be a priority. This would open up the US supply system to Canada in wartime and cover those supply issues where domestic production does not make economic sense.

Using American equipment just makes sense. We're never going to war with them, and if we did it would be over in an afternoon anyway. We generally don't go on missions without them. And using their equipment ties us into the real power of the US Military which is thier Logistics and Supply Train.

Agreed on your point about wartime material casualty replacement. I see a conventional prolonged war reverting to something close to WW2 or Korea quicker than people think. As high tech slow production dies off and is replaced by low tech fast production.
 
What ever we aim to produce domestically for defence should/must be entirely sourced from within North America. Everything from raw materials to finished product, I would accept R&D from elsewhere but everything else needs to be inside NA or it isn’t really a domestic capability.

Doing final assembly in Quebec of sub assemblies all built in Europe like we did for the MSVS doesn’t equal domestic defence capability.
 
Using American equipment just makes sense. We're never going to war with them, and if we did it would be over in an afternoon anyway. We generally don't go on missions without them. And using their equipment ties us into the real power of the US Military which is thier Logistics and Supply Train.

Agreed on your point about wartime material casualty replacement. I see a conventional prolonged war reverting to something close to WW2 or Korea quicker than people think. As high tech slow production dies off and is replaced by low tech fast production.
Worth noting that if we use American equipment, it can be build in one of their many subsidiary factories here. A GM product for example. We’re also generally speaking very close to most US manufacturing and the supply chains are over land and thus hard to sever.
 
What ever we aim to produce domestically for defence should/must be entirely sourced from within North America. Everything from raw materials to finished product, I would accept R&D from elsewhere but everything else needs to be inside NA or it isn’t really a domestic capability.

Doing final assembly in Quebec of sub assemblies all built in Europe like we did for the MSVS doesn’t equal domestic defence capability.
We should have piggy backed on the US VSHORAD.
 
We had the Italian Iveco parent version of this albatross in FRY in 92. They were quite a good vehicle. It took Canadian ingenuity to turn it into the turd it devolved into.
Bombardier did the same thing with the Iltis.
The Belgian and German ones had a V-6 and didn’t need that idiotic Ground Gear.
 
We gotta stop Canadianizing kit, half the times it's an excuse to get more money. Just get a local production license and build it to spec.
I remain incredibly annoyed we’re Canadianizing Multicam, half of the reason to move camouflages was the allow better off the shelf purchases. But no, it’s more important we look Canadian.
 
We gotta stop Canadianizing kit, half the times it's an excuse to get more money. Just get a local production license and build it to spec.
So, getting a licence and building local leads to the problem that you call “Canadianizing.”

You get that license to build a European design in Canada and the manufacture will substitute in North American sub-assemblies and parts.

If we mandate built-in-Canada, it is industry that makes the partnerships then decides how and proposes what they will build here.
 
So, getting a licence and building local leads to the problem that you call “Canadianizing.”

You get that license to build a European design in Canada and the manufacture will substitute in North American sub-assemblies and parts.

If we mandate built-in-Canada, it is industry that makes the partnerships then decides how and proposes what they will build here.
When it comes to Multicam tho, we could get the licenses to print our kit in it WITHOUT changing the pattern.

Canadianizing multicam is stupid,and I agree with Mark. It's plenty good enough for CANSOFCOM, SOCOM, the Aussies, Royal Marines (I think...) Etc etc



Making it easy for troops to purchase off the shelf makes them more effective at their specific jobs (basically every pouch & doo-dad comes in multicam) and helps them look more professional when in a pinch.

Canadianizing the pattern itself eliminates the whole point...
 
When it comes to Multicam tho, we could get the licenses to print our kit in it WITHOUT changing the pattern.

Canadianizing multicam is stupid,and I agree with Mark. It's plenty good enough for CANSOFCOM, SOCOM, the Aussies, Royal Marines (I think...) Etc etc



Making it easy for troops to purchase off the shelf makes them more effective at their specific jobs (basically every pouch & doo-dad comes in multicam) and helps them look more professional when in a pinch.

Canadianizing the pattern itself eliminates the whole point...
But that takes a job away from one or more retiring staffers that need work producing nothing until their second retirements!!
 
Back
Top