God I hate that I've spent so much time in those pieces of shit. Literally a useless vehicle except for like two things, but they never run anyways. If we ever buy Textron again, I will personally drive to NDHQ and shit on every DLR desk.
So this means we'll buy 3 of them - one for Latvia, one for Cold Lake and one for Bagotville and they'll be delivered in 2037.
Idk about that, $5BB buys a lot of HIMARS.
Nice - didn't see the price tag, just figured we'd do the most Canadian of all things and do it cheaply.
www.forbes.com
armyrecognition.com
Denial of service is something I worry about with these big ticket items. Thr only hope I have in that regard is if Trump turns off these high tech weapons for a G7 and NATO ally, the US FMS industry will implode (well, implode faster). If LockMart or Boeing or GDLS etc etc start losing billions, I imagine Trump will get a "never-before-seen" angle of the JFK assassination slid across his desk.Nice - didn't see the price tag, just figured we'd do the most Canadian of all things and do it cheaply.
I do see this article related to HIMARS and Ukraine -
Abruptly Blocking Intel, The U.S. Hamstrings Ukraine’s HIMARS
Ukrainian artillery batteries depend heavily on U.S. intel for strikes past 40 miles.
Abruptly Blocking Intel, The U.S. Prevents Ukraine’s HIMARS From Firing For Maximum Effect
Which does feed directly into the argument being actively discussed about the F35's and the US's ability to limit our potential use of them under the scenarios of not providing parts when needed, not providing code updates when needed, not provided weapons re-supply when needed. So if those arguments are valid, do they not apply here with the HIMARS? Based on the content of the example I've provided above, precedent has occurred with a US 'ally' being denied the ability to utilize their HIMAR's to their maximum effectiveness
Also of interest -
Breaking News : US and Australia Strengthen Defense Ties with New 155mm Munitions and HIMARS Missile Production Agreements
Breaking News : US and Australia Strengthen Defense Ties with New 155mm Munitions and HIMARS Missile Production Agreements
US and Australia Strengthen Defense Ties with New 155mm Munitions and HIMARS Missile Production Agreements
The second MOU establishes a co-assembly initiative for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) for HIMARS, bolstering Australia’s capacity to produce advanced long-range precision strike capabilities while enhancing operational integration with U.S. forces.
Nice - didn't see the price tag, just figured we'd do the most Canadian of all things and do it cheaply.
I do see this article related to HIMARS and Ukraine -
Abruptly Blocking Intel, The U.S. Hamstrings Ukraine’s HIMARS
Ukrainian artillery batteries depend heavily on U.S. intel for strikes past 40 miles.
Abruptly Blocking Intel, The U.S. Prevents Ukraine’s HIMARS From Firing For Maximum Effect
Which does feed directly into the argument being actively discussed about the F35's and the US's ability to limit our potential use of them under the scenarios of not providing parts when needed, not providing code updates when needed, not provided weapons re-supply when needed. So if those arguments are valid, do they not apply here with the HIMARS? Based on the content of the example I've provided above, precedent has occurred with a US 'ally' being denied the ability to utilize their HIMAR's to their maximum effectiveness
Also of interest -
Breaking News : US and Australia Strengthen Defense Ties with New 155mm Munitions and HIMARS Missile Production Agreements
Breaking News : US and Australia Strengthen Defense Ties with New 155mm Munitions and HIMARS Missile Production Agreements
US and Australia Strengthen Defense Ties with New 155mm Munitions and HIMARS Missile Production Agreements
The second MOU establishes a co-assembly initiative for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) for HIMARS, bolstering Australia’s capacity to produce advanced long-range precision strike capabilities while enhancing operational integration with U.S. forces.
Ugly? Maybe, well designed for recce by force and cavalry action, undoubtedly.
Agreed. Although I'd take a lot of things over the TAPV, I've had to use them pretty frequently when they ran so I'm not just speaking out of my arse here haha. It's a practically useless vehicle.
Interesting procedural steps; no doubt borne of experience.
With essentially zero armour or sensors. There is some wisdom in vehicles like this for certain tasks but they're essentially useless in modern LSCO. For context, the armour is less effective on these than what you'd find on both JTLV and Senator.
I may not be a smart man but I know what love is....There is an excellent video which shows the in-cab drills inside an M109A7, an M109A3GN (German/Norwegian type with sliding breach) and an M109A6. The A6 rammer is identical to Canada's A4+. The A7 is, IMHO, superior to the A6 but still requires a lift from rack to loader.
There's also a video of the K9 with a semi-autoloader which shows what's possible, but it includes more complex machinery. It looks more efficient but a tad slower. I really do not know enough about it one way or the other. One thing we haven't discussed here is inductive multi-function fuze setting. More expensive but really useful.
Not when the PY fights start happening in the corridors of CF HQ.
I seriously do not have an answer for that. I think in large measure its because the government still doesn't know what it wants the army to be when it grows up. I think part of that as well is that the army continues to have only sufficient funds to equip a tiny deployed force and a minimally equipped trg force back home - that creates priority issues once again.
Does the 5$ billion package for HIMARS give any indication of how big or small this allocation will be?Not when the PY fights start happening in the corridors of CF HQ.
Seriously though. Not when you've has three plus decades of no LSCO; promises that air power (jets and Predators) can take out all your targets with precision; and PY fights in the corridors . . . its all a question of perceived priorities.
There was no love for gunners nor black hats - there were serious discussions about whether guns and tanks are even needed anymore. Afghanistan changed a bit of that although folks still hadn't cottoned on to mass v precision and then Ukraine opened a bunch of eyes. My guess is that there are still mobs of folks wandering the halls of Ottawa in denial.
I seriously do not have an answer for that. I think in large measure its because the government still doesn't know what it wants the army to be when it grows up. I think part of that as well is that the army continues to have only sufficient funds to equip a tiny deployed force and a minimally equipped trg force back home - that creates priority issues once again.
OTOH, I do not know why things go as slow as they do. We've had various versions of the IFM and LRPRS on the books for decades. Like most DLRs, DLR 2 is lightly staffed but still manages to keep on top of industry outputs. Things don't get serious however until someone shows them the money and you get to finalize things in a way that contractors start taking your RFIs and the like seriously enough to respond. My guess is that they only started talking money seriously recently.
