Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[YZT580]

Maybe the total CAF RegF numbers shouldn't be cut but a change in the way they are distributed is likely needed. RegF PY's should be focused on those that regularly deploy and those that support them - largely RCN and RCAF pers along with a core of the CA. Some of these PY's could come from a rationalization of HQ's, etc. and others can come from a shift of a portion of combat arms PY's from the RegF to the ResF.

I don't understand your logic and yes, I don't wear a uniform. We are maintaining combat arms in Latvia. In the event of either war (hopefully not) or as part of a peace mission in Ukraine, or even as our contribution to the UN it is combat arms that seem to be required. When the floods and fires hit it is the combat forces that are drawn upon to fill sandbags. I understand the need for support functions i.e. air force transport and the need for a robust navy to guard the shorelines and provide a presence and all that but I don't see where you can reduce py's in reg. force combat arms. These are the guys called first and they seem to be rotating out constantly

 

[GR66]

I don't understand your logic and yes, I don't wear a uniform. We are maintaining combat arms in Latvia. In the event of either war (hopefully not) or as part of a peace mission in Ukraine, or even as our contribution to the UN it is combat arms that seem to be required. When the floods and fires hit it is the combat forces that are drawn upon to fill sandbags. I understand the need for support functions i.e. air force transport and the need for a robust navy to guard the shorelines and provide a presence and all that but I don't see where you can reduce py's in reg. force combat arms. These are the guys called first and they seem to be rotating out constantly

Is it efficient to have large numbers of troops paid full-time waiting in case there is a deployment or if there is a forest fire? Things like Latvia should be a posting so you have known personnel requirements. The whole purpose of having Reservists is that you can call upon them when something unplanned comes up without needing to pay them full-time waiting to be needed. 100% agree that known requirements should be met with full-time members (or a mix of full-time and planned part-time augmentation).

 

[KevinB]

Maybe the total CAF RegF numbers shouldn't be cut but a change in the way they are distributed is likely needed. RegF PY's should be focused on those that regularly deploy and those that support them - largely RCN and RCAF pers along with a core of the CA. Some of these PY's could come from a rationalization of HQ's, etc. and others can come from a shift of a portion of combat arms PY's from the RegF to the ResF.

I don’t think you can harvest much from the Reg Force Combat Arms. The units aren’t fully manned at this point, and more capabilities are required.
But I think one needs to look at the PY’s and be ruthless with who is retained in certain trades. People who can’t deploy need to be replaced, and some positions be changed to Government Civilian from uniformed personnel.

 

[MilEME09]

Roshel doesn't build vehicles, they modify a Ford 550.
It isn't a viable design for the CA.

just because the base is a F550 does not make it not viable. Being quick and cheap to produce but still meets STANAG requirements makes it worthy of evaluation. The fact an army in an active conflict for the past 3 years loves them, and keeps wanting more also speaks volumes about the design and its reliability. It is easy to produce designs like this that would end up becoming a workhorse if the balloon went up because because it 120 vehicles a month, it can likely keep up with attrition.

 

[GR66]

I don’t think you can harvest much from the Reg Force Combat Arms. The units aren’t fully manned at this point, and more capabilities are required.
But I think one needs to look at the PY’s and be ruthless with who is retained in certain trades. People who can’t deploy need to be replaced, and some positions be changed to Government Civilian from uniformed personnel.

And when when we talk about numbers we need to talk about full authorized strength of the CAF not actual strength. We need to get there as a starting point.

Any discussion on numbers also needs to take into account the number of pers required at each rank level not just total numbers. If the RCN for example is 1,000 pers short simply adding 1,000 Ordinary Seamen doesn't solve the problem and mean they are fine.

 

[KevinB]

just because the base is a F550 does not make it not viable. Being quick and cheap to produce but still meets STANAG requirements makes it worthy of evaluation. The fact an army in an active conflict for the past 3 years loves them, and keeps wanting more also speaks volumes about the design and its reliability. It is easy to produce designs like this that would end up becoming a workhorse if the balloon went up because because it 120 vehicles a month, it can likely keep up with attrition.

STANAG Level what…

Look at the loss rate of Infantry Mobility Vehicles in Ukraine, and the breakdowns by type.

Furthermore, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Ukraine ain’t going to shit on anything they can get, because it’s better than nothing.

Canada isn’t in the same situation, and should not situate the estimate to take a half assed platform that will just get a lot of people killed.

Go buy it for domestic airfield security - but don’t fool yourself into thinking that it is a viable combat vehicle.

 

[MilEME09]

STANAG Level what…

Level II ballastic and level III blast, This isn't some half assed vehicle, and in comparison to some of the other vehicles trying to replace the G wagon only have level 1 with upgrade packages to level 2 ballistic.

Combat vehicle? this never was designed to storm into the enemy head first, if evaluating a vehicle, evaluate its intended role.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

More details can be found here:

Let's talk about the Koreans

David ******** was the first to report of the recent meeting in Ottawa last week...

noahscornerofrandomstuff.substack.com

And the Army Recognition website is reporting that South Korea is proposing their K9 SP gun as a candidate for Canada's new SP gun.

Flash News: South Korea Proposes K9 Howitzer as Alternative to US Artillery in Canada’s Modernization Plan

Flash News: South Korea Proposes K9 Howitzer as Alternative to US Artillery in Canada’s Modernization Plan

armyrecognition.com

Apart from the fact that last week Canadian and South Korean officials got together and talked about future defence ties, I don't think there is anything official about any SK proposal. Plus, the fact that the IFM RFI is written in such a away to favour a wheeled system over a wheeled system.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

 

[MilEME09]

And the Army Recognition website is reporting that South Korea is proposing their K9 SP gun as a candidate for Canada's new SP gun.

Flash News: South Korea Proposes K9 Howitzer as Alternative to US Artillery in Canada’s Modernization Plan

Flash News: South Korea Proposes K9 Howitzer as Alternative to US Artillery in Canada’s Modernization Plan

armyrecognition.com

Apart from the fact that last week Canadian and South Korean officials got together and talked about future defence ties, I don't think there is anything official about any SK proposal. Plus, the fact that the IFM RFI is written in such a away to favour a wheeled system over a wheeled system.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings.

given they also discussed manufacturing opportunities, especially in light of the trade war, if they want to set up any kind of production in canada, it seems like a no brainer for industrial offsets.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Go buy it for domestic airfield security - but don’t fool yourself into thinking that it is a viable combat vehicle.

Bombardier Iltis enters the conversation.

 

[KevinB]

Level II ballastic and level III blast, This isn't some half assed vehicle, and in comparison to some of the other vehicles trying to replace the G wagon only have level 1 with upgrade packages to level 2 ballistic.

Combat vehicle? this never was designed to storm into the enemy head first, if evaluating a vehicle, evaluate its intended role.

Well nothing like setting the bar low.

I’d suggest that a Light Utility Vehicle should mean unarmored, potentially with a small ballistic kit add on. It’s not an MRAP it’s a Jeep like tool.

Or else you end up with a really big honking truck that doesn’t do anything well.

To me if you want an armored rover buy a few JLTV’s, they are enormous, but a dedicated armored vehicle. But for the love of God DO NOT buy a fleet of them like we did down here.

 

[KevinB]

Bombardier Iltis enters the conversation.

If the CAF Iltis was a 6cylinder, it wouldn’t have been so bad, but again the issue was it was too small for a lot of the roles it was acquired for.
The body design wasn’t great for 4 troops, especially if anyone in the back was over 5’7” and 140lbs.

It had great off road performance though as it was light and could be fit inside about anything, and two people could flip it back over.

But it sucked for any role that wasn’t a dedicated jeep role - and got pressed into service where a lot of roles would have been better suited to the 5/4 or CUCV type.

 

[PrairieFella]

STANAG Level what…

Look at the loss rate of Infantry Mobility Vehicles in Ukraine, and the breakdowns by type.

Furthermore, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Ukraine ain’t going to shit on anything they can get, because it’s better than nothing.

Canada isn’t in the same situation, and should not situate the estimate to take a half assed platform that will just get a lot of people killed.

Go buy it for domestic airfield security - but don’t fool yourself into thinking that it is a viable combat vehicle.

You're misunderstanding the scope of the project, it's never going to be a combat vehicle. It's going to be at best an A Ech vehicle.

 

[KevinB]

You're misunderstanding the scope of the project, it's never going to be a combat vehicle. It's going to be at best an A Ech vehicle.

I get the role. What I question is the program definition.
It is asking for two divergent requirements.

It needs to be reviewed and refined.

 

[Maxman1]

Well nothing like setting the bar low.

I’d suggest that a Light Utility Vehicle should mean unarmored, potentially with a small ballistic kit add on. It’s not an MRAP it’s a Jeep like tool.

Or else you end up with a really big honking truck that doesn’t do anything well.

To me if you want an armored rover buy a few JLTV’s, they are enormous, but a dedicated armored vehicle. But for the love of God DO NOT buy a fleet of them like we did down here.

Kia still makes literal Jeeps.

K311 cargo truck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[suffolkowner]

Good I hope so, subs, tanks, K239? Bring it on.

FTFY

SPG=RCH 155?

 

[FJAG]

And the Army Recognition website is reporting that South Korea is proposing their K9 SP gun as a candidate for Canada's new SP gun.

The K9 does not meet the RFI's required highway speed of 80kmph.

If the army wants to consider tracked SPs - and I urge them to do so - they need to bring that speed down to around 55 kmph.

If the CAF Iltis was a 6cylinder, it wouldn’t have been so bad, but again the issue was it was too small for a lot of the roles it was acquired for.
The body design wasn’t great for 4 troops, especially if anyone in the back was over 5’7” and 140lbs.

It had great off road performance though as it was light and could be fit inside about anything, and two people could flip it back over.

But it sucked for any role that wasn’t a dedicated jeep role - and got pressed into service where a lot of roles would have been better suited to the 5/4 or CUCV type.

Iltis was basically a replacement for the M151. We had M151 as rovers in the M109 batteries - BC, FOOs and BK. The FOOs never took their out of the compound and I swapped mine out for a 5/4 ton cargo. That left one with the BC for running back and forth to O Gps and shower runs.

The Iltis had slightly more cargo room in it than the M151 - which had zero. If you had radios in the M151 you could squeeze in a driver plus one and their kit and that was all. We had trailers but they were a pain in the ass.