Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Underway]

Summation of Carnet defence plan released today: it sucks, we are serious lol, but in no hurry, national defence is a jobs and votes scheme. Canada is headed in the same head in the sand direction.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904538291719786780

Don't jump to soon. The full Liberal defence policy will be in their election platform. Both them and the Conservatives will slow roll this thing as that seems to be the standard. Make all the announcements then release the policy. I feel like there is more here to read.

Of course I think Carney proposed 2030 in his Liberal leadership campaign? Or was it 2028?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I heard him say what I think are 2 key things - 1) CAF troops not deployed from Canada will "have the same equipment capabilities as those defending our Allies abroad" and 2) "We will give the CCG a new mandate and the right equipment to conduct Maritime surveillance to secure our coast." He also specifically said ''expand the reach of the CCG and 'expand them into our NATO capability".
He also talked about delivering 8 AOPS and 15 River class destroyers. He also talked about eliminating the 14,000 troops shortfall, pay rises, housing and child care. Talked about CDN companies earning CDN defense dollars and spending the money at home.

Sounds like Carney has big plans for the CCG. It would help the RCNs op tempo if they become closer in function and fit to the USCG.

Im all for it.

 

[childs56]

except I read that the Finnish yard has been stripped of much of its infrastructure which implies a rebuild there as well before any significant output can be realised if it is true

I have heard people on this site talk about that. But the Shipyard is still producing. They have the capability to increase production if required, but it is not required at this time. It would be interesting to see where some of the equipment did go if they in fact downsized their ship yard.

 

[childs56]

and if you drive them through the soft terrain do they all handle it the same or does it get progressively harder as the weight goes up? Taking suspension improvements into account

Add wider tires, higher load capacity and better distribution of weight to the gorund.

 

[Kirkhill]

and if you drive them through the soft terrain do they all handle it the same or does it get progressively harder as the weight goes up? Taking suspension improvements into account

I think you buy horses for courses and don't try to swim the Atlantic in a tank.

We now collectively have 50 years of experience on the capabilities and limits of wheeled armoured vehicles. GDLS knows how to make them and the CA presumably knows how to use them and how not to use them. GDLSC will build a useful vehicle for a prescribed set of circumstances. If a different set of circumstances eventuate then you might need to buy another vehicle, or at least a different version.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sounds like Carney has big plans for the CCG. It would help the RCNs op tempo if they become closer in function and fit to the USCG.

Im all for it.

In keeping with the 'expand roles for the CCG and 'maritime surveillance' aspect that Carney specifically talked about.

Does anyone know the size of the hanger for the new, yet to be built, 14 CCG 'multi-purpose' ships when compared to the hanger size of the River class destroyers? Could there potentially be a case of the same helo airframe be used in both cases in the future, assuming that the Sikorsky's are on the way out?

 

[Maxman1]

Sounds like Carney has big plans for the CCG. It would help the RCNs op tempo if they become closer in function and fit to the USCG.

Im all for it.

I'm skeptical because this sounds like another accounting shuffle to include Coast Guard budgets as defense spending to count towards 2% without actually increasing defense spending.

 

[FJAG]

They needn't be. If the money was there then the ca2013 plan of LAVs plus CV90s becomes more viable. Leos plus CV90s for the RCAC. LAVs for the infantry (perhaps with a different turret focusing on the C-UAS role).

There never was a plan for "CV90." The Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) was part of the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy which announced the intent to acquire a new Family of Land Combat Vehicles (FLCV). Besides the CCV there were a number of other projects including the TAPV and the LRPR (HIMARS basically) and others. The concept came from both Leslie (the CLS) and Ross (ADM(Mat)) who both had concerns about the high vulnerability of the LAV III to IEDs and mines and felt vehicles with higher protection were needed. The CCV never had a tracked requirement and in fact the CV90 was the only tracked contender - the rest were wheeled.

The CCV was cancelled in 2012 the week before the announcement for the winner of the competition. HIMARS was cancelled as well - or better yet shifted to a further out horizon. TAPV went ahead - go figure. Most folks were betting on CV90 winning, but by that time LAV(UP) had been approved and many in the army thought the LAV 6 fulfilled most of the CCV requirements. By that time Afghanistan was over and Lawson, the CDS was looking for spare change considering the depth of the financial crisis and the Harper budget cuts. The army didn't object much and offered the CCV up.

However, my main concern is the lack of internal dismount and the three man crew.

I've got this thing about ammo when it comes to artillery. When it comes to infantry its that there are very few, if any, viable IFVs that mount the "standard" rifle section. That was clear to me back in the 1970s when the Marders could basically only offer six dismounts. But at least the 3 man crew would fight the vehicle into the objective providing covering fire much in the way a dismounted fire base covers the assault.

A Marder, like the Bradley, is an IFV. When the Americans went middle ground with the Strykers, there was no pretense about it being an IFV. It was a battlefield taxi by design. It mounted a full doctrinal squad of dismounts and only had a medium machine gun etc for self defence.

I always considered the LAV III a bit of 'neither fish, nor foul' - not heavy enough to accompany the assault like a Marder, but armed with a canon and a crew of three which greatly restricted the number of dismounts. It has its uses, like it did in Afghanistan, but I'd think twice about how to use it in LSCO. The LAV 6 is a step up but conceptually the same.

The army needs an IFV for Latvia. Period. Concurrently the army needs to rethink as to how best to organize and utilize tank/IFV combined arms teams at combat group and battle group levels. Quite frankly I think the American armored division with two armored brigades and a Stryker brigade (while based on expediency) may have it right. A combination of Stryker brigades with large numbers of dismounts and armoured brigades with high striking power might very well be a decent solution - I'd think the proper ratio varies - 2 x Stryker, 1 x armoured for basically defensive ops and the reverse where offensive ops are more likely. I'm not sure if that is applicable within a brigade - say 2 x LAV bns and 1 x combined arms tank/IFV battalion etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

There never was a plan for "CV90." The Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) was part of the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy which announced the intent to acquire a new Family of Land Combat Vehicles (FLCV). Besides the CCV there were a number of other projects including the TAPV and the LRPR (HIMARS basically) and others. The concept came from both Leslie (the CLS) and Ross (ADM(Mat)) who both had concerns about the high vulnerability of the LAV III to IEDs and mines and felt vehicles with higher protection were needed. The CCV never had a tracked requirement and in fact the CV90 was the only tracked contender - the rest were wheeled.

The CCV was cancelled in 2012 the week before the announcement for the winner of the competition. HIMARS was cancelled as well - or better yet shifted to a further out horizon. TAPV went ahead - go figure. Most folks were betting on CV90 winning, but by that time LAV(UP) had been approved and many in the army thought the LAV 6 fulfilled most of the CCV requirements. By that time Afghanistan was over and Lawson, the CDS was looking for spare change considering the depth of the financial crisis and the Harper budget cuts. The army didn't object much and offered the CCV up.


I've got this thing about ammo when it comes to artillery. When it comes to infantry its that there are very few, if any, viable IFVs that mount the "standard" rifle section. That was clear to me back in the 1970s when the Marders could basically only offer six dismounts. But at least the 3 man crew would fight the vehicle into the objective providing covering fire much in the way a dismounted fire base covers the assault.

A Marder, like the Bradley, is an IFV. When the Americans went middle ground with the Strykers, there was no pretense about it being an IFV. It was a battlefield taxi by design. It mounted a full doctrinal squad of dismounts and only had a medium machine gun etc for self defence.

I always considered the LAV III a bit of 'neither fish, nor foul' - not heavy enough to accompany the assault like a Marder, but armed with a canon and a crew of three which greatly restricted the number of dismounts. It has its uses, like it did in Afghanistan, but I'd think twice about how to use it in LSCO. The LAV 6 is a step up but conceptually the same.

The army needs an IFV for Latvia. Period. Concurrently the army needs to rethink as to how best to organize and utilize tank/IFV combined arms teams at combat group and battle group levels. Quite frankly I think the American armored division with two armored brigades and a Stryker brigade (while based on expediency) may have it right. A combination of Stryker brigades with large numbers of dismounts and armoured brigades with high striking power might very well be a decent solution - I'd think the proper ratio varies - 2 x Stryker, 1 x armoured for basically defensive ops and the reverse where offensive ops are more likely. I'm not sure if that is applicable within a brigade - say 2 x LAV bns and 1 x combined arms tank/IFV battalion etc.

I favour the WW2 Commonwealth Armoured Divison with two brigades - one Armoured and one Infantry
The Armoured, as you know, was three tank units and one motorized infantry
The Infantry, was three infantry and one MG company with Vickers and 4.2" mortars.

These days I would suggest three Combined Arms units in the armoured brigade and 3 Stryker mounted units in the infantry brigade. The blackhats could call them the Assault Brigade if they wanted to.

 

[ytz]

I'm skeptical because this sounds like another accounting shuffle to include Coast Guard budgets as defense spending to count towards 2% without actually increasing defense spending.

NATO has definitions for what counts and what doesn't. There is a reason we can't count the RCMP and the French can count their Gendarmerie.

 

[ytz]

I favour the WW2 Commonwealth Armoured Divison with two brigades - one Armoured and one Infantry
The Armoured, as you know, was three tank units and one motorized infantry
The Infantry, was three infantry and one MG company with Vickers and 4.2" mortars.

These days I would suggest three Combined Arms units in the armoured brigade and 3 Stryker mounted units in the infantry brigade. The blackhats could call them the Assault Brigade if they wanted to.

What exactly is this hypothetical force design being designed to do?

 

[suffolkowner]

In keeping with the 'expand roles for the CCG and 'maritime surveillance' aspect that Carney specifically talked about.

Does anyone know the size of the hanger for the new, yet to be built, 14 CCG 'multi-purpose' ships when compared to the hanger size of the River class destroyers? Could there potentially be a case of the same helo airframe be used in both cases in the future, assuming that the Sikorsky's are on the way out?

https://www.seaspan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/MPV-Industry-Day-FINAL.pdf

an older presentation doesnt say much about the helicopters unfortunately

does have a timeline though

 

[KevinB]

and if you drive them through the soft terrain do they all handle it the same or does it get progressively harder as the weight goes up? Taking suspension improvements into account

It’s all about Ground Pressure and obstacle clearance (height and width’s)

Hitting a trench with a Grizzly 6x6 AVGP wasn’t much different that hitting a trench with a 8x8 LAV III, no fun…
I’ve never been in a LAV 6.0, but I can’t imagine a significant difference - going going going STOP - ouch.
113’s or a Bradley don’t even really notice it.

Like @Kirkhill I see the LAV-25 and Bison as the logical end to the LAV weight limit. There are roles for those sort of vehicles.
But for LSCO’s against Near Peer threats, the Bradley, CV-90, GDLS XM-30 MICV candidate are the better choice for an Infantry vehicle for a Mechanized Formation.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.seaspan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/MPV-Industry-Day-FINAL.pdf

an older presentation doesnt say much about the helicopters unfortunately

does have a timeline though
View attachment 92207

WOW! So Seaspan is out of commission until 2040 - basically when the very first CCG should be starting to be retired. And this timeline is already wrong because it doesn't include the PC2 ship, so 2040 is more like 2042 or 2043. It should be plain to anyone with any project planning expertise that both Seaspan and Irving do NOT have the throughput necessary to meet the needs of the CCG and the RCN on a go forward basis.

 

[Kirkhill]

It’s all about Ground Pressure and obstacle clearance (height and width’s)

Hitting a trench with a Grizzly 6x6 AVGP wasn’t much different that hitting a trench with a 8x8 LAV III, no fun…
I’ve never been in a LAV 6.0, but I can’t imagine a significant difference - going going going STOP - ouch.
113’s or a Bradley don’t even really notice it.

Like @Kirkhill I see the LAV-25 and Bison as the logical end to the LAV weight limit. There are roles for those sort of vehicles.
But for LSCO’s against Near Peer threats, the Bradley, CV-90, GDLS XM-30 MICV candidate are the better choice for an Infantry vehicle for a Mechanized Formation.

It took us a while didn't it?

 

[Kirkhill]

What exactly is this hypothetical force design being designed to do?

Conform to NATO expectations in Europe. Provide the backbone of a Multi-National Division.

If we ever deployed the full force we would still have 6 infantry battalions in Canada for Continental/National Defence.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The concept came from both Leslie (the CLS) and Ross (ADM(Mat)) who both had concerns about the high vulnerability of the LAV III to IEDs and mines and felt vehicles with higher protection were needed. The CCV never had a tracked requirement and in fact the CV90 was the only tracked contender - the rest were wheeled.

That is a unique view of how things unfolded....

 

[Underway]

WOW! So Seaspan is out of commission until 2040 - basically when the very first CCG should be starting to be retired. And this timeline is already wrong because it doesn't include the PC2 ship, so 2040 is more like 2042 or 2043. It should be plain to anyone with any project planning expertise that both Seaspan and Irving do NOT have the throughput necessary to meet the needs of the CCG and the RCN on a go forward basis.

Seaspan has added an extra build platform and an outfitting jetty so they are able to work on three ships at a time. Right now it's JSS 1 at the outfitting jetty, the OOSV is under Big Blue and JSS2 is on the new platform.

You're right in that timeline is no longer accurate, but they are working with more assets in 2025 (vice 2020/21) when this presentation looks like it was made.

 

[FJAG]

That is a unique view of how things unfolded....

I'm always open to more information but I got that from the source. PM me if I'm off base.

 

[McG]

I'm always open to more information but I got that from the source. PM me if I'm off base.

My info says Mr Ross threatened to kill LAV UP & LRPR if Army did not agree to buy CCV & to institutionalize RG-31 with TAPV.