CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[daftandbarmy]

I wonder how many LAV 6's GDLS could pump out at max capacity in london for us? or others.

There are auto factories all over North America, and elsewhere, that regularly produce over 1000 vehicles per day.

The capacity is enormous, and largely invisible to most military minds it seems, presumably because it doesn't involve getting a medal for producing high quality quad slides for the next CUB

 

[FJAG]

I keep wondering whether it would make more sense that rather than having a large manufacturer do a fleet refresh every 15-20 years or so with a crash program for 2,000 + logistics vehicles, we'd engage a smaller manufacturer (or even a big one using one of it's smaller plants) who would set up a production run of say 300 vehicles plus spare parts per year in perpetuity?

 

[MilEME09]

There are auto factories all over North America, and elsewhere, that regularly produce over 1000 vehicles per day.

The capacity is enormous, and largely invisible to most military minds it seems, presumably because it doesn't involve getting a medal for producing high quality quad slides for the next CUB

I mean the Roshel Senator uses the F-450 chassis and builds on it, part of the reason why they were able to deliver 1000 to ukraine, take a commercial standard product and then they modified it.

 

[MilEME09]

I keep wondering whether it would make more sense that rather than having a large manufacturer do a fleet refresh every 15-20 years or so with a crash program for 2,000 + logistics vehicles, we'd engage a smaller manufacturer (or even a big one using one of it's smaller plants) who would set up a production run of say 300 vehicles plus spare parts per year in perpetuity?

and every couple years retire old vehicles, plus use lessons learned to create new mods? blasphemy.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I mean the Roshel Senator uses the F-450 chassis and builds on it, part of the reason why they were able to deliver 1000 to ukraine, take a commercial standard product and then they modified it.

Or Dodge Challengers...

 

[FJAG]

and every couple years retire old vehicles, plus use lessons learned to create new mods? blasphemy.

Exactly - and as I've suggested previously; if the expected life cycle of a vehicle is 10 years at full use, then retire it into a reserve structure after 6 or 7 years where its usage will be greatly reduced and its service life extended by another 8 to 10 years.

There isn't a lot of magic and innovation in logistics vehicles except for improvements to the engine (and a bit to the suspension). Generally, most parts are generic. 90% of the vehicle is just metal bashing which doesn't need to change over the decades.

 

[Kirkhill]

No other nation on Earth gets an "Unfunded Priorities List" of kit that wasn't included for in the annual budget...

And no other nation equips their military with more than it asks for, either...

And no other nation has (Had? I haven't heard about it in a few years now...) the "Overseas Contingency Fund" which could be used in part to by mission specific kit...



I remember for a few years in a row...

US Navy - "We'd like funding for 14 more F-18E/F's that werent included in the budget please, we're flying the wings off of them faster than we anticipated in support of the GWOT..."

US Congress - "How does 16 sound? Shhhiiitttt, Boeing is in my district...how does 18 sound!?"



And no other nation on Earth has ever heard their army say "Please stop buying us brand new tanks! Our units are fully equipped, we have plenty of spares in the war stock, and all of our forward equipment storage sites are full!!"

I wonder how many LAV 6's GDLS could pump out at max capacity in london for us? or others.

I wonder how many LAV IIIs or even LAV 2s could be made instead and at what cost?

 

[GR66]

I keep wondering whether it would make more sense that rather than having a large manufacturer do a fleet refresh every 15-20 years or so with a crash program for 2,000 + logistics vehicles, we'd engage a smaller manufacturer (or even a big one using one of it's smaller plants) who would set up a production run of say 300 vehicles plus spare parts per year in perpetuity?

There isn't a lot of magic and innovation in logistics vehicles except for improvements to the engine (and a bit to the suspension). Generally, most parts are generic. 90% of the vehicle is just metal bashing which doesn't need to change over the decades.

Could you run a competition for defence contractors to create an Open Source design for non-combat vehicles where the GoC would own the IT and multiple vendors could then bid to build the vehicles? Do your continuous build but with a greatly diversified supplier base.

Key components (engines, transmissions, etc.) could be purchased in bulk by the government and contracts treated the way the USN builds ships with the hulls coming from the shipyards but the weapons and sensors being supplied by the Navy.

Design could be refreshed every decade or so to take advantage of new technologies.

Providing the designs to a variety of builders and maintaining a stock of the key components would allow for more rapid fleet build-up in time of conflict.

 

[Kirkhill]

How about writing contracts so as to be able to engage suppliers like this?

Truck Bodies & Truck Beds | Work Vehicle Upfits | Knapheide

From steel and aluminum utility beds, flatbeds, and gooseneck bodies, to one of our full-featured mechanics service trucks, we've got the body for your job.

www.knapheide.com

Maybe get GDLS to manufacture as lightweight 8x8 or 6x6 armoured pick-up that companies like Roshel and Knapheide could work with?

Or is it enough to better exploit DEW Engineering and get GDLS to produce something that is compatible with the types of modular systems DEW can manufacture?

 

[KevinB]

I wonder how many LAV IIIs or even LAV 2s could be made instead and at what cost?

Why? Until Canada has a heavy tracked IFV, the LAV 6.0 is the go to for Canadian Mechanized Infantry units.
You'd be better off asking GDLS to make the Abrams X in London, and getting BAE to make CV-90 in Canada.

 

[KevinB]

I keep wondering whether it would make more sense that rather than having a large manufacturer do a fleet refresh every 15-20 years or so with a crash program for 2,000 + logistics vehicles, we'd engage a smaller manufacturer (or even a big one using one of it's smaller plants) who would set up a production run of say 300 vehicles plus spare parts per year in perpetuity?

Every 10 years, and you can mothball some of the older fleet...

 

[Kirkhill]

Why? Until Canada has a heavy tracked IFV, the LAV 6.0 is the go to for Canadian Mechanized Infantry units.
You'd be better off asking GDLS to make the Abrams X in London, and getting BAE to make CV-90 in Canada.

Some place between "not good enough" and "good enough" there is "better - but still not good enough".

My understanding of your view is that the LAV 6 falls into the "better - but still not good enough" category. If the extra money that differentiates a LAV 2 (not good enough) from a LAV 6 (better - but still not good enough) is not going to create a "good enough" result then why spend it?

Why not accept that both a LAV 6 and a LAV 2 have their limitations and plan accordingly?

A pickup is better than black caddies.
A LAV 2 is better than a pickup.
A LAV 6 is better than a LAV 2 but is it sufficiently better to justify the cost differential?
Or would the extra money be better spent in buying Bradleys/CV90s/Lynxes?

And I know that each of the identified tiers are debatable but try to consider them as a philosophical construct and not a detailed prescription.

 

[markppcli]

Some place between "not good enough" and "good enough" there is "better - but still not good enough".

My understanding of your view is that the LAV 6 falls into the "better - but still not good enough" category. If the extra money that differentiates a LAV 2 (not good enough) from a LAV 6 (better - but still not good enough) is not going to create a "good enough" result then why spend it?

This is all a false comparison. Perhaps if we were going to compare like to like that would be a better start point. A Bison, which is what I assume you mean when you say LAV 2, is at best a light APC suited for non combat tasks. A LAV 6 is an IFV and they both do different things. We ve had this discussion before. Now regarding the LAV 3, there would be no way we buy them for the same cost of production, you simply are t going to have the same electronics, or sights available, and that would necessitate a lot of the changes in the design.

Why not accept that both a LAV 6 and a LAV 2 have their limitations and plan accordingly?

In what way?

A pickup is better than black caddies.

Some times

A LAV 2 is better than a pickup.

Some times

A LAV 6 is better than a LAV 2 but is it sufficiently better to justify the cost differential?

At carrying infantry sections yes.

Or would the extra money be better spent in buying Bradleys/CV90s/Lynxes?

Maybe

And I know that each of the identified tiers are debatable but try to consider them as a philosophical construct and not a detailed prescription.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is all a false comparison. Perhaps if we were going to compare like to like that would be a better start point. A Bison, which is what I assume you mean when you say LAV 2, is at best a light APC suited for non combat tasks. A LAV 6 is an IFV and they both do different things. We ve had this discussion before. Now regarding the LAV 3, there would be no way we buy them for the same cost of production, you simply are t going to have the same electronics, or sights available, and that would necessitate a lot of the changes in the design.



In what way?


Some times


Some times


At carrying infantry sections yes.


Maybe

Based on some of our previous discussions I will take "it depends" as a win.

And you are dead right about the LAV 2 - Bison equivalency. I rate it closer to a Milverado than a CV90 with the LAV 6 being the other end of the scale.

I keep getting concerned that we end up eliminating cheap hammers and buying a few expensive pneumatic drills when often a few hammers are all that are necessary.

Given how quickly the regs snapped up the Bisons and converted them for a variety of useful roles, and the fact that they have held on to their Bv206s for, what, 40 years? I continue to think that there is a role for the cheap and cheerful in the supply system.

But I don't have to contend with a system that feels it necessary to get rid of a 60 mm steel pipe in order to justify buying a mechanical marvel that needs 27 foam padded sea cans to move it. (C16 GMG hyperbole invoked).

 

[GR66]

Based on some of our previous discussions I will take "it depends" as a win.

And you are dead right about the LAV 2 - Bison equivalency. I rate it closer to a Milverado than a CV90 with the LAV 6 being the other end of the scale.

I keep getting concerned that we end up eliminating cheap hammers and buying a few expensive pneumatic drills when often a few hammers are all that are necessary.

Given how quickly the regs snapped up the Bisons and converted them for a variety of useful roles, and the fact that they have held on to their Bv206s for, what, 40 years? I continue to think that there is a role for the cheap and cheerful in the supply system.

But I don't have to contend with a system that feels it necessary to get rid of a 60 mm steel pipe in order to justify buying a mechanical marvel that needs 27 foam padded sea cans to move it. (C16 GMG hyperbole invoked).

But they didn't snap them up to replace LAV 6's for the IFV role. Yes there is a role for lesser armoured vehicles in support roles but not as replacements/substitutes for IFVs for situations "where a LAV 6 might not be required".

 

[markppcli]

Based on some of our previous discussions I will take "it depends" as a win.

And you are dead right about the LAV 2 - Bison equivalency. I rate it closer to a Milverado than a CV90 with the LAV 6 being the other end of the scale.

I keep getting concerned that we end up eliminating cheap hammers and buying a few expensive pneumatic drills when often a few hammers are all that are necessary.

Given how quickly the regs snapped up the Bisons and converted them for a variety of useful roles, and the fact that they have held on to their Bv206s for, what, 40 years? I continue to think that there is a role for the cheap and cheerful in the supply system.

But I don't have to contend with a system that feels it necessary to get rid of a 60 mm steel pipe in order to justify buying a mechanical marvel that needs 27 foam padded sea cans to move it. (C16 GMG hyperbole invoked).

I’ve never seen a BV 206 used. Pretty sure they’ve been retired for at least a decade.

 

[Kirkhill]

But they didn't snap them up to replace LAV 6's for the IFV role. Yes there is a role for lesser armoured vehicles in support roles but not as replacements/substitutes for IFVs for situations "where a LAV 6 might not be required".

But they did buy IFVs and specialists rather than a balanced fleet that included the necessary lesser included logistics vehicles.

They are only now getting around to replacing TLAVs and Bisons with LAV6-minuses.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’ve never seen a BV 206 used. Pretty sure they’ve been retired for at least a decade.

I thought they still had a couple of relics they were dragging out for the Arctic exercises? Could be wrong.

 

[Spencer100]

Couple of points about modern Automotive and manufacturing industries. Those plants you see with Ford, GM, Toyota on them nothing is made in them as in raw material in finished good out. That ended decades ago. Today's plants the closes thing is the body shop that welds sheet metal stamped most of the time from somewhere else together. After that parts made elsewhere are screwed, fastened, glued or bolted on.

So in an emergency asking Automotive companies please make more LAV or Tanks would be a clean slate start. Nothing in a modern assembly plant would apply to combat vehicle building. Yes the people and some management systems could retrained and have some knowledge and abilities but that's it.

Now for light vehicles. Yes some of the commercial platform would work and do. But you still need to send offline for the mil spec add ons.

 

[FJAG]

Every 10 years, and you can mothball some of the older fleet...

My intent is more along the line of equipping the ResF logistics units over time by not leaving vehicle with the RegF long enough to require divesting and replacing them as a fleet, but rotating them into the ResF where their usage will be greatly reduced but they stay maintained and available for an extended period of time than they would have with the RegF.

It lets you grow the SMP holdings with the ResF over time and keeps the RegF refreshed with new vehicles in a continuing stream.

By keeping one factory working continuously over decades on one model of vehicle you generally do not have to retrain on a new model and will have a continuous flow of spare parts. (And I recognize that over time some key components, such as engines, will change as the older ones become discontinued and will need to be accounted for). In addition you have a factory level facility for major rebuilds, refurbishments and repairs.