Canada needs US permission to make 250 LAV III monuments

[The Bread Guy]

This from Global News:

.... Now the LAV IIIs, having fulfilled their Afghan duty, will take on a new role in Canada – as monuments.

Global News has learned the federal government is using up to 250 replicas LAVs to remember the sacrifices of the Afghan mission.

They’ll be displayed in communities across Canada – similar to the Second World War tanks and cannons that now appear near Royal Canadian Legion branches, cenotaphs, military bases and public parks.

The program is expected to be launched Wednesday at Ottawa’s War Museum, spearheaded by the Canada Company, a charitable group that supports the Canadian Forces.

Called the LAV III Monument program, it aims to recognize the service of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and will be the first update to Canadian military monuments in more than 50 years, according to a source with knowledge of the program.

The Conservative government, which has been accused of ignoring the often traumatized Afghan veterans as they return home, supports the initiative morally, but not financially. Instead of cash, it is sharing designs for the replica LAVs and helping to arrange locations for the monuments.

“Our government is committed to honouring the sacrifice and heroism of Canadian veterans,” Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino wrote in an email to Global News.

“The government of Canada supports and is working to facilitate this initiative that honours the sacrifice and service of Canadians who served in Afghanistan.” ....

 

[McG]

As the LAV III get upgraded to 6.0, the old hulls and turrets can be recycled into monuments.  Hopefully the US ITAR rules don't get in the way.

Canadian military monument program needs U.S. approval: document
Plan to honour Canada's Afghan mission stalled as green light sought from State Department
Dean Beeby
CBC News
25 Apr 2015

A federally sponsored program to create 250 war memorials in communities across Canada honouring the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan needs the permission of the United States government to proceed.

CBC News has learned that the light armoured vehicle to be used for each proposed memorial is clad in special armour that the United States government considers controlled military technology.

And so the plan to distribute the LAV III vehicles comes with strict conditions, including formal permission from Washington and an inventory-and-security plan to ensure none of the vehicles ever goes astray.

The Canadian military has already asked the U.S. State Department for permission to disperse used LAV IIIs as memorials but the approval process takes months — and so far there's been no answer.

"The regulatory hurdles to be overcome are significant, and … DND [the Department of National Defence] may inadvertently incur costs not initially envisaged," says an Aug. 28 briefing note for then-defence minister Rob Nicholson, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The project was announced Nov. 5 with fanfare at the Canadian War Museum during an event attended by at least two cabinet ministers, Rona Ambrose and Peter MacKay.

The plan is to recycle up to 250 discarded LAV lll hulls and turrets from LAV IIIs undergoing $1 billion in upgrades at General Dynamics Land System-Canada, in London, Ont., in a contract awarded in 2012. The hulls and turrets are mere shells, stripped of their main components.

Shell vehicle mounted

The Canada Company, a charity established to help veterans, is spearheading the project and has invited communities across the country to apply for monuments. The hulls and turrets are to be welded back together, and the shell vehicle mounted in a standard configuration, drawing on student welders from Fanshawe College.

Canada Company says communities must pay the costs of transporting the memorials from London, Ont., securing a site and installation, which the group says could cost between $5,000 and $20,000.

Only one memorial LAV III exists so far, a prototype built by General Dynamics and owned by the federal government. The rest are to be reassembled at Militex Coatings of London, Ont., with Canada Company paying the cost through donations.

Canada Company said they expected first deliveries to communities in early 2015, but so far no communities have been picked, though about three dozen have applied even as the military awaits the green light from Washington.

Tom Jenkins, chairman of the software firm OpenText and a main proponent of the memorial program, initially estimated the cost of converting the LAV III shell parts to monuments at $15,000 each, though the military briefing note says it could be closer to $100,000.

The Canadian military may also have to bear some of the costs of maintaining an inventory and control of the technology, as Canada Company says it will not take on that responsibility.

"Canada Company's support of this project does not require our registration with the Controlled Goods program," Shawn Deane, project manager for the program, said in an email.

40,000 vets of Afghan war

"We know that details around Controlled Goods are being worked through by DND and General Dynamics Land System–Canada … and that no deliveries of any monuments will be authorized until a process has been finalized."

National Defence spokeswoman Jane Houser told CBC News the department "has not incurred any financial cost associated with the LAV III monument program."

"We have not yet obtained authority from the U.S. Department of State to transfer the LAV III remnants, but the paperwork has been submitted," she said. Houser declined to indicate why the armour is considered controlled technology.

The memorials will chiefly honour the estimated 40,000 Canadian soldiers who served in Afghanistan over 13 years of combat. Many relied on LAV IIIs for protection and transport.

The Canada Company reported $1.3 million in revenues in 2013, the last year for which the Canada Revenue Agency has posted numbers, with about half in receipted charitable donations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-military-monument-program-needs-u-s-approval-document-1.3040982

 

[ringo]

Just what we need 250 monuments, better sell them for scrap and give the money to the vets.

 

[Eland2]

I find it disturbing that a sovereign country like Canada has to get permission from the United States before it can dispose of its own military hardware. I'm also surprised to see so many LAVIII's have come back from Afghanistan and are so worn out they can't even be refurbished and rehabilitated. I appreciate the fact that armoured vehicles do take quite the pounding in combat deployments, and that many of the hulls involved likely had irreparable metal fatigue and battle damage.

250 hulls is what, just a little over one third of the LAVIII fleet that was in service at the time the Afghanistan mission started? I'm all for honouring the sacrifices made by those who fought in Afghanistan, although I wonder if the memorials could be built more cheaply and with fewer complications.

 

[McG]

It may be cheaper to make monuments than to demilitarize the hulls and turrets.

 

[GnyHwy]

250 hulls is what, just a little over one third of the LAVIII fleet that was in service at the time the Afghanistan mission started? I'm all for honouring the sacrifices made by those who fought in Afghanistan, although I wonder if the memorials could be built more cheaply and with fewer complications.

We could build them out of cardboard.  Maybe stone?  Do a price check on stone replicas.

Don't fret.  Our bean counters have the finances well under control. 

 

[q_1966]

I like the stone idea, maybe a mix of stone as well as steel monuments across Canada

 

[Loachman]

I'm also surprised to see so many LAVIII's have come back from Afghanistan and are so worn out they can't even be refurbished and rehabilitated. I appreciate the fact that armoured vehicles do take quite the pounding in combat deployments, and that many of the hulls involved likely had irreparable metal fatigue and battle damage.

The new LAVs have a "double V" hull, which dissipates the blast from mines/IEDs much better, plus some other improvements. It is cheaper to build new hulls than to strip old hulls,  cut the bottoms off, weld new bottoms on, and re-assemble.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It may be cheaper to make monuments than to demilitarize the hulls and turrets.

:nod:

I find it disturbing that a sovereign country like Canada has to get permission from the United States before it can dispose of its own military hardware.

The plus side of buying American is that it's quicker & easier than building 100% Canadian.  This, however, is the down side - American technology = American rules.

 

[Eland2]

:nod:
The plus side of buying American is that it's quicker & easier than building 100% Canadian.  This, however, is the down side - American technology = American rules.

True, although I've often wondered if buying American kit, beyond the convenience factor is the form of tribute we have to render unto them for defending us.
If small countries like Sweden with one third or less of our GDP can design and build their own tanks and fighter jets, there seems to be little reason why Canada couldn't do the same.

 

[expwor]

True, although I've often wondered if buying American kit, beyond the convenience factor is the form of tribute we have to render unto them for defending us.
If small countries like Sweden with one third or less of our GDP can design and build their own tanks and fighter jets, there seems to be little reason why Canada couldn't do the same.

Although I'm not an expert, not by a long shot, nor proclaim to be I suspect that it is a way to control other countries' foreign policies.
If a country bought American made defence technology the Americans can then restrict it's use, making sure the country that bought their technology doesn't get involved in a conflict not in American interests
I certainly believe Canada could build it's own military technology.  Just look at the Avro Arrow, or even nearer history, the CanadArm
But making our own military technology is very very expensive compared with buying American technology or building under licence American technology
Just a thought

Tom 

 

[Navy_Pete]

The entire ITAR legislation is in the final process of being overhauled to significantly reduce the number of items on the list.  They are scaling back on what is considered 'controlled' to significant military items and taking off all the nuts, bolts and other random items that are part of larger assemblies.  I guess it was a push from US arms manufacturers that found it was hurting their exports, because no one wants to deal with the bureaucracy, especially when a big chunk of it is commercially available or dual use items.

Will take a while though to get the list knocked down after it's passed though; millions of part numbers need to be vetted, but makes it easier for new items when they get catalogued.  We also have a Canadian exemption in the legislation, so we actually have it easier then other countries.

Something to be said though to using common equipment with our allies; nice to be able to pull into an American depot and ask nicely for parts to fix our broken gear, and their experienced techs are also really skilled, as they specialize in specific systems.  On the navy side anyway, the USN is like a pretty awesome big brother with all the cool tools that is happy to help when you need it, so no complaints on my end.

Buying Canadian would have made a lot more sense 50 years ago; unfortunately our manufacturing industry is completely gutted, and we just don't buy the volume to make it really worth while for the most part for designing weapon systems.  Makes more sense for small companies to specialize in components; if we ever get the F-35, there is a lot of made in Canada specialized bits and pieces that could go on there.  Just my  :2c:, but I think we need to stop pretending we still have the skill sets and equipment required to build another Arrow.  It would require a massive reinvestment, and I personally think we get better bang for our buck buying foreign and making sure the through life maintenance is done in Canada as much as practicable.

 

[PuckChaser]

We buy fighters every 40-50 years, trucks every 30, tanks every 40-50 and ships every 50+. We'd be paying triple or quadruple the prices to maintain these industries, effectively making them just workfare companies that can only survive on government dollars.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I can't speak for the other industries, but there are any number of other countries who a constantly building new ships.  They change out a small percentage of the fleet on a continual basis over time thereby keeping the industry up and running and keeping the fleet fresh with new gear and technology as they evolve.  It's stupid to do feast and famine as we tend to do.  Setting up industry again and again is expensive.

 

[Eland2]

We buy fighters every 40-50 years, trucks every 30, tanks every 40-50 and ships every 50+. We'd be paying triple or quadruple the prices to maintain these industries, effectively making them just workfare companies that can only survive on government dollars.

Do you think the US military-industrial complex is any different? If the Americans didn't have a need to maintain a lock on Middle Eastern oil, they could easily get by with a military that's half as big as the one they have now and keep their nukes in reserve as the big stick they can pull out to remind everyone who's boss.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

ITAR was the best thing that could happen for NORINCO, basically knocked the US companies out of the market. I was told that grip screws for my Sig were ITAR controlled items, I guess AQ never heard of duct tape and not having grip screws would foil their plans. Mind you I found the same stupidity trying to export Landrover parts to the US, different duty for the same nut if it was associated with a steering part or a brake part.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Do you think the US military-industrial complex is any different?

I think the U.S. is quite different when it comes to the number of units they would have to make for its own military, compared to the number of units Canada would have to make for its military.  Bigger #'s = economies of scale = spreading the cost of building over more units

 

[cupper]

ITAR was the best thing that could happen for NORINCO, basically knocked the US companies out of the market. I was told that grip screws for my Sig were ITAR controlled items, I guess AQ never heard of duct tape and not having grip screws would foil their plans. Mind you I found the same stupidity trying to export Landrover parts to the US, different duty for the same nut if it was associated with a steering part or a brake part.

Some of the restrictions under ITAR are based on laws or regulations for importing into the country in question, and not taking them out of the US. Some gun parts are restricted for importation into Canada because of this, which is asinine. I brought a set of backup sights back home for a friend, which were listed under the ITAR regs. The packaging even had the warning and listed the relevant US regulations. But the kicker was that the same thing could be purchased in Canada, albeit at a much higher price.

 

[Mike5]

Interesting question posed in the thread above -- how do countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, with smaller GDP then Canada, manage to sustain a domestic military equipment industry?

 

[dapaterson]

Interesting question posed in the thread above -- how do countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, with smaller GDP then Canada, manage to sustain a domestic military equipment industry?

Fear.

Surprise.

Ruthless efficiency.

A fanatical devotion to the Pope.