• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lack of a domestic arms industry?

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
715
Points
1,110
One thing I'm always curious about in Canada is a lack of a independant domestic arms industry.

All the heavy equipment canada uses, other than the LAV3 i think, not sure,and naval vessels,again, not certain, has to be ordered from another country. Which is puzzling to me for two reasons.

first being things like helicopters, and aircraft in general, canada can if it wanted, develope ourselves. We have companies like bell, bombardier, ect, which I'm sure could meet the demands of the canadian forces.

secondly, countries with economies similiar or smaller than Canada's are at it. Russia for example is similiar in terms of GDP to Canada, and they are and have been creating military hardware that is widely exported since stalin. Sweden, which is much smaller than canada in economic terms, has been as well, at least when it comes to aircraft, with planes like the jas 39 gripen.

just curious as to why this is.
 
It is very simple.  The Canadian Public, and therefore the Canadian Government, are very adverse to being identified as being "Arms Producers".  Canada, has had many more large companies and industries to produce armaments.  Public opinion has for the most part driven them out of the Arms business, or into bankruptcy.  Other companies have simply returned to the business that they did best, producing other necessities and luxury items that Canadians wanted.  Many of these companies were then moved South or disappeared altogether after NAFTA.  There was also the US policy of procuring only American made armaments. 

Market prospects for Canadian Arms producers were too small to keep them viable.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Although I am loathe to believe wiki, in 2007 we were Number 13 for one of the top Arms Exporters in the world. So it looks like our arms industry is alive and well.
 
dbouls said:
I think we have Colt Canada

Which was once wholly a Canadian company: Domaco.  We have seen De Havilland disappear.  We have seen most of Canada's Shipbuilding Yards close down.  Irvine Shipyards could not compete against the larger yards in the US.  MTU and Kraus Maffi offered to build a production facility in Cape Breton, but the Canadian Public raised an outcry against producing "Tanks" in Canada.  ADATs wasn't too successful an enterprise in Quebec.  Gerald Bull's experiments were mostly for off shore clients and did little for Canada. 

Most of our current exports are parts or accessories for larger systems built elsewhere.
 
George Wallace said:
It is very simple.  The Canadian Public, and therefore the Canadian Government, are very adverse to being identified as being "Arms Producers".  Canada, has had many more large companies and industries to produce armaments.  Public opinion has for the most part driven them out of the Arms business, or into bankruptcy.  Other companies have simply returned to the business that they did best, producing other necessities and luxury items that Canadians wanted.  Many of these companies were then moved South or disappeared altogether after NAFTA.  There was also the US policy of procuring only American made armaments. 

Market prospects for Canadian Arms producers were too small to keep them viable.

So true, we at one time had our own military arsenal (Longbranch Armouries)* that designed, tested and manufactured our own firearms. We manufactured our own military ammunition. All cut in the name of saving money and because of the so-called "peace dividend" that everybody thought was going to take place after the Cold War ended.

However, we still have a couple small arms business here in Canada. Para (formerly Para-Ordnance) has a plant here in Canada making handguns and has extensive operations in the U.S. where they have branched out and are now fielding an assault rifle, the Tactical Target Rifle™

Then there's PGW Defence technology Inc that manufactures the C14 MRSWS Timberwolf sniper rifle for the CF.

Those are the two largest ones that I can think of. There are some smaller companies that may also deal in military small arms, but I can't think of their names right now.

Ex-Dragoon said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Although I am loathe to believe wiki, in 2007 we were Number 13 for one of the top Arms Exporters in the world. So it looks like our arms industry is alive and well.

I would suspect that this list includes all military equipment (e.g. communications gear, uniforms, vehicles, etc) and just not small arms.

Here is list of major arms producers in the world if anyone is interested: List of modern armament manufacturers.

* If I remember correctly Diemaco actually took over the Longbranch Armouries when it was phased out.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
So true, we at one time had our own military arsenal (Longbranch Armouries)* that designed, tested and manufactured our own firearms. We manufactured our own military ammunition. All cut in the name of saving money and because of the so-called "peace dividend" that everybody thought was going to take place after the Cold War ended.

Those are the two largest ones that I can think of. There are some smaller companies that may also deal in military small arms, but I can't think of their names right now.


Actually Canada can still manufacture a lot its own ammunition

http://www.gd-ots.com/
 
Based on the initial post, I think the question was more like why don't we have companies like SAAB, Hägglunds and Bofors, which make world class arms for the Swedish military.

Culture and "national mythology" probably have a lot to do with it, Sweden has a similar climate, population and GDP as Canada, and I doubt the Swedes are much smarter than Canadians in general. Canadians are also comfortable with the idea that the United States will take care of us, while the Swedes have had Imperial and Communist Russia as a neighbour for centuries, nothing like having a real enemy on your border to focus the mind.

Still, having an industrial capability to cover our own defense needs is an important part of national soverienty, so this is a question that should be addressed on some level.
 
There are a number of individuals who are considering starting civilian ammunition manufacturing here mostly using components made elsewhere.

There are a number of small companies making specialty parts as well. The ITAR issue of getting stuff out of the US is helping a bit, but the Chinese are quickly filling in the voids
 
One of the biggest  problems for a Canadian company  trying to sell military  grade weapons to Canada.  Lack of market.  We have a good record of using weapons and equipment longer than any other nation  before we replace it.
Small arms we still were using the WW1 vintage machine gun till the late 80s early 90s depending when your unit was switched over. The FN purchased int he late 50s early  60s  replaced in the early 90s. 
Aircrafts, such as SeaKing flying as long as the B52 bomber now, 40 plus years,  1950s design, built in the 60s and flying into the 2010 plus? I read here some where that  out C130s were the record holder for airframe flight hours among military users. Well beyond the hours where other countries replace them.  Ships well our navy is very  modern by  Canadian standards of the past, the frigates are still considered new to  most Canadians. After all they  are under 25 years old. We use to have much older ships still going to sea.
Canadian companies could not afford to wait for decades to get a contract to build equipment  and then wait for the next one. The HLVW is a project that  shows this. Build the line to make trucks then soon as the last truck rolls off the line , it was closed to never make a truck again.

Canadian arms makers and other military  equipments makers would have a hard time making a profit living off Canadian Government contracts. I think that is the main reason there are fewer and fewer in Canada.
Just my  opinion,

 
FormerHorseGuard said:
Small arms we still were using the WW1 vintage machine gun till the late 80s early 90s depending when your unit was switched over. The FN purchased int he late 50s early  60s  replaced in the early 90s. 

That's odd, I don't remember using either the Lewis Gun or the Vickers in the 1980s.  Then again, some people do claim their Militia units are the last ones to get new kit.
 
I have seen somce very old weapons hanging around, like Browning 9mm's manufactured at the end of WWII and M2 HMG's with 1944 or 1945 date stamps still in service, but nothing older than that.

Perhaps the poster was referring to the Browning M-1919A2 design that was remanufactured to take 7.62X51 ammunition and christened the GPMG C5? I don't recall seeing date stamps on C-5's, but something tells me they couldn't be older than the M2 HMG's.

Of course there is nothing like continuing to use a well thought out and robust weapons system or design if it works for the job you want to do; the HK MG-3 is a reworked MG-42 of WWII fame, which itself was evolved from the MG-34 (as in 1934).
 
It was explained to me on my  GMT that  they  were of the ww 1 design just rebuilt and rebuilt.  Maybe it was myth. How old were the C5s when taken out of service?
 
Ships well our navy is very  modern by  Canadian standards of the past, the frigates are still considered new to  most Canadians. After all they  are under 25 years old. We use to have much older ships still going to sea.
Really? The 280s and AORs are well past 25 years think closer to the 30s and 40s age wise. While our CPFs are newer they need their refits now and its a good thing we are seeing FELEX start this year. Our subs are second hand and we waited for so long to finally get off our collective ass to get them that having them has seen little return in our investment.
 
Please, please, please, capitalize consistently and properly.

Altair said:
first being things like helicopters, and aircraft in general, canada can if it wanted, develope ourselves. We have companies like bell, bombardier, ect, which I'm sure could meet the demands of the canadian forces.

The helicopter that I currently fly was built by Bell, mostly in Mirabel (Montreal), although many parts built in other countries. The last two helicopters that I flew were also built by Bell. What else would you want Bell to develop, and how would you propose to pay them for that developmental work?

Aircraft cost a lot of money to develop. Read the Airbus A400M thread to get an idea of what this takes. Why should we spend a lot of money to design and build something when a suitable machine already exists, and would have to compete in a limited market?

Altair said:
Russia for example is similiar in terms of GDP to Canada, and they are and have been creating military hardware that is widely exported since stalin.

They were, like, you know, the enemy. Nobody else was going to sell them stuff because of that, so they had little choice. They also wanted to build stuff that suited their requirements, which were and are significantly different to ours.

I wouldn't compare the Russian economy to ours based purely on GDP either. Also, during the Soviet era, theirs was a coompletely controlled economy, so most costs were artificial.

Altair said:
first being things like helicopters, and aircraft in general, canada can if it wanted, develope ourselves. We have companies like bell, bombardier, ect, which I'm sure could meet the demands of the canadian forces.

secondly, countries with economies similiar or smaller than Canada's are at it. Russia for example is similiar in terms of GDP to Sweden, which is much smaller than canada in economic terms, has been as well, at least when it comes to aircraft, with planes like the jas 39 gripen.

Sweden has been neutral for a couple of centuries or so. As they are not part of an alliance, they are completely on their own and had to be self-reliant. This cost them a lot, though, and more than people here are willing to pay.
 
I was going by  commisioning dates last frigates were commisioned 1996 so that  makes those ships fairly  new compared to other ships in the fleet. The last ship I toured as a kid was the HMCS Gatineau when it visited Toronto . It was old then and I was 12, it has since retired when the frigates came on line. I think if we look at various pieces of major equipment our navy is new, the other ships are much older then the frigates I realize.  How does any company  expect to make a living and a profit from a country who only makes ships once every  30 years or less, aircraft even less,  tanks once every  30 years,  small arms every  25 to 30 years,( FN to C7 family , my  fn was 3l5 358 made in the 50s i think, my  C7 was was 1988).

Too bad the the government was not into faster replacements of military  equipment  it would help Canadian Companies do better and keep Canadians working and keep Canadian equipment more up to date.

I wrote the wrong name of the ship.....now corrected

So when did the C5 GPMG come into service, I have seen on web sites that  state 1939 but I do not trust that  site 100 percent.  It also had it being rebuilt for Korea, and maybe other rebuilding possible.

 
Loachman said:
Please, please, please, capitalize consistently and properly.

While I make a effort to do so, I am not using a computer or a keyboard to type this. The name recognition doesn't recognise words starting in capitals, thus in the name of efficiency I forgo capital letters.

As for the comparisons to Russia and Sweden, I know their geopolitical situation differs greatly from the one in Canada. I was just trying to point out that countries similar to Canada have found it possible to do it.

All the reasons stated here make sense, from the Canadian publics reluctance to the Canadian Forces not replacing hardware in a timely fashion. However, does it serve our interests more to be running out, looking for foreign sellers everytime we need something replaced? Leopard tanks here, helicopters there, moldy second hand subs that-a-way. It seems a little adhoc from my perspective.
 
How much do you think that it would cost to build a factory capable of producing tanks, and design one from scratch?

Is that worth it for a production run of one hundred?

We bought one hundred Griffons, but they were largely standard commercial ones built by Bell in Mirabel. Should we build a whole new factory to build slightly more than two dozen Cyclones? What about the fifteen Cormorants?

This would be a huge waste of money.

Note that the US Army signed a six billion dollar deal with General Dynamics in London Ontario a few years ago for Strykers, and we have also built hundreds of LAVs for the USMC. The Americans do the same as us where warranted.
 
Back
Top