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

Preserving Army Fleets

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,703
Points
1,040
So more 155mm weapons, and that SIDAM 25 will be really useful vs drones and helicopters. Ukraine is beginning to amass some serious artillery. Double down on what they are good at I suppose!
Makes one chuckle a bit about Canada's fetish in avoiding mixed fleets because of their maintenance complexity. Here we have a nation using equipment and weapons, in the middle of a war, coming from numerous countries of both the NATO and Warsaw Pact and from numerous decades going back to seventy some odd years.

It never ceases to amaze me how one can overcome obstacles when one needs to or has to.

:unsure:
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,951
Points
1,160
Makes one chuckle a bit about Canada's fetish in avoiding mixed fleets because of their maintenance complexity. Here we have a nation using equipment and weapons, in the middle of a war, coming from numerous countries of both the NATO and Warsaw Pact and from numerous decades going back to seventy some odd years.

It never ceases to amaze me how one can overcome obstacles when one needs to or has to.
What a nation does in a war of survival vs how a nation sustains an affordable parce time army are very different. The donated lines of supply are also a significant factor to making this feasible. There will be costs to this though. Likely higher equipment attrition due to not having the right parts & qualifications at the time and place of need. Potentially longer lines of support between fighting units & higher echelons if repair.

Also, the platforms within these donated mixed fleets are a still concentrated in larger quantities than the CA owns across all its Bdes. So they will still be easier to concentrate support than with Canadian micro-fleets.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,720
Points
1,090
Makes one chuckle a bit about Canada's fetish in avoiding mixed fleets because of their maintenance complexity. Here we have a nation using equipment and weapons, in the middle of a war, coming from numerous countries of both the NATO and Warsaw Pact and from numerous decades going back to seventy some odd years.

It never ceases to amaze me how one can overcome obstacles when one needs to or has to.

:unsure:

 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,703
Points
1,040
What a nation does in a war of survival vs how a nation sustains an affordable parce time army are very different. The donated lines of supply are also a significant factor to making this feasible. There will be costs to this though. Likely higher equipment attrition due to not having the right parts & qualifications at the time and place of need. Potentially longer lines of support between fighting units & higher echelons if repair.

Also, the platforms within these donated mixed fleets are a still concentrated in larger quantities than the CA owns across all its Bdes. So they will still be easier to concentrate support than with Canadian micro-fleets.
Of course there is a price to pay, but, if you divest older but serviceable equipment then you have nothing; if you retain older but serviceable equipment then you still have something even if its attrition rates are higher. A simple example is our TLAV fleet. 1960's era M113 fleets remain in operation in many countries and still provide useable service. Once again ours will be up on the market once the ACSV project delivers.

I know, I know, I'm fighting a rear-guard action against the bean counters and those who like to see fresh fleets every few generations, but, I favour mass, even if some of that mass is vintage, and even if it costs something to maintain it.

🍻
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,104
Points
1,090
Mixed fleets that do not need long term sustainment are radically different from fleets that need lifecycle management, and the associated costs and complexity they bring, which pulls more personnel (an expensive asset, whether in or out of uniform) into managing spares, conducting maintenance, ammunition storage and acquisition...

EDIT: What Infanteer said.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,190
Points
1,140
Those Ukrainian mixed fleets will probably be shot out or destroyed on the battlefield long before maintenance ever becomes an issue.
Or they get towed to Poland for depot level refurb.

We are currently in planning to move most of our depots and depot level refurbishment facilities out of Germany to Poland for several reasons.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,896
Points
1,310
Long term sustainable maintenance isn't a concern in war time. It's about keeping it working right now to kill the enemy.
Another flaw of our procurement system IMHO.

Sustainability and maintenence costs don't factor in when you just need something to get rounds on target faster than the enemy. "Top of the line later" doesn't trump "Ok-ish today"

Doesn't matter if it's a Tesla or a 1988 Mercury Topaz, when you need to get from Point A to Point B, the platform is irrelevant.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
Interesting figures 90 howitzers and 72 prime movers.

I saw a train of the better part of a Paladin battalion moving in Poland so that's probably the 18.

With 72 prime movers and 72 guns left over that sounds like 4 battalions of M777s. Interestingly Wikipedia says the US donated 90 M777s to the Ukraine and Canada 4.

🍻

When you think about it, the Ukrainians are disinclined to cede territory along the Line of Contact. They have dug in and expect to hold their positions regardless of what the Russian artillery and air force throw at them. The artillery would reasonably be expected to operate in the same environment and dig in and go static.

Tanks, and SPHs and MRLSs would stay agile and be able to move laterally to counter penetration threats as well as to launch their own counters if the circumstances present. The basic Linebacker role.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,703
Points
1,040
Mixed fleets that do not need long term sustainment are radically different from fleets that need lifecycle management, and the associated costs and complexity they bring, which pulls more personnel (an expensive asset, whether in or out of uniform) into managing spares, conducting maintenance, ammunition storage and acquisition...

EDIT: What Infanteer said.
I, and we all, appreciate that. But it's a philosophical difference (and I'm not striving to make this another shared fleet debate)

The issue is does the Army want to: a) equip two of three brigades pretty well? or does it want or b) equip two of three brigades well and another 2 brigades less well?

When the Army decide that a given in-service fleet should be replaced, it already has an existing lifecycle management structure in place for that including a parts system and trained personnel to maintain it. It's the new system that requires adding a new lifecycle management structure.

While older systems generally become more maintenance intensive over time, repurposing an old fleet from active to reserve status means it will have much reduced usage which provides a lower rate of deterioration and more time for maintenance. If one built in an active/reserve lifecycle to the acquisition of any equipment it would ensure that at the end of its active usefulness the equipment would still have a measure of useful reserve lifetime.

The Army don't think like that, however. It use the hell out of gear and then dispose of it to eliminate associated maintenance costs. Worse yet, every time that the Army buy new equipment it not only dispose of the old but generally buys less of the new than it had of the old putting the system into a slow death spiral.

Many countries have a "hand-me-down" approach to ensure that the various parts of their armies have equipment when needed. Canada seems content to have an army that has over half of its personnel unequipped or underequipped with major weapon and vehicle systems. It's not rocket science to establish supply and maintenance systems that can support such fleets. Yes there is a cost to that, but its a cost that results in a more extensive defence capability.

Well. I'm off to rebuild my front step. Using ice melt last winter damaged some of the concrete blocks ... which is good because I can keep the half which are still serviceable.

😉
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
4,081
Points
1,160
What should the Army "hand me down" to the reserves? An LSVW? The Coyote?
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,951
Points
1,160
When the Army decide that a given in-service fleet should be replaced, it already has an existing lifecycle management structure in place for that including a parts system and trained personnel to maintain it. It's the new system that requires adding a new lifecycle management structure.
Most of that structure is repurposed to look after the new fleet. The new fleet needs LCMMs, supply managers, and shelf space at the depots. There is an opportunity cost to keeping our garbage.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,720
Points
1,090
What should the Army "hand me down" to the reserves? An LSVW? The Coyote?
We already had LSVW, reg force then took most back, rest were condemned due to mold. Coyote could be given to the reserves, yes, and other platforms.

Before you ask well who will maintain them? reserve service battalions have a Cadre of reg force techs for a reason, who are then augmented by class A types. We have all the means to do it, just not the will to make it happen.

The biggest thing that can make an initiative fail, is if those who need to execute it believe it will not work.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
4,081
Points
1,160
We already had LSVW, reg force then took most back, rest were condemned due to mold. Coyote could be given to the reserves, yes, and other platforms.

Before you ask well who will maintain them? reserve service battalions have a Cadre of reg force techs for a reason, who are then augmented by class A types. We have all the means to do it, just not the will to make it happen.
All the reserve service battalions with a cadre of reg force techs in the world can't make a platform work if its beyond its service life and does not have a parts supply chain because the original manufacturer quit making them a decade ago. See the "bathtub curve."
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
Another flaw of our procurement system IMHO.

Sustainability and maintenence costs don't factor in when you just need something to get rounds on target faster than the enemy. "Top of the line later" doesn't trump "Ok-ish today"

Doesn't matter if it's a Tesla or a 1988 Mercury Topaz, when you need to get from Point A to Point B, the platform is irrelevant.

Which goes to FJAG's point that sometimes it is appropriate to hang on to old kit.

I agree with him on the M109s. I wouldn't agree on Centurions, Leo 1s, Blowpipes and Javelins. I would agree on the Oerlikon 35s, Tow Under Amour but agree with chucking the ADATS.

Edit - I would have definitely kept the M113s and would keep the Bisons without all the paraphernalia. I might even keep the Coyotes without their turrets. Bisons and Turretless Coyotes would supply 300 to 400 transports for low threat environments.

Ca depends.
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
All the reserve service battalions with a cadre of reg force techs in the world can't make a platform work if its beyond its service life and does not have a parts supply chain because the original manufacturer quit making them a decade ago. See the "bathtub curve."


Here is my Green Standard for a "Reserve" vehicle


1650822168734.png

The truck was built in 1956. 900 were still in service in 2004 when the fleet was sold off. Many were bought by fire brigades in third world countries. It was last used by the British Army in 2002.

Simple, storable, maintainable and functional after 50 years largely sitting in warehouses and depots.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,720
Points
1,090
All the reserve service battalions with a cadre of reg force techs in the world can't make a platform work if its beyond its service life and does not have a parts supply chain because the original manufacturer quit making them a decade ago. See the "bathtub curve."
Yes systems still need to be supported, it's useless to keep equipment we do not have parts, but look at the C3, we didn't have parts, but we had a need and found companies who are now making new barrels, etc... for us. If we need it, industry can find a way, if we wanted to sustain the Coyote, I would place money the GDLS would find a way if we asked.
 
Top