• 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

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
580
Interesting points made in this thread. Here's what i've learned.

So I take it we are in the 'future' of warfare earlier than we thought and the state of the CAF has slid further into mediocrity?

The backbone of our military fleet is 10 years behind the curve at best. We haven't been closer to WW3, and if it broke out tomorrow we would be completely destroyed?

LAVs quickly detected and taken out by cheap and plentiful projectiles. Enemy UAVs watching our every move and engaging us with impunity. Our submarines sitting at the bottom of the ocean since they weren't able to detect enemy subs, our tanks and equipment sunk in the civilian-contracted transport, our CPFs can't make it to the fight since our only AOR is on the other side of the globe, artillery crews dead from counter-battery fire. What other nightmares am I missing?

Edit: So at what point do we donate the bulk of our outdated equipment to UKR and replace with a fleets/stocks of sustainable, modern and capable vehicles based on a common-hull? Give GDLS money to design a LAV 7.0 or spend the money to licence-build BOXER hulls?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,514
Points
1,060
So, mines, antitank weapons, artillery fires, and air attack. So nothing different than 1944?





Another dimension to the problem - supply
There may not be the demand for producing artillery shells at the rates of WW2 (produced in their millions of rounds per year per type), or even Aircraft , but there is the demand for production of precision weapons at the rates similar to those of aircraft and tanks in WW2.

American industry provided almost two-thirds of all the Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks. In four years, American industrial production, already the world's largest, doubled in size.



The Commonwealth and Empire produced another 173,000 Aircraft (144,000 in Britain alone).



So the requirement is the ability to sustain a production rate of complex goods in the $10,000 to $10,000,000 range at the rate of 1,000 to 100,000 units per year while at the same time producing billions of rounds of small arms ammunition.

The impact on logistics may the greatest change. Specifically the reduction in the need to transport lots of heavy artillery rounds. Instead there is a need to transport fewer munitions but those munitions will be bulkier - more equivalent to transporting aircraft in WW2 than 25 pdr shells.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,514
Points
1,060
What our Aussie cousins have been up to - in addition to buying into nuclear submarine programmes.

It starts with building their own PGM-Missile factory in lock-step with the US and the UK.



It was preceded by the Loyal Wingman - Ghost Bat LCAAT project


the MQ-4C - Triton (Global Hawk) project


and the Wedgetail AEWC project



And is leading into Hypersonic Missile projectss





The Brits, the Swedes and the Norwegians have developed a lot of the systems that the Ukrainians are finding particularly effective.


And we debate the merits of LAVs and Tanks.


We should be at least capable of keeping up with Aussie, Brit, Swedish and Norwegian industry.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,177
Points
1,140
Not to mention command Launch units that can be tethered to the weapon from a distance. So your team could be behind the hill, with the weapon camouflaged on top, nothing to see on thermal.
To be camouflaged against various EO/ED systems the weapon wouldn’t likely have a clear launch window. As well tethers can be detected by many systems. That said there is a big difference in the degrees of camouflage needed for different missions etc.

Technology forces tactics to change, great example, our doctrine used to be to move convoys of supplies at night because it was safer, modern sensors make that irrelevant.
One always to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. If your night operations capability is greater than the enemy it still may be very viable.
All that kit is expensive though, so we have less of them.
Well you do, we opted for a chaleapee by the trillion method.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,010
The range of threats the tanker now has to accommodate

The range of threats the AFV/IPC now has to accommodate...

The range of threats the artillery piece now has to accommodate...

The range of threats the unarmoured infantryman now has to accommodate...

...
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,361
Points
1,160
Interesting points made in this thread. Here's what i've learned.

So I take it we are in the 'future' of warfare earlier than we thought and the state of the CAF has slid further into mediocrity?

The backbone of our military fleet is 10 years behind the curve at best. We haven't been closer to WW3, and if it broke out tomorrow we would be completely destroyed?

LAVs quickly detected and taken out by cheap and plentiful projectiles. Enemy UAVs watching our every move and engaging us with impunity. Our submarines sitting at the bottom of the ocean since they weren't able to detect enemy subs, our tanks and equipment sunk in the civilian-contracted transport, our CPFs can't make it to the fight since our only AOR is on the other side of the globe, artillery crews dead from counter-battery fire. What other nightmares am I missing?

Edit: So at what point do we donate the bulk of our outdated equipment to UKR and replace with a fleets/stocks of sustainable, modern and capable vehicles based on a common-hull? Give GDLS money to design a LAV 7.0 or spend the money to licence-build BOXER hulls?

MM not updated with the latest - mandatory - online learning courses...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,160
Would it be worthwhile to ramp up LAV II and III production to resupply the Ukrainians? They be cheaper than the LAV 6 and likley more field sustainable for them as well.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,177
Points
1,140
Would it be worthwhile to ramp up LAV II and III production to resupply the Ukrainians? They be cheaper than the LAV 6 and likley more field sustainable for them as well.
Probably not actually cheaper as larger production of common items is usually vastly more economical. I suspect GDLS has zero interest in building LAV-25 or LAV 3 anymore and would make one pay for it.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,040
GDLS also produces the Stryker. Probably would be better to go with that. Thought the turret is what makes it a LAV frankly. GDLS-London may not have spare capacity, we will see. To bad the LAV's destined for Saudi Arabia are already gone, that would have been an amazing turn of events, take their contract and just co-opt it for Ukraine.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,718
Points
1,090
I have been to the GDLS plant. They were very proud of the fact that they could (and were) simultaneously building "LAV 1+" for the USMC, LAV III for CA, and Stryker for USA.
How about we lend lease it? Lend LAV6 to Ukraine, order more any way to keep GD going, and if some survive the war, so be it. Maybe if build some dumbed down LAV 6 hulls as driver trainers so the operational fleet doesn't get as worn down.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
How about we lend lease it? Lend LAV6 to Ukraine, order more any way to keep GD going, and if some survive the war, so be it. Maybe if build some dumbed down LAV 6 hulls as driver trainers so the operational fleet doesn't get as worn down.
Ukraine has (had?) a very robust arms industry. Not so sure about how much of a military target or cottage industry that has become.

😁
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
580
We have plenty of things that would do alot for the UKR war effort but we are choosing not to. If we cared more we could use this as an opportunity to show our confidence in Canadian products and the world would view us as less pacifist.

Genuine question, are we not sending LAVs to UKR because they're outmatched by the modern battlefield? Surely someone in DND or elsewhere in gov't proposed this (and Leslie), so I assume that either it was too provocative at the time (not anymore with PZH2000 donations) or that burned out UA LAVs in the news is a bad look?

-----------------

Post-war, I can see UKR rebuilding domestic capability, at least NATO licenced designs that worked well during the war or integrate with remaining NATO inventories. They'll never be a big GDLS-C customer... NZ spent at least a year trying to offload its old surplus LAV3s rather than upgrade to LAV6s. If our besties won't buy our stuff then shouldn't we move to something modern?
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
580
My lofty idea:

Donate a chunk of our LAV6 fleet (if we should), build new ones (jobs) and build out the variants.

New ATGM add-ons to some of the turrets. Buy some 40MM+ATGM/AA turrets for an interim IFV and testbed for the next APC/IFV in the Medium Cavalry role.

Offer GDLS 30+years of business in Canada if they stay and design something new, or offer the same deal to Rheinmetall for the BOXER. BOXER seems like a great "NATO APC" and it's already in use with many new variants and a common hull.

If GDLS refuses, retool the plant to build GDELS's Eagle in 4x4 and 6x6, which looks like a great domestic solution to the LSVW/G-Wagon/Milcots replacement.
Eagle_6x6_light_tactical_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_General_Dynamics_Land_Systems_variants_detai...jpgDa7xk4bX4AM-PNL.jpg
 
Last edited:

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,040
What is your infatuation with the Boxer? I mean the thing is fine but so is the LAV 6 family.

Secondly, why would GDLS in London leave? They build Stykers, LAV's and all sorts of contracts for all over the world (Saudi's, Chile, US etc...). We aren't the only customer for them.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,177
Points
1,140
WTF would anyone suggest the Boxer?
I fail to see a role for that, that wouldn’t be done better by other vehicles made in North America already.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
WTF would anyone suggest the Boxer?
I fail to see a role for that, that wouldn’t be done better by other vehicles made in North America already.
The only thing that Boxer offers is the mission module concept and, quite frankly, I think that is a highly overrated feature. I can't speak as to its serviceability and maintainability vis-a-vis the LAV 6.0.

I would like to see the LAV 6.0 upgraded to a modular unmanned configurable RWS at some point.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,177
Points
1,140
The only thing that Boxer offers is the mission module concept and, quite frankly, I think that is a highly overrated feature. I can't speak as to its serviceability and maintainability vis-a-vis the LAV 6.0.

I would like to see the LAV 6.0 upgraded to a modular unmanned configurable RWS at some point.

🍻
HEMTT A4, has 8x8 mission modularity, in what you want from a cargo vehicle.
But the Boxer is no more than a MLVW 6x6 with armor - a lot of its modules seem to have some from the good idea fairy. It would be a terrible LAV substitute.

I’m not sold on RWS, it makes sense in some vehicles - but an IFV role ain’t one of them IMLTHO.
I’d rather have an optionally manned turret that is quickly reconfigured - sure it’s bigger, but when one doesn’t need to be buttoned up, one has significantly better local SA than a RWS.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,160
Interesting points made in this thread. Here's what i've learned.

So I take it we are in the 'future' of warfare earlier than we thought and the state of the CAF has slid further into mediocrity?

The backbone of our military fleet is 10 years behind the curve at best. We haven't been closer to WW3, and if it broke out tomorrow we would be completely destroyed?

LAVs quickly detected and taken out by cheap and plentiful projectiles. Enemy UAVs watching our every move and engaging us with impunity. Our submarines sitting at the bottom of the ocean since they weren't able to detect enemy subs, our tanks and equipment sunk in the civilian-contracted transport, our CPFs can't make it to the fight since our only AOR is on the other side of the globe, artillery crews dead from counter-battery fire. What other nightmares am I missing?

Edit: So at what point do we donate the bulk of our outdated equipment to UKR and replace with a fleets/stocks of sustainable, modern and capable vehicles based on a common-hull? Give GDLS money to design a LAV 7.0 or spend the money to licence-build BOXER hulls?
I take issue with our sub comment, they been retrofitted with some pretty slick gear, you would not want one hunting you.
 
Top