I'll believe it when I see it.
We could and probably should be able to do the same at least with some things. Look at the logistic trucksEvery defence project in a democratic society has an element of pork barrelling to it; that doesn't mean it can't be a strategic project.
Canada thinks tactically. We need to replace 2,000 logistics vehicles; we give a contract to do that to some foreign country and a small maintenance side contract and we're done. We leave the IP and capability to manufacture elsewhere. Twenty years later we do it again - usually to a different foreigner. That's thinking tactically.
The US thinks strategically. They need an armoured fighting vehicle capability indefinitely; they build a system of plants capable of building AFVs, build a force of tanks and keep the plants going for ongoing factory level maintenance, product improvement, foreign military sales, combat and training loss replacement and a factory level capability to ramp up production in the event of a need for force expansion. That's thinking strategically.
Keeping Lima, and other facilities like it, open is one of the smarter things Congress has done. It's not just a scale of production thing. It's a mindset that favours short-term bean counting over long-term industrial capability development strategy.
![]()
was trying to add a little table but unsuccessfulWe could and probably should be able to do the same at least with some things. Look at the logistic trucks
LSVW
MSVW
MSVW-SMP
HSVW
ERC
various other niche vehicles
even leaving the LUVW replacement out of it that is a total of 4506 class 8 heavy trucks we have recently bought or ordered from 4 different manufacturers
The US accidentally stumbles into competence all the time because of their military industrial complex and porkbarrelling. Then they call it strategic thinking like it was all part of the plan. Which it was not. Just like we did for Transmountain.Every defence project in a democratic society has an element of pork barrelling to it; that doesn't mean it can't be a strategic project.
Canada thinks tactically. We need to replace 2,000 logistics vehicles; we give a contract to do that to some foreign country and a small maintenance side contract and we're done. We leave the IP and capability to manufacture elsewhere. Twenty years later we do it again - usually to a different foreigner. That's thinking tactically.
The US thinks strategically. They need an armoured fighting vehicle capability indefinitely; they build a system of plants capable of building AFVs, build a force of tanks and keep the plants going for ongoing factory level maintenance, product improvement, foreign military sales, combat and training loss replacement and a factory level capability to ramp up production in the event of a need for force expansion. That's thinking strategically.
Keeping Lima, and other facilities like it, open is one of the smarter things Congress has done. It's not just a scale of production thing. It's a mindset that favours short-term bean counting over a long-term industrial capability development strategy.
![]()
Boy. I thought I was the guy that looked at everything with a cynical, glass half-full basis. I concede.The US accidentally stumbles into competence all the time because of their military industrial complex and porkbarrelling. Then they call it strategic thinking like it was all part of the plan. Which it was not. Just like we did for Transmountain.
Not a country to emulate.On another note. The more I think about France and how they've acted since the 1960's, the more I can appreciate/admire the path that they've taken.
They have in essence gone off on their own path, which pissed off the US, the UK, Germany, us and a few others. But at the end of the day they still have an independent nuclear arsenal, a moderately robust military, a stand alone military industry and has a large number of foreign buyers and they still don't give a f*ck what the US, the UK, Germany, us or the others think about them.
We certainly could have gone down a similar path, albeit with some slight alterations like NORAD, but for the most part we could have 'taken the road less travelled' (tip of the hat to Robert Frost) and been quite happy.
unfortunately we dont have a lot of that anymore, I see a bunch of options that also could boost the canadian economy.Boy. I thought I was the guy that looked at everything with a cynical, glass half-full basis. I concede.
I kind of looked at this in the same way as when ADM(Mat) kept a regiment's worth of M109s in preservation for several years while the army staff at the time was yelling "Divest! Divest! It doesn't matter that we don't have a plan or money to replace them." Someone was thinking strategically while others were thinking tactically (and not even sound tactics at that).
![]()
I'd sub in the H175M in place of the H225M. It's closer in size to the Griffon (though still bigger), but also it uses Canadian engines (PT6C-67E).unfortunately we dont have a lot of that anymore, I see a bunch of options that also could boost the canadian economy.
Griffon replacement - Airbus helicopters - have them built at their fort Erie plant, The H225M is the latest in the super puma family and would suit our needs
Logistics trucks? ditch the MSVS Milcot, go with GD's LVM medium vehicle for more streamlined logistics and training
Subs? KASS-III
LRPF? - K239 - leveage trade agreements to get ammunition facility set up here
Milcot replacement? Senator Truck
Kevin. Until last month I was in full agreement.I think Canada often errs in not working with the US on programs - as while you cannot copy the US acquisition, some of the programs are no brainers that would have the CAF in much better shape for less money.
hopefully this will be over by the time we replace the GriffonI'd sub in the H175M in place of the H225M. It's closer in size to the Griffon (though still bigger), but also it uses Canadian engines (PT6C-67E).
H175M missions
The highly capable replacement for the medium-weight and super-medium-weight helicopter categorieswww.airbus.com
probably not since the project has started, though its still earlyhopefully this will be over by the time we replace the Griffon
Why limit yourself to something as tiny as a Griffon.I'd sub in the H175M in place of the H225M. It's closer in size to the Griffon (though still bigger), but also it uses Canadian engines (PT6C-67E).
H175M missions
The highly capable replacement for the medium-weight and super-medium-weight helicopter categorieswww.airbus.com
Exactly, if it works it works, the 225M also can mount rockets and ATGMs, giving us more flexibilityWhy limit yourself to something as tiny as a Griffon.
Get into a proper UH weight class 10-12ton, like the UH-60 or H225M. And since America has decided to forego its relationships with…check current news feeds…everybody, let them close the shutters on their castle, and binge on the food and drink of their Republic, so…”Just say ‘no’ to the Black Hawk!”
Sorry America, you’re on you’re own…we sure are…so H225M/725 in a heartbeat. Swap out the Makila 2A engines for re-engineered P&WC PW127TS made in Longueuil, Qc. and we’re off to the races.
Oh my are you saying we can have choppers that can actually fire things?? Oh we're just peacekeepers!!! (sarcasm intended)Exactly, if it works it works, the 225M also can mount rockets and ATGMs, giving us more flexibility
No, Because the moment we all read that, we all heard Chrétien voice in our headsHow about AW101s be the all-solving hammer.
But we need to support Canadian companies and not just GDLS. There are lots of roles where we need light armour. They make a better replacement for the G-Wagon than the TAPV, which can be rerolled as airfield defense for the F-35's and convoy escort.LUVW milcot can be an unarmored pickup with a radio mount and blackout drive. No need for the expense of Senator remanufacturing of a pickup.