Unfortunately not, since the government has decided to hide behind SAP, a shame in my books. There used to be a time when these were all public and forward-facing, but sadly not anymore.
Totally. You'd think that with the "Buy Canadian" initiatives they would make it accessable to the average Canadian, especially with the partnership opportunities being advantageous to foreign companies. But Canadians don't know if they can offer something to a procurement project if they can't read them.
Thanks for the great summary Noah! I might have to work on getting myself a copy of the full RFP. Happy to see that commonality & sustainment are taking pride of place in the RFI.
Glad to see the possibility of a Medium Tank/MCAV (tracked) combination is alive. This in my mind is where we should be headed, not in the very heavy direction (a la Reihnmetal KF-51). We need Shermans, not Tigers!
Also, the commonanlity of having the Heavy & Medium CAV (tracked) platforms on the same chassis will make them both easier to train & sustain. Enough so that it'd be feasible to take the MCAV turret & stick it on a LAV to generate a MCAV (Wheeled) platform. Yet more commonality, on a wheeled chassis which will have more flexibility & usefulness IMHO
Tangential to this, but in relation to ACV(W), LUV COTS, LUV MOTS: with the procurement numbers we're seeing - does this imply anything about the Federal Government's risk assessment of the next 30 years? Some of these numbers feel unprecedented - on the order of thousands of LAVs, thousands of LUVs, UOR for 50 tanks by 2030 plus however many in the field by the end, and 50 MCAVs by 2030.
Frankly it makes me anxious, because the size and immediacy of it imply that mechanized warfare somewhere is either on the horizon, or enough of a risk that the Forces are crash-rearming.
We're back in a multipolar world that's different but every bit as dangerous as anything that has come before. There's a war raging in Europe. There was a major regional war in the Middle East and the Straight of Hormuz is closed. China is armed to the teeth and outbuilding the US Navy 3:1 while perceptions of American strength and reliability are waning by the day and they're tearing themselves apart from within.
If there was ever a time to break the glass and press the "re-arm" button, knowing that it will take a decade-plus to really spin up, we're there.
Remember Last Fall, "New" Us National Security Strategy(pull out Europe in 2yrs)?
How about the WH messing with the EU & NATO Membership over the lack of help in Iran?
Hey! Lets toss that aside & consider who's taking shots at Israel right now, most of Europe so their going to be on their own sooner than later & we as a Major NATO Partner (Economically) not only have a long way to level up to regular membership contribution's let alone covering our share of replacing the US will take a lot more.
Is there a publically accessable way to read the entire RFI?
Unfortunately not, since the government has decided to hide behind SAP, a shame in my books. There used to be a time when these were all public and forward-facing, but sadly not anymore.
Yea, I remember them being more easily read back in the day. Guess I need to incorporate so I can read the whole shebang.
How I started lol. I wouldn't be here id I didnt have the ability to explore things freely. Shame that a lot of resources are going this way.
Totally. You'd think that with the "Buy Canadian" initiatives they would make it accessable to the average Canadian, especially with the partnership opportunities being advantageous to foreign companies. But Canadians don't know if they can offer something to a procurement project if they can't read them.
Thanks for the great summary Noah! I might have to work on getting myself a copy of the full RFP. Happy to see that commonality & sustainment are taking pride of place in the RFI.
Glad to see the possibility of a Medium Tank/MCAV (tracked) combination is alive. This in my mind is where we should be headed, not in the very heavy direction (a la Reihnmetal KF-51). We need Shermans, not Tigers!
Also, the commonanlity of having the Heavy & Medium CAV (tracked) platforms on the same chassis will make them both easier to train & sustain. Enough so that it'd be feasible to take the MCAV turret & stick it on a LAV to generate a MCAV (Wheeled) platform. Yet more commonality, on a wheeled chassis which will have more flexibility & usefulness IMHO
Tangential to this, but in relation to ACV(W), LUV COTS, LUV MOTS: with the procurement numbers we're seeing - does this imply anything about the Federal Government's risk assessment of the next 30 years? Some of these numbers feel unprecedented - on the order of thousands of LAVs, thousands of LUVs, UOR for 50 tanks by 2030 plus however many in the field by the end, and 50 MCAVs by 2030.
Frankly it makes me anxious, because the size and immediacy of it imply that mechanized warfare somewhere is either on the horizon, or enough of a risk that the Forces are crash-rearming.
<Gestures expansively>
We're back in a multipolar world that's different but every bit as dangerous as anything that has come before. There's a war raging in Europe. There was a major regional war in the Middle East and the Straight of Hormuz is closed. China is armed to the teeth and outbuilding the US Navy 3:1 while perceptions of American strength and reliability are waning by the day and they're tearing themselves apart from within.
If there was ever a time to break the glass and press the "re-arm" button, knowing that it will take a decade-plus to really spin up, we're there.
Remember Last Fall, "New" Us National Security Strategy(pull out Europe in 2yrs)?
How about the WH messing with the EU & NATO Membership over the lack of help in Iran?
Hey! Lets toss that aside & consider who's taking shots at Israel right now, most of Europe so their going to be on their own sooner than later & we as a Major NATO Partner (Economically) not only have a long way to level up to regular membership contribution's let alone covering our share of replacing the US will take a lot more.