Opening a Noah article and seeing "34 minute read" is like checking your banking app and finding you have a few hundred more bucks than you thought. Thanks dude, that was a good read.
Huge problem nobody talks about. We don't have the ranges to safely train for with these weapons. It slows down adoption. Range safety templates have to consider that a stuck fin on an LRASM may be the difference between hitting the target on the CLAWR or ending up in downtown Calgary.
We need to keep in mind the UK Type 26 is a ASW ship with some AD capability and fits into a "Systems of ships". It's possible that a future flight of RCD's might even adopt the Aussie hull model to fulfil the AD role. But as you alluded to, time is not on our side, with many of the CFP's ready to self divest.
As for keeping at providing content, perhaps invite someone who is an expert on ship steel to talk to you. As your rep grows, you will be able to invite people to do joint sessions, where you can guide the talk, but they can provide the detailed content. Several of the successful youtubers do that, such as the Chieftain and Ian from Forgotten Weapons.
I would love to see a replacement for the 105mm C3 for the Reserve artillery units. Personally I believe that the M777 is to big for many of the units and their armouries, along with the need for a big gun tractor. Plus you can run a 105mm with 5 people. Meaning that for a 10 gunners, you can man 2x105 or one M777, the 105mm allows you to have two detachment commanders, 2x2IC's, etc, etc. Better training bang for buck.
I also don't think the Reserves would be able to sustain a SPG, given the dismal amount of support they get. While people disagree with me, I would love to see most of the units get new made M118/M119's and smaller gun tractors. I could see the majority get the 105mm in addition to other roles they may take on. Some units where it makes sense can get M777 or SPG's. After BMQ, every Reserve Gunner does their DP1 on the howitzer their unit has. Once they completed that, they can learn trades like SHORAD or drones, locating radar, etc.
I've also been considering the roles of other Fire solutions, like the 105, the last few weeks, among others. Its an interesting thiught exercise. The mentality for the RCA (as it exists) is that the reserves should not be using anything that the regs aint.
Thats the reason the M777 are heading to storage as opposed to being downloaded. They will be kept as a capacity, but thats it. I think the discussion is very interesting, and want to explore it more.
There are advantages to A Res having the same kit as the Reg F (TAPV in CAV regiments is a boon).... But the TAPV availability also highlights some challenges with that approach. If the A Res units can't get SPHs/guns they can train/employ locally weeknights & weekends (with gun-camps here & there), then there will be skill retention issues & even challenges getting basic technical & trade qualifications done. Lack of TAPVs to support gunnery courses impacts the number of Officers & Crew Commanders we can qualify... Which impacts everything else.
Limiting A Res arty to the same 155mm SPH as the RegF will run the same risk.
& Then there is the question of - does the Defence division need 155mm SPHs? Would an L118 towed 105mm be a better fit with the rest of the division? Does towed/airlifted 105mm bring a niche capability that could be useful to support the Light Regiment?
Not to mention there is almost no logistical support for the current ARes equipment and absolutely no way to support SPG's or tracked/wheeled armour being used by the ARes. So many things need to be fixed before we can get there.
The Light Infantry Regiment, wouldn’t be surprised if they name it “Ranger” similar to the Brits who wanted / have the same thing for the British Army (to note even the historical significance dating back to Roger’s Rangers).
Then again who knows what they’ll call it, could be Airborne, could be Parachute.
Call me crazy but I’d love to see the Challenger 3 in Canadian service, fight me on it if you want but it’s the ultimate commonwealth wonder weapon. Not only does it have a 120 but it can upgrade to a 130 all thanks to Rhienmetall.
CSAR requires two things. A robust transport helo. And some kind of attack helo to provide suppression and support during a rescue. And it's mostly always a SOF/SF task. This would mean a fleet of MH-60Ms and DAPs at 427 SOAS.
Man, there’s numerous examples even from the last decade or two where naval gunfire to shore, either in direct combat or supporting forces ashore has happened. And have you looked into the capabilities of the Vulcano? >100km range and precision guided rounds gives it a lot of flexibility and options.
Whew, that was a load. Good job. Just a couple of comments, personal opinions only. FLIT for the F-35 should be a Gen4+ jet. So the Gripen would fit that bill. As for the Snowbird replacement, I know you never saw the Golden Hawks, but that was the team that grabbed this youngster’s imagination. Seeing the Golden Centenaires, followed by the Snowbirds in their Tutors was always a disappointment to me. In hindsight, it was just another example of the diminution of the RCAF. So, the Gripen as the Tutor replacement to my mind, would be a worthy, not just a good enough, replacement. Finally, don’t forget we need a suitable adversary jet, preferably flown by Top Aces. They have the wherewithal to fly and maintain them, given their experience with their F-16 fleet.
People seem to really struggle with the trainer part of "Lead in Fighter Trainer". There are specific attributes of aircraft that make them good as trainers that can actually be problematic as fighters and vice versa. Usually when trainer and light fighter fleets are combined, the base is actually a trainer jet.
The Gripen would be massively inefficient and expensive as a trainer. There's a reason the only place using as a trainer is a test pilot school. They are welcome to bid. But I think they know it's a long shot.
The RR EJ200 was pitched as an option for the Gripens back in the 90s, and has a similar/lighter footprint and performance to the GE F414s. The uprated RR EJ230 could be a viable option if someone wanted to pay for the engineering work/integration time required. It's not like it would be starting from a blank slate, and it's not coming out of left field since it was already pitched a couple of decades ago. Not saying we should/would, but it's an option, and it would be far from the first time that a fighter was re-engined with something completely different.
EJ230 leaves the Gripen worse off from a power generation standpoint and thrust stand point. you're easily looking at least 2000 lbs of less thrust then the F414. For perspective the Gripen E weighs roughly the same as a blk 30 F-16 while having about 80% less thrust while running the F414.
Are you talking about the EJ200 or the 230? That would be true for the EJ200, but the 230 is rated for 23,000 lbs vs the 22,000 for the F414. Basing this off of a 1998 FlightGlobal article where the 230 was pitched.
Opening a Noah article and seeing "34 minute read" is like checking your banking app and finding you have a few hundred more bucks than you thought. Thanks dude, that was a good read.
On missiles. PrSM, LRASM, etc.
Huge problem nobody talks about. We don't have the ranges to safely train for with these weapons. It slows down adoption. Range safety templates have to consider that a stuck fin on an LRASM may be the difference between hitting the target on the CLAWR or ending up in downtown Calgary.
We need to keep in mind the UK Type 26 is a ASW ship with some AD capability and fits into a "Systems of ships". It's possible that a future flight of RCD's might even adopt the Aussie hull model to fulfil the AD role. But as you alluded to, time is not on our side, with many of the CFP's ready to self divest.
As for keeping at providing content, perhaps invite someone who is an expert on ship steel to talk to you. As your rep grows, you will be able to invite people to do joint sessions, where you can guide the talk, but they can provide the detailed content. Several of the successful youtubers do that, such as the Chieftain and Ian from Forgotten Weapons.
I would love to see a replacement for the 105mm C3 for the Reserve artillery units. Personally I believe that the M777 is to big for many of the units and their armouries, along with the need for a big gun tractor. Plus you can run a 105mm with 5 people. Meaning that for a 10 gunners, you can man 2x105 or one M777, the 105mm allows you to have two detachment commanders, 2x2IC's, etc, etc. Better training bang for buck.
I also don't think the Reserves would be able to sustain a SPG, given the dismal amount of support they get. While people disagree with me, I would love to see most of the units get new made M118/M119's and smaller gun tractors. I could see the majority get the 105mm in addition to other roles they may take on. Some units where it makes sense can get M777 or SPG's. After BMQ, every Reserve Gunner does their DP1 on the howitzer their unit has. Once they completed that, they can learn trades like SHORAD or drones, locating radar, etc.
I've also been considering the roles of other Fire solutions, like the 105, the last few weeks, among others. Its an interesting thiught exercise. The mentality for the RCA (as it exists) is that the reserves should not be using anything that the regs aint.
Thats the reason the M777 are heading to storage as opposed to being downloaded. They will be kept as a capacity, but thats it. I think the discussion is very interesting, and want to explore it more.
There are advantages to A Res having the same kit as the Reg F (TAPV in CAV regiments is a boon).... But the TAPV availability also highlights some challenges with that approach. If the A Res units can't get SPHs/guns they can train/employ locally weeknights & weekends (with gun-camps here & there), then there will be skill retention issues & even challenges getting basic technical & trade qualifications done. Lack of TAPVs to support gunnery courses impacts the number of Officers & Crew Commanders we can qualify... Which impacts everything else.
Limiting A Res arty to the same 155mm SPH as the RegF will run the same risk.
& Then there is the question of - does the Defence division need 155mm SPHs? Would an L118 towed 105mm be a better fit with the rest of the division? Does towed/airlifted 105mm bring a niche capability that could be useful to support the Light Regiment?
Not to mention there is almost no logistical support for the current ARes equipment and absolutely no way to support SPG's or tracked/wheeled armour being used by the ARes. So many things need to be fixed before we can get there.
The Light Infantry Regiment, wouldn’t be surprised if they name it “Ranger” similar to the Brits who wanted / have the same thing for the British Army (to note even the historical significance dating back to Roger’s Rangers).
Then again who knows what they’ll call it, could be Airborne, could be Parachute.
Call me crazy but I’d love to see the Challenger 3 in Canadian service, fight me on it if you want but it’s the ultimate commonwealth wonder weapon. Not only does it have a 120 but it can upgrade to a 130 all thanks to Rhienmetall.
why must you keep these rumors alive
Okay, you're crazy. (you said it was okay)
CSAR requires two things. A robust transport helo. And some kind of attack helo to provide suppression and support during a rescue. And it's mostly always a SOF/SF task. This would mean a fleet of MH-60Ms and DAPs at 427 SOAS.
CSAR? HMM more capabilities
what about self defence height ML41?
minor yards should do minor work, concentrate on expanding the big 3
land attack with a 127 is a death wish
buy 3,4,5,6 ships/hulls off SK transfer equipment from Halifaxs from those in worst shape
Man, there’s numerous examples even from the last decade or two where naval gunfire to shore, either in direct combat or supporting forces ashore has happened. And have you looked into the capabilities of the Vulcano? >100km range and precision guided rounds gives it a lot of flexibility and options.
im well aware of the capabilities of the gun. Im questioning the wisdom of putting the asset in that scenario
Whew, that was a load. Good job. Just a couple of comments, personal opinions only. FLIT for the F-35 should be a Gen4+ jet. So the Gripen would fit that bill. As for the Snowbird replacement, I know you never saw the Golden Hawks, but that was the team that grabbed this youngster’s imagination. Seeing the Golden Centenaires, followed by the Snowbirds in their Tutors was always a disappointment to me. In hindsight, it was just another example of the diminution of the RCAF. So, the Gripen as the Tutor replacement to my mind, would be a worthy, not just a good enough, replacement. Finally, don’t forget we need a suitable adversary jet, preferably flown by Top Aces. They have the wherewithal to fly and maintain them, given their experience with their F-16 fleet.
People seem to really struggle with the trainer part of "Lead in Fighter Trainer". There are specific attributes of aircraft that make them good as trainers that can actually be problematic as fighters and vice versa. Usually when trainer and light fighter fleets are combined, the base is actually a trainer jet.
The Gripen would be massively inefficient and expensive as a trainer. There's a reason the only place using as a trainer is a test pilot school. They are welcome to bid. But I think they know it's a long shot.
The RR EJ200 was pitched as an option for the Gripens back in the 90s, and has a similar/lighter footprint and performance to the GE F414s. The uprated RR EJ230 could be a viable option if someone wanted to pay for the engineering work/integration time required. It's not like it would be starting from a blank slate, and it's not coming out of left field since it was already pitched a couple of decades ago. Not saying we should/would, but it's an option, and it would be far from the first time that a fighter was re-engined with something completely different.
EJ230 leaves the Gripen worse off from a power generation standpoint and thrust stand point. you're easily looking at least 2000 lbs of less thrust then the F414. For perspective the Gripen E weighs roughly the same as a blk 30 F-16 while having about 80% less thrust while running the F414.
Are you talking about the EJ200 or the 230? That would be true for the EJ200, but the 230 is rated for 23,000 lbs vs the 22,000 for the F414. Basing this off of a 1998 FlightGlobal article where the 230 was pitched.
The EJ230 doesn't exist those numbers are based on EJ200 which does, should have clarified better.