I feels your angst about loosing the opportunities we could have had with the Koreans, and I share it. Maybe growing our ties with our NATO allies was the right decision, but we will never know, will we? And that sucks. I can't help thinking that we had plenty other opportunities to connect with Germany and Norway, but the chance to connect to Korea was something much more rare and special. Thanks for taking us inside your thinking about CPSP, that was enlightening.
Well said Harry. As Noah alluded to both subs were up to the task but it was the Korean investments in shipbuilding capabilities with the ancillary benefits across many industries that Canada won’t get now. That was our chance to have an enthusiastic partner with superlative industrial know how catapult Canadian industry forward. I can’t remember who said it but “a nations industrial strategy is its warfighting strategy.” Rare opportunity indeed.
Footnote: Moving forward I fully support the trilateral alliance and all of the benefits (and there are many) that the u212cd will bring to Canada. Given the unique stealth design of our new sub I’m hoping that Russia and China are not at all pleased with our choice.
Amongst my reservist peers - tend to be worried. A further split from kit, opportunities and training. Add in the worry about being relegated to glorified "sandbag battalions" and not doing the army shit they want to do. I personally tend to be cautious optimistic but Im really hoping we get some sort of direction soon to clear the air.
Agreed. I'm just joining, but I've been hanging out with reservists for 5 years now (thus the joining, peer pressure is real folks, even in your 40s...), and I hear a lot of skepticism mixed in with a small dollop of hope. They see all the new toys planned and being handed out to Reg force, and they scoff at the idea of any of it ever reaching them... But they can't help but hope. And they grudgingly admit recruitment is getting handled faster, and training is happening more consistently, and, and, and... But yeah. The local unit got 2 G Wagons back after almost 3 years, and they are technically armoured cav. Woo. When/if the new gear starts showing up in reserve armouries is when I think attitudes will change. Until then, most of them are taking a "wait and see" attitude.
A bit late to comment - but agree. At the moment, none of the major CAMO equipment initiatives will really touch the A Res -nor should most of them, really (sustainabiluty is a thing, & the lack of A Res technicians is definitely a thing...). LUV & LVM will eventually replace a part of the A Res fleet... But it won't make it any more combat-capable than it is now. & As you say, there is definitely a tendancy amongst many in tye RegF to see the A Res as "sadnbag battalions" that don't need any real warfighting kit... But somehow must also contribute trained soldiers to fill in 20% or more of deployments.
I for one remain very hopeful that having a dedicated A Res division, will finally give the A Res a proper "voice at the table" & advocacy to start defining equipment requirements - combat capable... But cheap enough & easily sustainable so as to fit the A Res format... & Provide a lighter deployable asset that is complementary to 1 Div...
A deployable light division with divisional enablers focused on the arctic would be an interesting orbat. Lots of drones, light APCs (rumoured 6x6 senators might be good for this on wheels and FFNW armoured DAME for the North) and lots of sensors would be vital. The sticking point will be ARes mobile fires and a functional LCav vehicle for direct fire support and enabling operations. I prefer track for both but wheeled probably makes more sense logistically. Sustainment could be covered by upping LVM numbers and actually pushing the SEVs to ARes units. FARs/LHS/etc.
I've proposed basically exactly that in posts on Twitter... Using a mix of dismounted/light elements & medium elements in Senator platforms to build a division that can operate alongside/enable the lighter elements of the Light Regiment, provide added mass to the heavier 1 Div (& take on secondary roles there, allowing heavier forces to better concentrate) or operate independantly as a ~ Medium force (according to NATO definitions protected mobility platforms like SENUP are actually Medium forces...). I would not provide that force with LVM light though - it remains a heavy truck with fewer axles. You can build a capable logistics fleet on the same F-600 chassis as SENUP (& it'd have about the same payload as the old MLVWs...).
DAME (protected & weaponised or not) & LTVs for Light sub-units, SP 81mm or 120mm mortars, a Light CAV variant, even towed 105mm howitzers to provide a strategically/operationally mobile artillery asset in a niche useful to support the Light Regiment.... All enabled by UXVs everywhere as an attritable sensor, strike & survivability suite.
We could basically build a division ++ with all of that for not much more than the cost of equipping a single heavy Brigade...
Im not so sure about Senator as it stands as an all-singing all-dancing platform. It has its niches but in its current form probably shouldnt be more than a B Fleet vehicle. The mobility just isnt there to enable the tactical level maneouvres. Thats why I say 6x6 and omit the 4x4. In my perfect world - fire up the LAV 2 production line and modernize the hell out of it. With a modern engine, improved armour and modern digital architecture. Its a wicked platform and super versatile while avoiding the bloat of the LAV 3 / 6 families. I recognize this is basically impossible though.
Not saying SENATOR platform does not come with compromises - there are many... High speed cross country mobility is one to be sure. It won't have the tactical mobility to launch a high speed attack over broken terrain, through breaches & across trenches. But it doesn't need to. I think one underappreciated aspect of the UAS heavy environment is the need for dispersion - high speed long distance mobility, to concentrate & disperse quickly, are becoming more important. As for off-road mobility, compared to the G-Wagons & TAPVs I currently use... It should be sufficient to grt the job done.
As for being a glorified B vehicle... Sure, if we insist that the best armed & protected variant is a "C&R" with a pintle mount MG. With proper armaments, they can definitely be proper A vehicles - yes, on the lighter side compared to the 40+ tonne IFVs most RegF currently wish for... But not every vehicle needs /can be that heavy. For reference, it is about as heavy & protected as AVGPs were, & no one seeing an AVGP hesitates to call them an A vehicle.
Again... It does entail compromises in armour, firepower & mobility, but I think we can quickly & efficiently build a whole fighting division based on SENATOR - the training & sustainment benefits alone are worth it, IMHO, & it also provides a second source of supply for A vehicles (allowing the GDLS-C line to focus on the heavier vehicles for 1 Div...)
Im also a toon crewman so I know where you're coming from haha. I want to see the Sen work offroad before I make any final calls on if its comparable to the TAPV or LUVW. I hope it is but Im not so sure. Lotta weight on 4 commercial standard wheels. Im curious about those CTIS and suspension upgrades and hope they mitigate the weight.
On armament,I wonder if its too much weight for an RS6 on a Senator - Id avoid their proprietary RWS like a plague, we have too many variants to begin with, we dont need an entirely different ecosystem from a separate company.
I would not count AVGP as A fleet. The pumpkin gun does not a light tank make lol. It may have been used in ARes F Ech or even in low-intensity conflict in Bosnia, but that does not mean it belongs there. Age old Canadian "make-do" had using a basically unarmoured, unstabilized tank trainer kinetically.
I really do want to reiterate that I see the wisdom of your ideas, just that Im a little hesitant until I see the first LUVs show up - hopefully late 2027. Boy do we ever need it asap.
Thanks Noah! Echoing others, keep taking care of yourself and I hope that you're on the mend.
Re: Q6, I was blown away when I learned recently about British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) in Alberta.
[Stealing shamelessly from Wikipedia] BATUS is part of CFB Suffield, which encompasses more than seven times the area of Salisbury Plain, which is the British Army's largest training ground at home. While permanently manned, BATUS is operational outside of the winter months and hosts 1,400 British Army soldiers and over 1,000 vehicles, including 22 Challenger 2 tanks and 103 Bulldog armoured fighting vehicles, alongside Warrior IFVs, AS-90 SPGs, Trojan combat engineering vehicles, Titan armoured bridge layers and formerly Gazelle helicopters, until their retirement in October 2023. My understanding is that a significant contingent of this vehicle inventory is permanently stationed at BATUS.
Four times a year, BATUS stages a 30-day exercise called Prairie Fire that aims to precisely replicate the experience of the British Army being transported to a warzone, fighting, and returning to the UK. During the exercise, soldiers fight fictional "Donovians" in "Atropia". Multilingual Canadian actors are hired to play the local civilian population.
Not to get ahead of our skis, but perhaps Canada could create a permanent training facility in the high arctic? The purpose of the facility would be to stage a standardized series of training exercise similar to Prairie Fire with the objective of simulating the experience of the CAF and our NATO allies mobilizing arctic warfare units, transporting themselves to the training range, and then operating in arctic conditions for an extended period of time.
The standard exercises could encompass a range of activities, including: long-range patrol; setup and utilization of remote sensing and comms equipment; setting up an austere FOB; combat search and rescue; locating, securing, and extracting downed aircraft/drones or beached UUVs; countering hybrid warfare and kinetic provocation scenarios (i.e. little green men); man-the-frontier maximum deterrence posture (i.e. war warning); and ultimately, high-intensity full-spectrum combat of NATO arctic warfare units against a peer-level OPFOR.
Edit: building on Harry Nuetel's comment, below, perhaps this arctic training range could be the permanent base of operations for future iterations of Operation NANOOK?
Oh, I like this idea. The media coverage of the last Nanook exercise was a little humbling. It felt ambitious, but rubbish (to steal one of my favourite British saying), and maybe a permanent training facility would allow us to build up where we all want to be at. If training staff can experiment before an exercise, and know what is possible, we can avoid embarrassing repeats of the unfired howitzer. After all, the main reason we didn't fire it was we just weren't sure what would happen, and didn't want to risk the potential for serious injury that a barrel failure might cause... But that's important information! We need to find these things out before we need the capability for real, don't we?
Good, we definitely agree on armoured MILCOT. As for deployable assets, Roshel has a 2 door SENATOR concept/design that can do all the cargo/utility jobs.
As for Light CAV, in my thinking, I am a bit more conservative in choices to generate a combat-capabke Light CAV variant, given necessary compromises for weight/cost.
We agree on the need for an RS6 or "optionally crewed" turret (could be operated by a gunner in the hull, like an RWS... But with space for the CC to be in the turret for SA). Modern optics & fire control systems are an absolute must.
As for armament, the low pressure 30x113mm seems great, but it has no dedicated AP round, & the LAVs are almost certainly going for the full pressure 30×173mm full power round. Unless it ends up being used elsewhare, having a A Res unique round seems to me a non-starter. A 50cal M3P with modern AP rounds would actually be just about as good against armour, & the M3P /GAU-21 is a dual purpose AA weapon (seen on things like the Avenger), so it would be able to deal UAS or ground threats... Without as much of a burdensome/unique logistics tail.
UAS/LMs would then supplement for heavier AT, AP, anti-structure fire power, or as interceptors for longer range CUAS work. The idea qould be to maximise the number of UxVs on the platform. Things like a peri are great... But you can achieve more & better SA from something like a tethered drone hovering above the vehicle (which can also be configured for things like CUAS detection, better than a Peri). BLUF, I think we'd have to be careful how we configure the vehicle, but UxVs definitely open up very flexible possibilities to get great bang for the buck...
The new GE-t901 engine developed under ITEP is nearing completion. The development program has been accelerated and promises 50% greater power and 25% better fuel efficiency. This is a massive upgrade. The engine is currently flying in blackhawks and integration and testing is to be complete around 2028-2029. Also a new more powerful radar is under development and slated for 2030-2031.
I’m a fan of the aw101/Merlin but am aware that they would require substantial integration work for the Rivers.
Any chance the Romeo/Seahawks that Lockheed is eager for us to select (at a discount) to replace our useless Cyclones would have these new engines/radars?
Lots of blame to go around re:boondoggle Cyclones. Between Sikorsky and Lockheed they delivered a Turkey. So they lost some money on the deal. Boo hoo. We stand to lose at least 5 billion if we shit-can the whole thing which we should. Not one more dollar should be spent to upgrade and sustain this fleet beyond funding its transition to a new fleet and possibly the cost of the flame-throwers required to torch these lemons. We tried to turn a civilian helicopter into a military sub hunter. Wtf were we thinking. However, they proposed this solution and didn’t deliver. End of story.
Ok. So here we are 30 yrs later and they have a mature solution which is already integrated with the aegis system on the Rivers. It would seem like a no-brainer except it isn’t. Because we’re paying twice for the same program with the same damn vendor. However, we still want the best solution and this may be it. So I say give us a fucking good deal and let’s all move on. And maybe give us priority on those new engines/radars which will greatly expand the Romeo’s mission envelope.
As to the AW101/Merlins…if the U.S/Trump goes totally insane then we eat the integration costs and fly the same bird that our Norwegian/British friends have chosen.
I feels your angst about loosing the opportunities we could have had with the Koreans, and I share it. Maybe growing our ties with our NATO allies was the right decision, but we will never know, will we? And that sucks. I can't help thinking that we had plenty other opportunities to connect with Germany and Norway, but the chance to connect to Korea was something much more rare and special. Thanks for taking us inside your thinking about CPSP, that was enlightening.
Well said Harry. As Noah alluded to both subs were up to the task but it was the Korean investments in shipbuilding capabilities with the ancillary benefits across many industries that Canada won’t get now. That was our chance to have an enthusiastic partner with superlative industrial know how catapult Canadian industry forward. I can’t remember who said it but “a nations industrial strategy is its warfighting strategy.” Rare opportunity indeed.
Footnote: Moving forward I fully support the trilateral alliance and all of the benefits (and there are many) that the u212cd will bring to Canada. Given the unique stealth design of our new sub I’m hoping that Russia and China are not at all pleased with our choice.
Amongst my reservist peers - tend to be worried. A further split from kit, opportunities and training. Add in the worry about being relegated to glorified "sandbag battalions" and not doing the army shit they want to do. I personally tend to be cautious optimistic but Im really hoping we get some sort of direction soon to clear the air.
Agreed. I'm just joining, but I've been hanging out with reservists for 5 years now (thus the joining, peer pressure is real folks, even in your 40s...), and I hear a lot of skepticism mixed in with a small dollop of hope. They see all the new toys planned and being handed out to Reg force, and they scoff at the idea of any of it ever reaching them... But they can't help but hope. And they grudgingly admit recruitment is getting handled faster, and training is happening more consistently, and, and, and... But yeah. The local unit got 2 G Wagons back after almost 3 years, and they are technically armoured cav. Woo. When/if the new gear starts showing up in reserve armouries is when I think attitudes will change. Until then, most of them are taking a "wait and see" attitude.
A bit late to comment - but agree. At the moment, none of the major CAMO equipment initiatives will really touch the A Res -nor should most of them, really (sustainabiluty is a thing, & the lack of A Res technicians is definitely a thing...). LUV & LVM will eventually replace a part of the A Res fleet... But it won't make it any more combat-capable than it is now. & As you say, there is definitely a tendancy amongst many in tye RegF to see the A Res as "sadnbag battalions" that don't need any real warfighting kit... But somehow must also contribute trained soldiers to fill in 20% or more of deployments.
I for one remain very hopeful that having a dedicated A Res division, will finally give the A Res a proper "voice at the table" & advocacy to start defining equipment requirements - combat capable... But cheap enough & easily sustainable so as to fit the A Res format... & Provide a lighter deployable asset that is complementary to 1 Div...
A deployable light division with divisional enablers focused on the arctic would be an interesting orbat. Lots of drones, light APCs (rumoured 6x6 senators might be good for this on wheels and FFNW armoured DAME for the North) and lots of sensors would be vital. The sticking point will be ARes mobile fires and a functional LCav vehicle for direct fire support and enabling operations. I prefer track for both but wheeled probably makes more sense logistically. Sustainment could be covered by upping LVM numbers and actually pushing the SEVs to ARes units. FARs/LHS/etc.
I've proposed basically exactly that in posts on Twitter... Using a mix of dismounted/light elements & medium elements in Senator platforms to build a division that can operate alongside/enable the lighter elements of the Light Regiment, provide added mass to the heavier 1 Div (& take on secondary roles there, allowing heavier forces to better concentrate) or operate independantly as a ~ Medium force (according to NATO definitions protected mobility platforms like SENUP are actually Medium forces...). I would not provide that force with LVM light though - it remains a heavy truck with fewer axles. You can build a capable logistics fleet on the same F-600 chassis as SENUP (& it'd have about the same payload as the old MLVWs...).
DAME (protected & weaponised or not) & LTVs for Light sub-units, SP 81mm or 120mm mortars, a Light CAV variant, even towed 105mm howitzers to provide a strategically/operationally mobile artillery asset in a niche useful to support the Light Regiment.... All enabled by UXVs everywhere as an attritable sensor, strike & survivability suite.
We could basically build a division ++ with all of that for not much more than the cost of equipping a single heavy Brigade...
https://x.com/m_Janelle/status/1972862879214014516?s=20
Im not so sure about Senator as it stands as an all-singing all-dancing platform. It has its niches but in its current form probably shouldnt be more than a B Fleet vehicle. The mobility just isnt there to enable the tactical level maneouvres. Thats why I say 6x6 and omit the 4x4. In my perfect world - fire up the LAV 2 production line and modernize the hell out of it. With a modern engine, improved armour and modern digital architecture. Its a wicked platform and super versatile while avoiding the bloat of the LAV 3 / 6 families. I recognize this is basically impossible though.
Not saying SENATOR platform does not come with compromises - there are many... High speed cross country mobility is one to be sure. It won't have the tactical mobility to launch a high speed attack over broken terrain, through breaches & across trenches. But it doesn't need to. I think one underappreciated aspect of the UAS heavy environment is the need for dispersion - high speed long distance mobility, to concentrate & disperse quickly, are becoming more important. As for off-road mobility, compared to the G-Wagons & TAPVs I currently use... It should be sufficient to grt the job done.
As for being a glorified B vehicle... Sure, if we insist that the best armed & protected variant is a "C&R" with a pintle mount MG. With proper armaments, they can definitely be proper A vehicles - yes, on the lighter side compared to the 40+ tonne IFVs most RegF currently wish for... But not every vehicle needs /can be that heavy. For reference, it is about as heavy & protected as AVGPs were, & no one seeing an AVGP hesitates to call them an A vehicle.
Again... It does entail compromises in armour, firepower & mobility, but I think we can quickly & efficiently build a whole fighting division based on SENATOR - the training & sustainment benefits alone are worth it, IMHO, & it also provides a second source of supply for A vehicles (allowing the GDLS-C line to focus on the heavier vehicles for 1 Div...)
Im also a toon crewman so I know where you're coming from haha. I want to see the Sen work offroad before I make any final calls on if its comparable to the TAPV or LUVW. I hope it is but Im not so sure. Lotta weight on 4 commercial standard wheels. Im curious about those CTIS and suspension upgrades and hope they mitigate the weight.
On armament,I wonder if its too much weight for an RS6 on a Senator - Id avoid their proprietary RWS like a plague, we have too many variants to begin with, we dont need an entirely different ecosystem from a separate company.
I would not count AVGP as A fleet. The pumpkin gun does not a light tank make lol. It may have been used in ARes F Ech or even in low-intensity conflict in Bosnia, but that does not mean it belongs there. Age old Canadian "make-do" had using a basically unarmoured, unstabilized tank trainer kinetically.
I really do want to reiterate that I see the wisdom of your ideas, just that Im a little hesitant until I see the first LUVs show up - hopefully late 2027. Boy do we ever need it asap.
Thanks Noah! Echoing others, keep taking care of yourself and I hope that you're on the mend.
Re: Q6, I was blown away when I learned recently about British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) in Alberta.
[Stealing shamelessly from Wikipedia] BATUS is part of CFB Suffield, which encompasses more than seven times the area of Salisbury Plain, which is the British Army's largest training ground at home. While permanently manned, BATUS is operational outside of the winter months and hosts 1,400 British Army soldiers and over 1,000 vehicles, including 22 Challenger 2 tanks and 103 Bulldog armoured fighting vehicles, alongside Warrior IFVs, AS-90 SPGs, Trojan combat engineering vehicles, Titan armoured bridge layers and formerly Gazelle helicopters, until their retirement in October 2023. My understanding is that a significant contingent of this vehicle inventory is permanently stationed at BATUS.
Four times a year, BATUS stages a 30-day exercise called Prairie Fire that aims to precisely replicate the experience of the British Army being transported to a warzone, fighting, and returning to the UK. During the exercise, soldiers fight fictional "Donovians" in "Atropia". Multilingual Canadian actors are hired to play the local civilian population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_Unit_Suffield
Not to get ahead of our skis, but perhaps Canada could create a permanent training facility in the high arctic? The purpose of the facility would be to stage a standardized series of training exercise similar to Prairie Fire with the objective of simulating the experience of the CAF and our NATO allies mobilizing arctic warfare units, transporting themselves to the training range, and then operating in arctic conditions for an extended period of time.
The standard exercises could encompass a range of activities, including: long-range patrol; setup and utilization of remote sensing and comms equipment; setting up an austere FOB; combat search and rescue; locating, securing, and extracting downed aircraft/drones or beached UUVs; countering hybrid warfare and kinetic provocation scenarios (i.e. little green men); man-the-frontier maximum deterrence posture (i.e. war warning); and ultimately, high-intensity full-spectrum combat of NATO arctic warfare units against a peer-level OPFOR.
Edit: building on Harry Nuetel's comment, below, perhaps this arctic training range could be the permanent base of operations for future iterations of Operation NANOOK?
Oh, I like this idea. The media coverage of the last Nanook exercise was a little humbling. It felt ambitious, but rubbish (to steal one of my favourite British saying), and maybe a permanent training facility would allow us to build up where we all want to be at. If training staff can experiment before an exercise, and know what is possible, we can avoid embarrassing repeats of the unfired howitzer. After all, the main reason we didn't fire it was we just weren't sure what would happen, and didn't want to risk the potential for serious injury that a barrel failure might cause... But that's important information! We need to find these things out before we need the capability for real, don't we?
Great idea. I've edited my post accordingly.
Good, we definitely agree on armoured MILCOT. As for deployable assets, Roshel has a 2 door SENATOR concept/design that can do all the cargo/utility jobs.
As for Light CAV, in my thinking, I am a bit more conservative in choices to generate a combat-capabke Light CAV variant, given necessary compromises for weight/cost.
We agree on the need for an RS6 or "optionally crewed" turret (could be operated by a gunner in the hull, like an RWS... But with space for the CC to be in the turret for SA). Modern optics & fire control systems are an absolute must.
As for armament, the low pressure 30x113mm seems great, but it has no dedicated AP round, & the LAVs are almost certainly going for the full pressure 30×173mm full power round. Unless it ends up being used elsewhare, having a A Res unique round seems to me a non-starter. A 50cal M3P with modern AP rounds would actually be just about as good against armour, & the M3P /GAU-21 is a dual purpose AA weapon (seen on things like the Avenger), so it would be able to deal UAS or ground threats... Without as much of a burdensome/unique logistics tail.
UAS/LMs would then supplement for heavier AT, AP, anti-structure fire power, or as interceptors for longer range CUAS work. The idea qould be to maximise the number of UxVs on the platform. Things like a peri are great... But you can achieve more & better SA from something like a tethered drone hovering above the vehicle (which can also be configured for things like CUAS detection, better than a Peri). BLUF, I think we'd have to be careful how we configure the vehicle, but UxVs definitely open up very flexible possibilities to get great bang for the buck...
Re:Q4-Blackhawks
The new GE-t901 engine developed under ITEP is nearing completion. The development program has been accelerated and promises 50% greater power and 25% better fuel efficiency. This is a massive upgrade. The engine is currently flying in blackhawks and integration and testing is to be complete around 2028-2029. Also a new more powerful radar is under development and slated for 2030-2031.
I’m a fan of the aw101/Merlin but am aware that they would require substantial integration work for the Rivers.
Any chance the Romeo/Seahawks that Lockheed is eager for us to select (at a discount) to replace our useless Cyclones would have these new engines/radars?
Nobody…. Ok I’ll answer my own question.
Lots of blame to go around re:boondoggle Cyclones. Between Sikorsky and Lockheed they delivered a Turkey. So they lost some money on the deal. Boo hoo. We stand to lose at least 5 billion if we shit-can the whole thing which we should. Not one more dollar should be spent to upgrade and sustain this fleet beyond funding its transition to a new fleet and possibly the cost of the flame-throwers required to torch these lemons. We tried to turn a civilian helicopter into a military sub hunter. Wtf were we thinking. However, they proposed this solution and didn’t deliver. End of story.
Ok. So here we are 30 yrs later and they have a mature solution which is already integrated with the aegis system on the Rivers. It would seem like a no-brainer except it isn’t. Because we’re paying twice for the same program with the same damn vendor. However, we still want the best solution and this may be it. So I say give us a fucking good deal and let’s all move on. And maybe give us priority on those new engines/radars which will greatly expand the Romeo’s mission envelope.
As to the AW101/Merlins…if the U.S/Trump goes totally insane then we eat the integration costs and fly the same bird that our Norwegian/British friends have chosen.