Helmets for the A Res should be hitting ur local clothing stores next fiscal that’s the word on the street (Combat Arms units first, everyone else later)
Honestly, had to rush last minute while being in town this Friday cuz our clothing stores were doing initial base layer clothing issuing (ngl logistik has done a amazing job and deserve all the praise)
Q1. I was really impressed with the Grizzly 10x10 RCH unveiled at CANSEC. Any news on how it was received by the government /Army?
As a retired Soldier who spent his entire career on the Guns. The Grizzly is yes impressive. As for the opinions of Gunners still working with the Guns. The majority of my friends say “Nice piece of kit, I worry about it though.” “Is the chassis going to be stiff enough for shooting?”, “Will it have the ability to go manual?”, “Its huge and I love it!” or “its not tracked and I don’t trust it”. There’s A LOT of opinions.
The 10x10 LAV chassis for the most part, the LAV’s have been around for a min, isn’t what worries them. It’s the automation of all things gunnery. Why? Things break. Especially in Canada in Winter. Something is always breaking. Yes all the 105mm guns are old, in some cases they are more than 100 yrs old and have gone through 2-3 major modifications/rebuilds. Yet, the simple premise I hear is that they are hesitant to put their trust into something they can’t simply move things out of the way and go manual. As far as I’ve read, the RCH-155 isn’t capable of that.
Having seen the Grizzly at CANSEC... the LAV 10x10 chassis is totally new & woukd have close to 0% commonality with current LAVs/ACSVs. At that point... You would almost he better off buying RCH-155 on Boxers, to at least have commonality with the Brits & Germans.
Regardless of chassis though... the 2 person crew advertised (3 in reality) has 0 endurance in operations & will not actually result in any manpower savings /keeping people out of danger, since they will need more people around to operate & survive... & Then there is the maintenance burden. Yikes. A better capability overall is more liikely to come from the 80% solution of something like Bohdana or CEASAR on a Zetros chassi & a 5 person crew. Simple, sustainable, rapid & still survivable for the crew... & We can buy 2 (or more) for the price of 1...
Q22: don't get me wrong, I love the River Class, but I was confused by the difference in classification from the Brits, Norwegian and Aussies. Are the Type 26 and Hunter class also a NATO DDGH as well, or are they only FFGH? If so, why the difference? Is there one thing, or even a series of things, that you can point to that moves the RCD from FF to DD? I get that the public classification is up to the RCN, and I'm not actually complaining. I'm just confused by the difference between our allies and us.
I think it's great that the CDCs will outperform Halifaxes on basically every metric, and still get called corvettes. I have no problem underemphasing their capabilities, that feels very Canadian, heh. Like you, I do worry that a future government will cut RCD numbers because, on paper, the CDC looks nearly equivalent to the RCD. Only time will tell. Maybe calling them destroyers and corvettes will even help prevent that, they sure don't sound equivalent!
Thanks for answering my question, even if I phrased it poorly.
Q16: when you wrote "investing" in a2a refuelling, is that your way of teasing that it's getting more serious now? They are actually spending the money, not just talking about it? Because that would be super exciting, and, so far as I remember, you had previously only mentioned that there was interest, but no commitment from RCAF so far...
Q4: Noah….you are sooo right about the Korean future submarine concept. Oh boy what a beauty. That boat had me at hello. If only it was on the menu now. Easy. They win. Game over.
Helmets for the A Res should be hitting ur local clothing stores next fiscal that’s the word on the street (Combat Arms units first, everyone else later)
By this point anything SOCEM or clothing related is just a "whenever it shows up I guess" kinds deal.
Honestly, had to rush last minute while being in town this Friday cuz our clothing stores were doing initial base layer clothing issuing (ngl logistik has done a amazing job and deserve all the praise)
Q1. I was really impressed with the Grizzly 10x10 RCH unveiled at CANSEC. Any news on how it was received by the government /Army?
As a retired Soldier who spent his entire career on the Guns. The Grizzly is yes impressive. As for the opinions of Gunners still working with the Guns. The majority of my friends say “Nice piece of kit, I worry about it though.” “Is the chassis going to be stiff enough for shooting?”, “Will it have the ability to go manual?”, “Its huge and I love it!” or “its not tracked and I don’t trust it”. There’s A LOT of opinions.
The 10x10 LAV chassis for the most part, the LAV’s have been around for a min, isn’t what worries them. It’s the automation of all things gunnery. Why? Things break. Especially in Canada in Winter. Something is always breaking. Yes all the 105mm guns are old, in some cases they are more than 100 yrs old and have gone through 2-3 major modifications/rebuilds. Yet, the simple premise I hear is that they are hesitant to put their trust into something they can’t simply move things out of the way and go manual. As far as I’ve read, the RCH-155 isn’t capable of that.
A bit late to comment... But on Q1...
Having seen the Grizzly at CANSEC... the LAV 10x10 chassis is totally new & woukd have close to 0% commonality with current LAVs/ACSVs. At that point... You would almost he better off buying RCH-155 on Boxers, to at least have commonality with the Brits & Germans.
Regardless of chassis though... the 2 person crew advertised (3 in reality) has 0 endurance in operations & will not actually result in any manpower savings /keeping people out of danger, since they will need more people around to operate & survive... & Then there is the maintenance burden. Yikes. A better capability overall is more liikely to come from the 80% solution of something like Bohdana or CEASAR on a Zetros chassi & a 5 person crew. Simple, sustainable, rapid & still survivable for the crew... & We can buy 2 (or more) for the price of 1...
Q22: don't get me wrong, I love the River Class, but I was confused by the difference in classification from the Brits, Norwegian and Aussies. Are the Type 26 and Hunter class also a NATO DDGH as well, or are they only FFGH? If so, why the difference? Is there one thing, or even a series of things, that you can point to that moves the RCD from FF to DD? I get that the public classification is up to the RCN, and I'm not actually complaining. I'm just confused by the difference between our allies and us.
I think it's great that the CDCs will outperform Halifaxes on basically every metric, and still get called corvettes. I have no problem underemphasing their capabilities, that feels very Canadian, heh. Like you, I do worry that a future government will cut RCD numbers because, on paper, the CDC looks nearly equivalent to the RCD. Only time will tell. Maybe calling them destroyers and corvettes will even help prevent that, they sure don't sound equivalent!
Thanks for answering my question, even if I phrased it poorly.
Q16: when you wrote "investing" in a2a refuelling, is that your way of teasing that it's getting more serious now? They are actually spending the money, not just talking about it? Because that would be super exciting, and, so far as I remember, you had previously only mentioned that there was interest, but no commitment from RCAF so far...
Q4: Noah….you are sooo right about the Korean future submarine concept. Oh boy what a beauty. That boat had me at hello. If only it was on the menu now. Easy. They win. Game over.