Q27 I feel like people keep thinking the LAV 700 “would have been” the LAV 6 replacement “eventually” but I really do believe it’s just a oversized and expensive washed out version of the LAV meant to sell as a export platform and not for national service.
For sealift, concur that RCB is probably not the right fit. A P3 or similar (GOCO?) arrangement to have them 1 of say a fleet if 4 available at any time, while the operator is free to contract for logistics iin Canada seems the best /.ist flexible arrangement IMHO.
While it does entail some compromise, I've also come to the viewpoint that we should build them as ~SEAWAYMAX vessels, so they can do oceangoing support but still come up the Seaway & transport to/from anywhere on the lakes. As an added bonus, it'd mean they could be built at Ontario shipyards...
I see a role for two LSM and a couple of RO/RO vessels. The LSM can land the initial Beach party, with bulldozers, laydown roadways, landing aids and other gear and personal. The RO/RO follow up and bring in the rest of the equipment and people.
They would be manned by Marine Auxiliary personal, you likley only need 1 LSM at a time the other in layup. The RO/RO can be used to support trade on the East Coast when not needed.
Because we don't want yet another Class 8+ / heavy truck chassis. We have almost the full collection as it is.
Also, Tatra has next to no North American presence. It means CAF would essentially be 100% on the hook for all parts of the suppky chain for domestic support.
So, in typical CAF fashion it's exactly what we'd go for. And in the vein of the LSVW it would be built at a single planet under a single licence after it had failed almost every standard during trials?
LOL! Q26, that was perfect. Sorry Boxer fans!
Q27 I feel like people keep thinking the LAV 700 “would have been” the LAV 6 replacement “eventually” but I really do believe it’s just a oversized and expensive washed out version of the LAV meant to sell as a export platform and not for national service.
Great responses as usual, Noah.
For sealift, concur that RCB is probably not the right fit. A P3 or similar (GOCO?) arrangement to have them 1 of say a fleet if 4 available at any time, while the operator is free to contract for logistics iin Canada seems the best /.ist flexible arrangement IMHO.
While it does entail some compromise, I've also come to the viewpoint that we should build them as ~SEAWAYMAX vessels, so they can do oceangoing support but still come up the Seaway & transport to/from anywhere on the lakes. As an added bonus, it'd mean they could be built at Ontario shipyards...
I see a role for two LSM and a couple of RO/RO vessels. The LSM can land the initial Beach party, with bulldozers, laydown roadways, landing aids and other gear and personal. The RO/RO follow up and bring in the rest of the equipment and people.
They would be manned by Marine Auxiliary personal, you likley only need 1 LSM at a time the other in layup. The RO/RO can be used to support trade on the East Coast when not needed.
Why the hate for Tatra? 👀👀
Because we don't want yet another Class 8+ / heavy truck chassis. We have almost the full collection as it is.
Also, Tatra has next to no North American presence. It means CAF would essentially be 100% on the hook for all parts of the suppky chain for domestic support.
So, in typical CAF fashion it's exactly what we'd go for. And in the vein of the LSVW it would be built at a single planet under a single licence after it had failed almost every standard during trials?