Technically, it wouldn't be a sole source deal, but a government to government procurement, using the US FMS system...
Anyways... I agree the GMLRS ER & PRSM missiles probabpy offer the best capability set for the Army. I have no issue procuring this particular capability from the US, in my mind, we need to push for 2 caveats:
1. The whole kill chain must be able to be managed internally by the CA. If we give this to an arty regiment supporting a canadian Brigade.. Or Arctic sovereignty/area denial, we want to be able to fire off missiles without going back to a US LO or HQ somewhere. Doing so would slow down the kill chain... Or comes at the (slight) risk that the US says no, they don't want us to prosecute a certain target. Either one could put Canadian soldiers etc at risk.
2. For the love of god, we need to get this integrated onto something like the 4x4 Zetros. Sure, FMTV is supportable through the US /COLOG... But on our side that is an entirely new (& expensive) supply chain to support what is supposed to be the cheap & easy part of the system. In terms of technical risk.... The risk of integrating this sort of pod system onto a truck is pretty low in terms of weapon systems... & if schedule is a concern, I'm sure LM would be happy to expedite if we threw a few tens of millions at them to do it quickly.
Other than that... I still question the CC130 requirement. Are we really going to send a single HIMARS all on its lonesome to an isolated place? How is it going to get targetting information. Do its on-board radios (or SATCOM) function over 100s of kms of distance? Where is the battery command post (& what is that mounted in?) Is there any infantry or any other sort of security deploying with the very small HIMARS crew? If any of these questions result in deploying more stuff to accompany a HIMARS truck.... Then it'll either take a CC-177 or multiple CC130s to carry everything. At which point I'd question the CC-130 transportability requirement.
I use Sole-Source because, while technically not the proper term, im trying to use more basic language for people to follow along and I felt everyone could understand what that would mean. Plus easier to type. 😋
On to the main points at hand I fully agree on one. Its imperative that we have control over our own HIMARS and how they are used. Thats one area where I would say it would be a deal breaker if we were under glorified lock and key. I dont think that will be an issue. I think we will be relatively okay in that regard.
On the second half I knew you were gonna bring it up lol. You might have to accept the next truck for the collection. I dont think we can avoid the FMTVpoclypse. 🤣
I would love to see it integrated onto a Zetros. Dont get me wrong. I just dont think with pur small order that anyone will want to do it. We would need to be looking at HOMAR levels. Obviously, if we truly, absolutely wanted to we could, I just dont think we will.
We certainly aren't lacking platforms, and I have no doubt LM wouldn't really give a damn so long as we put the money into it. It is entirely on us if it doesnt happen.
Although part of me does like collecting trucks now, because its funny. Although we dont want to kill poor Matt with to many vehicle types!
And as for the CC130... my opinions are known. I feel you and me alone have had about three debates on the subject lol. I dont quite get it or the Arctic concept either. I cant in this case dismiss it though either from the discussion, so I apologize to everyone.
I dont want anyone to think im supportive. I get the basic logic behind it. The CC130 is the bulk of our transport fleet and the CC-177 will be strained in conflict with other things. To much competing for limited space.
And while I dont want to see it thrown is as a requirement almost everyone ive talked to eith some knowledge or connection has made it clear its a must. We wont get around it.
I try my best to explain the mentalities at play here, to provide a perspective of those on the project. I dont want people to thunk im just throwing my opinions out there lol.
I do think that we can take this as part of a wider discussion about our airlift (and sealift) capabilities and start asking ourselves if the CC130 is still enough for us, or if we maybe need to start looking beyond it (I wont say its name)
Yeah, I think we are mostly on the same page on this... I think that the fundamental issue is how the Army has gone about with Force /Capability development over the last few decades. We need a top down approach to our capability development... Look at capability outputs starting at the formation level (Div/Bde) on down & design a procurement instrument(s) to meet those in an integrated manner.
ATM we look at individual equipment types as individual "capabilities" & try to kludge them into force structures etc. Which is how we end up with 5 different heavy trucks.
I do see the writing on the wall in terms of sustaining these - it will be more expensive than we're willing to pay & our capability will suffer for it.
Also... Given the overall size/weight gain of all of our platforms, I'd say CC130 is no longer fit for purpose, unless we dedicated it to only supporting Light Infantry...
Thanks for the update Noah! Yeah, I share your enthusiasm for Korea-Canada JV's! Also, JV's with other aligned countries and ITAR free firms.
In thinking about the issue of to buy or not buy American, I am wondering about short-term vs. long term? Do we think the US relationship will be permanently changed and also unreliable just for the short term i.e. next 4 years or for the long term i.e. 30-50 years? I think that tips the scales in decision making for how we select and invest. Related to that, do we think the geopolitical situation and threat level to Canada and it's interests will be elevated (and possibly rising) for the short term or long term (and public political support for defense)? That also tips the scales in decision making for HIMARS and other platform decisions.
What about GMARS by Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall? Interoperable with MLRS and HIMARS. Uses HX family of trucks that we have just purchased from Rheinmetall for heavy recovery operations so simplify the supply chain. Wouldn’t have CC130 transport though but is that a deal breaker?
Technically, it wouldn't be a sole source deal, but a government to government procurement, using the US FMS system...
Anyways... I agree the GMLRS ER & PRSM missiles probabpy offer the best capability set for the Army. I have no issue procuring this particular capability from the US, in my mind, we need to push for 2 caveats:
1. The whole kill chain must be able to be managed internally by the CA. If we give this to an arty regiment supporting a canadian Brigade.. Or Arctic sovereignty/area denial, we want to be able to fire off missiles without going back to a US LO or HQ somewhere. Doing so would slow down the kill chain... Or comes at the (slight) risk that the US says no, they don't want us to prosecute a certain target. Either one could put Canadian soldiers etc at risk.
2. For the love of god, we need to get this integrated onto something like the 4x4 Zetros. Sure, FMTV is supportable through the US /COLOG... But on our side that is an entirely new (& expensive) supply chain to support what is supposed to be the cheap & easy part of the system. In terms of technical risk.... The risk of integrating this sort of pod system onto a truck is pretty low in terms of weapon systems... & if schedule is a concern, I'm sure LM would be happy to expedite if we threw a few tens of millions at them to do it quickly.
Other than that... I still question the CC130 requirement. Are we really going to send a single HIMARS all on its lonesome to an isolated place? How is it going to get targetting information. Do its on-board radios (or SATCOM) function over 100s of kms of distance? Where is the battery command post (& what is that mounted in?) Is there any infantry or any other sort of security deploying with the very small HIMARS crew? If any of these questions result in deploying more stuff to accompany a HIMARS truck.... Then it'll either take a CC-177 or multiple CC130s to carry everything. At which point I'd question the CC-130 transportability requirement.
I use Sole-Source because, while technically not the proper term, im trying to use more basic language for people to follow along and I felt everyone could understand what that would mean. Plus easier to type. 😋
On to the main points at hand I fully agree on one. Its imperative that we have control over our own HIMARS and how they are used. Thats one area where I would say it would be a deal breaker if we were under glorified lock and key. I dont think that will be an issue. I think we will be relatively okay in that regard.
On the second half I knew you were gonna bring it up lol. You might have to accept the next truck for the collection. I dont think we can avoid the FMTVpoclypse. 🤣
I would love to see it integrated onto a Zetros. Dont get me wrong. I just dont think with pur small order that anyone will want to do it. We would need to be looking at HOMAR levels. Obviously, if we truly, absolutely wanted to we could, I just dont think we will.
We certainly aren't lacking platforms, and I have no doubt LM wouldn't really give a damn so long as we put the money into it. It is entirely on us if it doesnt happen.
Although part of me does like collecting trucks now, because its funny. Although we dont want to kill poor Matt with to many vehicle types!
And as for the CC130... my opinions are known. I feel you and me alone have had about three debates on the subject lol. I dont quite get it or the Arctic concept either. I cant in this case dismiss it though either from the discussion, so I apologize to everyone.
I dont want anyone to think im supportive. I get the basic logic behind it. The CC130 is the bulk of our transport fleet and the CC-177 will be strained in conflict with other things. To much competing for limited space.
And while I dont want to see it thrown is as a requirement almost everyone ive talked to eith some knowledge or connection has made it clear its a must. We wont get around it.
I try my best to explain the mentalities at play here, to provide a perspective of those on the project. I dont want people to thunk im just throwing my opinions out there lol.
I do think that we can take this as part of a wider discussion about our airlift (and sealift) capabilities and start asking ourselves if the CC130 is still enough for us, or if we maybe need to start looking beyond it (I wont say its name)
if you put it on a Zetros it wont fit on a C130 will it? Plus do we have a tandem(3 axle) Zetros coming?
Yeah, I think we are mostly on the same page on this... I think that the fundamental issue is how the Army has gone about with Force /Capability development over the last few decades. We need a top down approach to our capability development... Look at capability outputs starting at the formation level (Div/Bde) on down & design a procurement instrument(s) to meet those in an integrated manner.
ATM we look at individual equipment types as individual "capabilities" & try to kludge them into force structures etc. Which is how we end up with 5 different heavy trucks.
I do see the writing on the wall in terms of sustaining these - it will be more expensive than we're willing to pay & our capability will suffer for it.
Also... Given the overall size/weight gain of all of our platforms, I'd say CC130 is no longer fit for purpose, unless we dedicated it to only supporting Light Infantry...
Thanks for the update Noah! Yeah, I share your enthusiasm for Korea-Canada JV's! Also, JV's with other aligned countries and ITAR free firms.
In thinking about the issue of to buy or not buy American, I am wondering about short-term vs. long term? Do we think the US relationship will be permanently changed and also unreliable just for the short term i.e. next 4 years or for the long term i.e. 30-50 years? I think that tips the scales in decision making for how we select and invest. Related to that, do we think the geopolitical situation and threat level to Canada and it's interests will be elevated (and possibly rising) for the short term or long term (and public political support for defense)? That also tips the scales in decision making for HIMARS and other platform decisions.
IMO, our security = our collective will + our economy + our defense industrial complex + the CAF (people, kit, logistics, readiness) + our partners
What about GMARS by Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall? Interoperable with MLRS and HIMARS. Uses HX family of trucks that we have just purchased from Rheinmetall for heavy recovery operations so simplify the supply chain. Wouldn’t have CC130 transport though but is that a deal breaker?