Would it be atypical to hire out excess production capacity to an OEM partner?
Not every shop uses every tool every day. They need enough trade to stay current and enough cash flow to make it worth their while.
Well maybe we can contract out mobile fire support to the Ontario Regiment Museum, they now have more SPG's than the CAF
Quite a few people trace the Ajax debacle to the privatization of the British military research arm. A Crown Corp that can produce specialized items and conduct research would be useful. We are more than happy to spend millions on short term feel good stuff. Properly presented as a long term way to create Canadian manufacturing capability and increase job skills is the way to sell it.
I think there needs to be a balance of both Private Industry and Government in both RDT&E efforts and production.
I find the Poles concept of marrying an AS90 turret to a K9 chassis as quite interesting.
Been to the Museum, was amazed at the collection my kids and I got to see as we walked around. Even my 10 year old daughter found it interesting. She liked the German BMM Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer (Modified G-13) and the Stuart Tank. They have some deep pockets to maintain that collection and to continue to purchase and fuel them up.
The LAV 6 is really a Heavy Wheeled AFV. I think we have reached the ceiling in weight for a wheeled vehicle and still have it somewhat useful. Frankly I think a lighter LAV and a well protected tracked APC/IFV is the way to go. Having one fleet may look attractive but you give up a lot to do it. I have to wonder about the sustainment rates of a LAV 6 forced to fight cross country vs a tracked AFV?I find the Poles concept of marrying an AS90 turret to a K9 chassis as quite interesting.
There are two key components to any SP howitzer, the turret with its gun, its gun laying system and its autoloader (if any) and the automotive chassis. Within limits, the two are both interdependent and independent of each other.
There is no magic in a tracked chassis for artillery as off road manoeuverability, while important, is not as critical as for a tank or IFV. Mass is the issue and the ability of the chassis to carry the turret off road and to take the shock of firing while providing stability for the departing round.
The US is coming from behind when it comes to autoloaders which is not the same as saying they will stay there, but if one wants to have an SP turret which will be mass produced, regularly product improved and maintainable, one should either tie themselves to an M109/M1299 or K9 turret. All others are too low a volume to be dependable for the long term (and we do go long term).
Weight is an issue if one wants to slap one of these turrets on a wheeled chassis. Our current LAV6.0 comes in at up to 28 tonnes. The Boxer comes in at up to 38 tonnes. The current M109A7 at 38 tonnes (without autoloader - the M1299 should be more due to its longer/heavier barrel and mount), and the K9 at 47 tonnes. The Kraus-Maffei AGM module which goes on the experimental Boxer SP is 12.5 tonnes. So one roughly needs to expect the chassis to carry and power lets say 12 to 17 tones of gun turret and absorb firing shock.
The HEMTT comes in at 20 tonnes unladen and is rated at 10 tonnes cargo. Our current HLVW is rated at 10 - 16 tonnes. Both are a bit light but are coming in at the very lower end of what is needed. Guns like Archer and Zuzana 2 are pointing the way. We should really examine the Ukrainian experience very closely as to how well they bear up under combat stress.
There are a lot of wheeled chassis SPs out there right now and more and more being built every day. Wheels appear to be a viable solution but, for me the issue is turret first, chassis second. Let's make sure we can find a gun, a gun control system (especially one that can tie into a standardized division wide fire control networ) and an autoloader we are happy with and then either buy an existing chassis or graft it onto something that we can easily support. One thing is for sure, the M777 barrel at L39 is too short for an SP these days. We're basically talking L52 as a minimum and probably more like in the L58-L60 range. That takes a chassis with some mass.
To tie that into what @KevinB @Kirkhill and @FJAG have been saying, maybe the K9 is the logical choice (hear me out).
We do have some advantages here:
To expand on my thinking just a bit more; The Korean kit might be second-rate when compared to the kit Europe and the USA are producing, but the CAF has none, or far too few first-rate systems. The CAF would likely benefit from having more second-rate kit, than from having not enough first-rate kit.We do have some advantages here:
1) we're far removed from most conflict zones so would be able to manufacture when others plants in Korea or Poland are probably quickly bombed out;
2) Our dollar is good vis a vis both US$ and Euro.
3) We have plant capacity by way of mothballed automotive plants
4) We have a relatively educated workforce but offset by union stuff
It's not an extreme pipe dream.
what reason is there to think that the Korean options are second rate?
I simply expect that someone would argue they are... I'm not an expert on the details of any of this, simply someone that tries to keep up to date on a broad range of defence topics.
Well Im probably less of an expert than anyone but I think its more likely that the equipment represents Korean solutions to the problem, those solutions will have their pros and cons depending on the utilization. I think the K2 is going to replace the Leo2 eventually once up and running or maybe the Abrams replaces the Leos and the K2's replace the t72's? Originally the K2 was lighter but the Polish version might get more protection?
Buying American ensure we will never have the capability to manufacture our own kit. If we want to be beholden to the USA for everything, going all American kit makes sense. Good luck convincing voters it's the best choice though...
Ok I understand now from an industrial setup standpoint there would probably be much more in it to set up lines for SK technology transfers
Well we do have a domestic armoured vehicle manufacturer in GDLS. Much more likely that the government would continue to pump money there rather than bring in a new "foreign" company.
Except we have GLDS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada. Why make an Abrams in Canada when you can buy off the American production line?
Hey, I'd love to have a factory come in and start pumping out K2's, K9's and K21's for us but sadly your above statement kind of proved my point. "we have GDLS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada". If we have GDLS here already and they have products they could build if we ordered them but we don't order them (or even absolutely militarily necessary variants of the vehicle lines they
