Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Maxman1]

Bill Blair on CBC saying we may not buy all 88 F35s and may look at other options…

Canada's drunken trailer park supervisor.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the key issue is you will never have one swiss army vehicle that meets all needs. Even if it was possible it would end up being overly complex and overly expensive. Consequently, that great bugbear of the Canadian command structure rears its head: decisions.

Somebody has to decide how many of what and how, where and when they should be utilized.

....

Straight up question, do you feel you need your F echelon vehicle on the floor of your armoury all the time? Or could you manage with a local training center fully equipped and a squadron's worth of B vehicles in the armouries for admin and training?

It would be perfectly acceptable to depot the vehicles at a training area to draw them like they used to with the AVGP or Lynx. Have one at the armoury for training and maintain the Echelon at the armoury. Simple as.

 

[FJAG]

Straight up question, do you feel you need your F echelon vehicle on the floor of your armoury all the time? Or could you manage with a local training center fully equipped and a squadron's worth of B vehicles in the armouries for admin and training?

That's a tremendously broad question that depends on many factors. The easy answer is - it depends. How much equipment is there? What are the arrangements for its maintenance? What is the amount and type of training expected to be done at the armouries v at the training centre? What type of unit and associated equipment is it? What is the configuration of the armouries and its storage facilities?

As a quick shot, if we look at today's ARes structure and the amount of equipment dedicated to them (even if increased) then the only logical system is one where the few number of F Ech vehicles is held and serviced at a training centre for pool usage while, at best we can hope for a few simulation trainers on the armoury floor.

The problem becomes even bigger if equipment for the ARes is issued at anywhere near baseline levels (i.e. the full TOE for an LSCO mobilization capability) so as to make them a mobilizable force. A Class A force and a 19th century armory system is not suitable for on-site storage or training.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's a tremendously broad question that depends on many factors. The easy answer is - it depends. How much equipment is there? What are the arrangements for its maintenance? What is the amount and type of training expected to be done at the armouries v at the training centre? What type of unit and associated equipment is it? What is the configuration of the armouries and its storage facilities?

As a quick shot, if we look at today's ARes structure and the amount of equipment dedicated to them (even if increased) then the only logical system is one where the few number of F Ech vehicles is held and serviced at a training centre for pool usage while, at best we can hope for a few simulation trainers on the armoury floor.

The problem becomes even bigger if equipment for the ARes is issued at anywhere near baseline levels (i.e. the full TOE for an LSCO mobilization capability) so as to make them a mobilizable force. A Class A force and a 19th century armory system is not suitable for on-site storage or training.

Most of those armouries that I have seen have adjacent parking lots with room for a secure compound for 20 or so vans. Enough for a sub-unit's admin vehicles. Maybe enough room on the parade square for a training aid.