Canadian Military News

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why is this?

Why is what?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Why is what?

Why are we using the LAVs in such a way that ignores the threat posed by ATGMs?

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why are we using the LAVs in such a way that ignores the threat posed by ATGMs?

I had a response all typed up and I lost it.

The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.

Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.

That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

I had a response all typed up and I lost it.

The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.

Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.

That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.

At the end of the day tactically you're right. Canada also doesn't have a great deal of capability in terms of combined arms theory.


If you're going to use LAV's then you'd better have a lot of artillery to keep the enemies heads down and disrupt them. You'd better have air capability to be able to provide battlefield support and tanks to take care of tanks and other armored threats from a distance.


And I agree with what you're saying, I kind of mispoke of the differences between AFV and troop transports.



Its amazing the amount of chaos a small anti-armor missile team can throw out on the battlefield.



Canada right now I believe lacks in strong scouting capabilities. We have the coyote recon vehicles. We lack a strong air borne recon platform though.


I'm not sure what our drone capability is like.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

I had a response all typed up and I lost it.

The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.

Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.

That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.

ATGMs are becoming increasingly prolific on the modern battlefield. Given their widespread use in theatres like Iraq or Syria, it is only a matter of time until we encounter an enemy that has adequate stock of them. Can you imagine if the Taliban had used them at all? Those long exposed roadways...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day tactically you're right. Canada also doesn't have a great deal of capability in terms of combined arms theory.


If you're going to use LAV's then you'd better have a lot of artillery to keep the enemies heads down and disrupt them. You'd better have air capability to be able to provide battlefield support and tanks to take care of tanks and other armored threats from a distance.


And I agree with what you're saying, I kind of mispoke of the differences between AFV and troop transports.



Its amazing the amount of chaos a small anti-armor missile team can throw out on the battlefield.



Canada right now I believe lacks in strong scouting capabilities. We have the coyote recon vehicles. We lack a strong air borne recon platform though.


I'm not sure what our drone capability is like.

Well yeah, Canada has nowhere near the capabilities to take on a "near-peer" opponent and is increasingly limited in a support or coalition role with a well-equipped ally.

Our deployment in Latvia is basically symbolic. I think they have TOW capability, but that must be about in terms of heavy weapons - let alone recon or AA etc...

[CaptainCrunch]

The biggest hole in our military right now is in theatre air defense. We can't protect our troops from air strikes on our own.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The biggest hole in our military right now is in theatre air defense. We can't protect our troops from air strikes on our own.

Which is a shame because there are a billion systems we could buy off the shelf for cheap.

[sharkov]

Don’t we have the ADATs system?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Don’t we have the ADATs system?

Sold it in the early 2000s, and never replaced.

[btimbit]

Was there ever a plan to experiment with the ADATS system on a LAV or is my memory making stuff up?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Was there ever a plan to experiment with the ADATS system on a LAV or is my memory making stuff up?

They explored it and then decided not to do it.

[btimbit]

Interesting. Are their no plans for an ADATS replacement at all? Just rely on allies in theatre?

Maybe that's a possible use for all the Leopard C2's they couldn't find a buyer for? I'm assuming ze Germans used a leo 1 chassis in an anti air role at some point

[Baron von Kriterium]

The Canadian military is pursuing a different approach to air defence. We are throwing our efforts at ground-based air defence. By that I mean we are developing systems to guard against rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) munitions, air-to-surface missiles, and remotely-piloted aircraft systems (drones, if you prefer).


Final delivery: 2029/2030 haha.


This is just one layer of air defence. Canada does not have the means to invest in a multi-tired air defence network, but we can add bits to the entire network. Other nations can take care of the aircraft threats (if any).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

The Canadian military is pursuing a different approach to air defence. We are throwing our efforts at ground-based air defence. By that I mean we are developing systems to guard against rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) munitions, air-to-surface missiles, and remotely-piloted aircraft systems (drones, if you prefer).


Final delivery: 2029/2030 haha.


This is just one layer of air defence. Canada does not have the means to invest in a multi-tired air defence network, but we can add bits to the entire network. Other nations can take care of the aircraft threats (if any).

So not even investment in a MANPADS for the infantry?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Interesting. Are their no plans for an ADATS replacement at all? Just rely on allies in theatre?

Maybe that's a possible use for all the Leopard C2's they couldn't find a buyer for? I'm assuming ze Germans used a leo 1 chassis in an anti air role at some point

ADATS was a specific system for air defence and anti-tank used only by Canada and Thailand according to Google. Is the concept of multi-role air/tank defence used by other countries or is that concept unique to ADATS?

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by peter12

So not even investment in a MANPADS for the infantry?

Unless it's part of the previously mentioned project, I am not aware of any project.
We haven't had MANPADs since the days of the BLOWPIPE. And even those were only issued to an air defence regiment.
Air defence now = CF-18 and lie on your back and put the MG's bipod on your feet and aim with your legs.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Unless it's part of the previously mentioned project, I am not aware of any project.
We haven't had MANPADs since the days of the BLOWPIPE. And even those were only issued to an air defence regiment.
Air defence now = CF-18 and lie on your back and put the MG's bipod on your feet and aim with your legs.

Didn't we have Javelin until the early 2000s?

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by peter12

Didn't we have Javelin until the early 2000s?

Ahh, Maybe. Have you Googled it?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

Ahh, Maybe. Have you Googled it?

No, I just remember seeing Javelin at a Stampede Exhibition when I was a kid.