 |
| OP CS-47 Croatia 1994 (photo by V.A. McMillan) |
A short while ago, I
started this discussion with adjusting the Canadian Forces High Command from a
Political Patronage Model to the Canada First Model. (You can find that post
here: https://mtnmanblog.blogspot.com/2021/04/future-cf-structure-from-partisan.html). Which was followed by a post suggesting what a Canada First Model for
Naval Assets could look like. (You can find that post here: https://mtnmanblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/canada-first-model-for-national-defence.html).
Moving forward, with the
Canada First Model for long-term strategic planning for the defence of Canada
that is immune to petty political interference and intrigues. The first big
leap has to be based on planning that looks at the service life of each piece
of equipment necessary for the defence of Canada and then ensuring there will
always be a ready supply to replace units that are reaching the end of their
service life. This can also be a thread to explore later, of the process to
have frontline equipment, secondary line equipment and tertiary equipment,
before retiring said equipment from service.
The exploration of a
Canada First Model for National Defence will continue with a look at our Land
assets. I will skip a review of our current assets, that information is
available somewhere on the world wide web (try searching for information from
Deagel). I will focus on developing a list of Land assets that should be
produced by Canadian manufacturers, where possible, in direct support of the
Canadian Forces.
Similar to the previous discussion
on Naval assets, our Land assets could be manufactured in Canada by Canadian
companies resulting in strengthening the Canadian economy, employing Canadians
in well paying jobs, AND improving the overall defence of Canada. Our
current choice for a main battle tank (MBT), the Leopard 2 family might be one
of the few pieces of hardware that would be purchased from sources outside
Canada, the other item that jumps to mind would be the Cobra AH-1S or newer
variant helicopters. Some of the suggestions I will make may reference an
existing vehicle or piece of equipment to provide a visual, but the actual may
be built by Canadian firms.
For Land Assets I will
focus on equipment for the defence of Canada. A future post could be dedicated
to equipping a foreign service unit of the Canadian Forces. The division of the
Land Forces I see is as follows: The Pacific Region, The Prairie Region,
Central Canada, Atlantic Canada, and the Northern Region. The numbers I am
suggesting are to defend the territory that is occupied and inhabited that also
lends itself to the use of the equipment being suggested. For example, The
Prairie Region consists of the open Plains east of the Rocky Mountains across
to the Canadian Shield area formed near the Manitoba/Ontario provincial border;
this is TANK COUNTRY!! Just like the Steppes in Russia. To defend this area,
you need tanks and lots of them. Unlike Russia, it is not likely Canadians will
support the actual number needed to defend this region fully, so I am using
numbers that will do the best with what is likely to be acquired. Where I
suggest 300 MBT’s, it would realistically require 3000 MBT’s. However, such
investments are beyond the sensibilities of Canadians…who, after all, would
invade Canada??
Let’s look at some
details…
The proposed Land assets
focus on defending the Prairies and Canada’s grain belt/food supply. The same
area that makes for growing great grain crops is also the same territory that
is open and makes the best use of tank warfare. Maybe I am stuck in old ways of
thinking. Maybe I should evolve and include a higher percentage of automated
machines to conduct our defensive warfare?? Humans are still better than
machines for making on the spot decisions of shoot or no shoot…in my biased
opinion. So, let’s work through this using a conventional warfare model that is
heavy on manned machines. Having a larger Land Force in such a large country is
not a bad idea.
To review some of the
specific suggestions…
Main battle tank (MBT):
The Leopard 2, is a good choice for Canada and is one tough tank on the
battlefield. Until Canada decides to start building MBT’s, this is a good place
to start. We just need more, a lot more if we plan to defend and hold the
Prairie Region from any invader or insurgent force. The 120mm main gun has
enough punch to knockout most threats. When deployed in combat teams with
Anti-Armour units using TOW3 or Hellfire missile systems, they combine for a
very effective one-two knockout combo!
Light tanks (LT): I have
suggested the Scorpion
which was a light tank used by the
British Army but was armed with only a 76mm main gun. This is the starting
point. Canada needs to develop a light tank that can be built in mass quantity
in factories across the country, not just in Southern Ontario. The light tank
needs to be fast, have enough gun to neutralize APC’s, IFV’s, soft skin
vehicles and bunkered fighting positions. I have suggested a 90mm main gun, but
an 88mm might be equally as good. Backup the main gun with an Anti-Armour
missile system that mounts to the same turret, such as the TOW3 or Hellfire and
light armour becomes less on an issue when deployed to the battlefield enmasse.
The Scorpion tank design used in the HALO computer game
offers
other points to ponder, such as quad tracks and self-loading main gun…hmmm.
The LAV 3: Is a proven
Canadian design. Continue to improve the design and make more, lots more. These
wheeled APC’s work well in urban environments and the 25mm provides superior
support to troops defending their positions.
Infantry Fighting Vehicle
(IFV): Canada needs to develop a made in Canada solution for a tracked IFV. The
CBMP-1 would be a Canadian designed vehicle that would use the same 25mm as the
LAV 3, have a three-man crew and carry at least 6 infantry soldiers. The
vehicle would be similar in size as the Russian BMP-2,
however designed to meet Canadian Forces needs and use Canadian manufactures.
It would be good if it would share the same engine platform as the LAV 3.
Further, an Anti-Armour missile launcher mounted to the turret, such as a TOW3
or Hellfire would add protective punch if the IFV’s found themselves without
Armour support.
RECCE & Anti-Armour:
Make wheeled and tracked versions of the LAV 3 and CBMP-1 that are mission
built for Recce or Anti-Armour roles. These vehicles would employ a four-man crew
and use the extra space to hold more missiles or surveillance equipment and
larger fuel tanks for longer patrols. Thus, the Coyote (or the upgraded version) would be retained and
upgraded for the wheeled RECCE & Anti-Armour vehicle platform.
Winter Warfare Vehicle
and Ambulance: The BV-206 has served Canada for many years and the newer
BV-206S would be a good upgrade to maintain our Winter Warfare capability in
all parts of the country. The ambulance version
would be a
wise addition to the Land asset inventory, even during peacetime this vehicle
would be a valuable asset. Think ice storms in Ontario and Quebec and going to
rescue injured senior citizens before snow removal equipment can clear the
roads.
Air Defence: One design
for local air defence I have had in my mind for many years is based on a Cat
518/528 gripple-grapple skidder [https://www.ritchiespecs.com/model/caterpillar-518-skidder, https://www.ritchiespecs.com/model/caterpillar-528-skidder].
Then, a surface to air
missile system would replace the gripple-grapple attachment. I suggest the Rapier SAM
system
with a fixed targeting radar unit attached to the
roof of the vehicle and a “slave” unit that can be ground mounted away from the
launcher and vehicle, in the event the enemy uses radar seeking missiles. I
would call this unit CAD (Canadian Air Defence) Mark One [CAD Mk 1].
Helicopter: For
dominating the air space on a tank battlefield, Canada needs either an attack
helicopter, like the Cobra AH-1S
or a Battlefield Drone
that can launch Hellfire missiles at enemy armour vehicles.
Artillery: The M-777
sounds like it does a great job, we just need more of them. Also, 105mm
howitzers are still useful, so we need to ensure we have enough of a type that
favours Canadian terrain and works with other Land Force equipment – trucks,
helicopters, and transport aircraft (C-130 and C-17).
Basically, our past
Canadian governments have all failed to do their part to ensure Canada and
Canadians are adequately protected in a military sense. If we did not have such
good neighbours to our South, this lack of military preparedness would cost us
our country. Ineptitude in government is not acceptable for defending one’s own
country. Canadians deserve better from their elected representatives!
This subject deserves
more discussion, but let’s wait for another day. I will also try to tackle Air
Assets in the next couple of weeks.
So, until next time…Don’t
wait for others to find the solutions!
Mountainman.
