CF Small Arms Program

Few things of note. The C22 will probably end up being a cadex kraken. If not it will be one of the rivals along the same vein such as the axmc, trg m10, to my knowledge there is no quick change pgw platform at the moment. Feel free to correct me.

The "interim pistol project" might just be a way to loophole past having colt canada make the guns and just buying off the shelf from another make.

Along with some unanswered questions about the C19 ranger rifle. With the Nosler 180 grain accubond that the rangers get issued it shoots dead nuts accurate. Some quotes have told me less than half moa out of a fresh rifle is quite doable.

C6A1 will be all new guns using new parts, they aren't using old parts on those guns.
 
7ECA said:
Human Factors is an extremely interesting subject. Stress, can do all sorts of things to people - and in this instant, a stressed out individual apparently had 10 seconds to decide whether the radar plot was friend or foe. The information was there to show the PS752 was a civilian airliner, but the decision was made in the other direction...

The Vincennes crew had more time, and still went to the fire a missile side of the equation - and they had all the information presented to them to identify the "threat" as it really was, a civilian airliner.

As for Canada having or not having AAA/SAMs, when was the last time a war was fought in which our side did not have complete air superiority and supremacy from day one - or even from before the shooting started? Not that we may not be involved in some future conflict in which ground based air defences are necessary, but up until now we haven't needed it. Remember that Generals are always ready to fight the last war, it's a time honoured tradition.
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned, there are new threats to account for these days. There's no 100% guarantee we'll have total air dominance 24/7 in future theatres. Drones are a thing. During bad weather, some near-peer adversary might have attack helicopters or CAS aircraft sneak in before friendly air cover can detect and intercept it.

"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it".

We don't need a system with the expense of ADATS, but we definitely do need some form of short range air defense if nothing else. We can't rely on our allies for everything. And we shouldn't.
 
Greazyjungle said:
"Glock Wins French Army Contract"

I wonder how many years it took the French to decide on the Glock? (because I can't imagine another country is a more efficient procurer of military hardware than Canada is...!)
Click to expand...

They still got it done before us - and that's not counting the fact that the French have had TWO service pistol programs since WW2 (MAC pistol in 1953, PAMAS pistol in the 1990s), while we're still using WW2 era vintage hardware.

The British Glock program was notably fast. Again, while the Brits were using Hi-Powers, at least they had upgraded to new-manufactured MKIII versions.

In 2017, the Danes did a four week pistol trial and selected a variant of the P320X Carry to replace their postwar P210s. They spend about the same GDP% on defence as we do, and have similar operating environments. It really should not be *this* difficult to pick a replacement. It's a daily embarrassment.
 
kthomas said:
What country does Canada have air superiority over? The People's Democratic Republic of Congo?
Click to expand...

None. Not even the DROC because Canada doesn't have access to air bases in Africa from which to project air power over anyone. It's worth keeping in mind that as a small military power, with a population less than that of California, Canada works with allies and alliances in the furtherance of its foreign policy and security goals. Unlike our giant neighbour and friend to the south, Canada has never embarked alone on a military operation against another state.

The US on the other hand, has interests in all parts of the world, some more important than others. As a result, it has adversaries world wide who seek to thwart American objectives. The US must be able to protect and advance those interests even in the face of opposition. Sometimes that requires the ability to project military force to support American goals even when its friends and allies do not share them. Therefore the US can need air superiority over all manner of small, weak countries, and a very credible force against those that are strong. Of course when the US works in concert with its allies, it and its friends are the most powerful alliance anywhere, ever.
 
Just so I have this right, there are millions of dollars to take the "military style assault rifles" away from legal Canadian gun owners but we can't supply the defense force of Canada with reliable and cutting edge equipment? To all that serve and fight for us, THANK YOU for putting up with that s#!t. Our guys (and girls) should have the best we can give them as they are the front line for all of us.
 
jonesy67 said:
Just so I have this right, there are millions of dollars to take the "military style assault rifles" away from legal Canadian gun owners but we can't supply the defense force of Canada with reliable and cutting edge equipment? To all that serve and fight for us, THANK YOU for putting up with that s#!t. Our guys (and girls) should have the best we can give them as they are the front line for all of us.
Click to expand...

So right. The money they want to spend on any buy back can equip all the combat arms in reg force with MRR, NG LAD, Aimpoint, and new light weight GL.

And a pair of NV binocular for everyone in the 9 infantry battalions.
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
So right. The money they want to spend on any buy back can equip all the combat arms in reg force with MRR, NG LAD, Aimpoint, and new light weight GL.

And a pair of NV binocular for everyone in the 9 infantry battalions.
Click to expand...

TO be fair, everyone in the 9 infantry battalions is like 4 battalions worth of people.
 
greentips said:
The pistol thing is downright stupid. Their order of 8000 is a drop in the bucket for most brand named manufacturers.

The french just went out and bought Glock. Seriously, all the striker pistols are about the same. They are so cheap and essentially disposable items, not worth the resources to manage.
Click to expand...

But that misses the primary purpose of projects like these, which is to give a whole new pile of senior Officers the 'Tick inna Box' on their PER's for managing a project like this.

Then they can move along to the next Fluster Cluck, and someone else can make the same identical bad decisions. But they get the tick inna box too! So it works.
 
Rebel Rouser said:
The CF isn't buying new ones. They are getting refub by Colt Canada.
c6a1-cc.png

CANADIAN ARMED FORCES - C6A1 GENERAL PURPOSE MACHINE-GUN
Upgraded design from C6
Built Under TDP Exclusively for the Canadian Armed Forces



FEATURES +

• COMPOSITE BUTTSTOCK
• UPPER RECEIVER NATO RAIL
• BI-AD RAIL ADAPTER
Click to expand...

They are actually buying 1148 brand new C6A1's which are being made as I type. As well as refurbishing existing ones.

Boltgun
 
Milofficer said:
They still got it done before us - and that's not counting the fact that the French have had TWO service pistol programs since WW2 (MAC pistol in 1953, PAMAS pistol in the 1990s), while we're still using WW2 era vintage hardware.

The British Glock program was notably fast. Again, while the Brits were using Hi-Powers, at least they had upgraded to new-manufactured MKIII versions.

In 2017, the Danes did a four week pistol trial and selected a variant of the P320X Carry to replace their postwar P210s. They spend about the same GDP% on defence as we do, and have similar operating environments. It really should not be *this* difficult to pick a replacement. It's a daily embarrassment.
Click to expand...

It's pathetic how we cannot just look at our allies' programs and pick one that works for us.
Seems to be the Canadian way to overcomplicate every little thing.
 
That'll take some miraculous mental hurdles to justify. Given the country's track record in waffling even over supporting wars where other countries have openly threatened to destroy us if they win, I can't imagine any scenario that would involve the federal government attempting to implement widespread war measures against the public. It'd probably take us into a civil war that would dissolve the Confederation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom