news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Ottawa forcing army to get rid of smaller morta

Canadian Content
20709news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Ottawa forcing army to get rid of smaller mortars


Military | 207091 hits | Jul 03 9:41 pm | Posted by: Hyack
35 Comment

Canada's army will get rid of its smaller mortars starting next year after losing a bureaucratic battle with Treasury Board which required the military to dump one type of weapon before it could buy a new one.

Comments

  1. by avatar RUEZ
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:39 am
    Good thinking. Let's dump a weapon not because it's not useful but it'll allow us to get a diffrent one and a Ken Griffey Jr. rookie card.

  2. by avatar Tricks
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:00 am
    And here we see what happens when civilians get involved.

  3. by avatar commanderkai
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:04 am
    Brilliant job. Just brilliant. Whoever thought of this needs to be smacked across the head.

  4. by Thanos
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 am
    It's always a head stratcher when they decide to get rid of an effective piece of low-tech for some vague and undefined reason. Smells to me like someone down south is pulling in a few markers in order to push through a big sale of some sort.

  5. by ridenrain
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:27 pm
    Scrap it. Although not a direct replacement, the auto-GL does more and better anyways.

    For its part, the Army has been silent on the pros and cons of its decision on the 60mm mortar….or the benefits over that piece of kit that CASW will bring.



    I’ve tried several times now to talk to the CASW project folks on this and other issues related to the project (Project Manager Maj. Willard McCutcheon, Project Director Maj. Carl Gendron, Deputy Project Director Geoff Hutton) but they have consistently declined to be interviewed. Same goes with interviewing an Army official on the value and use of the 60mm mortar…..the request was not granted.

    So it’s unclear what research the Army has to back up its assertions that CASW will be able to handle the mortar role.

    I did, however, get a series of emails from Army public affairs detailing information about the 60mm mortars and CASW (these were approved by the Prime Minister’s Office, a process which took about three weeks). So here are some of those responses to the questions I posed:

    QUESTION: Why are Canadian Forces changing from the 60mm mortar to the CASW?

    ANSWER: As part of our ongoing effort to enhance our capabilities, we are replacing the 60mm mortar with the superior CASW system.

    QUESTION: How will this new weapon match the current 60 mm mortar? How will it perform? What are its technical specifics?

    ANSWER: The CASW will be based on a modern Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) that fires the high-velocity 40x53mm round. An advanced Fire Control System (FCS) will be coupled to the AGL. The FCS will have day/night vision capabilities and provide full ballistic solutions to fire the weapon in both direct and indirect mode and to use airburst programmable rounds. The CASW will have a range of at least 2000m and will be using a High Explosive Dual-Purpose (HEDP) round for both direct and indirect fire.

    QUESTION: How much money will be saved by phasing out the 60 mm mortar?

    ANSWER: The phasing out will neither save nor cost more money as the current funding will be spent on the improved CASW and its ammunition.


    OTHER ANSWERS: “In response to your question about why not maintaining both systems, the 60mm mortar and the CASW are two separate systems and use different ammunition. As the 60mm mortar is nearing the end of its life-cycle, it doesn't make sense to keep it while the CASW will be meeting the same requirement. For equipment that will be in our inventory for the next 20 years, we need to go through the life-cycle process, which includes National Procurement (NP) funding. NP is the guaranteed recurring budget from year to year that deals with spare parts, ammo, refit, etc. And there is a cap on NP funding. Bringing in the CASW meant that the NP offset had to come from within the Army and the NP for the 60mm was the natural choice because of the overlap in desirable effects.”


    http://communities.canada.com/ottawacit ... ortar.aspx

    Thinking about this more, I wonder if there were folks who didn't want to get rid of indirect machine gun fire or volley fire from rifles?

  6. by avatar C.M. Burns
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:09 pm
    "RUEZ " said
    Good thinking.
    "commanderkai" said
    Brilliant job. Just brilliant. Whoever thought of this needs to be smacked across the head.
    "ridenrain" said
    Thinking about this more, I wonder if there were folks who didn't want to get rid of indirect machine gun fire or volley fire from rifles?

    HAW HAW HAW
    The Treasury Board IS ENTIRELY CONservative!!!
    It's a legally mandated committee made up of cabinet ministers

    At present, the Treasury Board consists of:
    President: Vic Toews
    Vice-Chair: Rona Ambrose
    Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
    Gordon O'Connor
    Peter Van Loan
    Peter MacKay
    Jim Flaherty

  7. by avatar Tricks
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:13 pm
    "C.M. Burns" said
    [quote="RUEZ ":22wjw06p]Good thinking.
    "commanderkai" said
    Brilliant job. Just brilliant. Whoever thought of this needs to be smacked across the head.
    HAW HAW HAW
    The Treasury Board IS ENTIRELY CONservative!!!
    It's a legally mandated committee made up of cabinet ministers

    At present, the Treasury Board consists of:
    President: Vic Toews
    Vice-Chair: Rona Ambrose
    Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
    Gordon O'Connor
    Peter Van Loan
    Peter MacKay
    Jim Flaherty
    So? Are Conservatives suddenly not allowed to say what the party they support is doing is wrong? You want us to be partisan hacks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

  8. by avatar C.M. Burns
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:14 pm
    What the fuck is wrong with me? You seem to know so go ahead and share with the world!

    The truth is that the dummies quoted above didn't have a clue who the Treasury Board is when they posted!!!

  9. by avatar RUEZ
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:15 pm
    "Tricks" said

    So? Are Conservatives suddenly not allowed to say what the party they support is doing is wrong? You want us to be partisan hacks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    No shit. We didn't come on here screaming about Liberals or anything. A bad idea is a bad idea.

  10. by avatar C.M. Burns
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:20 pm
    It's a shining example of how the Harper government *really* supports our troops!

  11. by DerbyX
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:21 pm
    "Tricks" said
    [quote="C.M. Burns":3fnwpojf][quote="RUEZ ":3fnwpojf]Good thinking.
    "commanderkai" said
    Brilliant job. Just brilliant. Whoever thought of this needs to be smacked across the head.
    HAW HAW HAW
    The Treasury Board IS ENTIRELY CONservative!!!
    It's a legally mandated committee made up of cabinet ministers

    At present, the Treasury Board consists of:
    President: Vic Toews
    Vice-Chair: Rona Ambrose
    Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
    Gordon O'Connor
    Peter Van Loan
    Peter MacKay
    Jim Flaherty
    So? Are Conservatives suddenly not allowed to say what the party they support is doing is wrong? You want us to be partisan hacks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    No Tricks but what we do expect is the people vilifing the Liberals when they make stupid military decisions not post about how they did it on purpose because they all hate the military.

    We both know if this happened under the Liberals then the usual suspects would be screaming about it.

  12. by DerbyX
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:22 pm
    "RUEZ" said

    So? Are Conservatives suddenly not allowed to say what the party they support is doing is wrong? You want us to be partisan hacks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    No shit. We didn't come on here screaming about Liberals or anything. A bad idea is a bad idea.

    But would you have if this happened under the Liberals?

  13. by avatar RUEZ
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:24 pm
    "DerbyX" said

    So? Are Conservatives suddenly not allowed to say what the party they support is doing is wrong? You want us to be partisan hacks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    No shit. We didn't come on here screaming about Liberals or anything. A bad idea is a bad idea.

    But would you have if this happened under the Liberals?
    I'm not going to play your game so don't bother.

  14. by DerbyX
    Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:26 pm
    "RUEZ" said

    I'm not going to play your game so don't bother.


    Why not? Its a valid point. It seems every debate where the Liberals did something stupid when dealing with the military but when the shoes on the other foot its another story.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2 3

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net