Share.

    3 Kommentare

    1. WesternBlueRanger on

      Yeah, because the vehicles involved were super old and smashed to bits from super heavy use.

      At most, we would have been able to cobble together maybe less than two dozen operational vehicles that likely cannot be supported long term at great expense and time. It was only political pressure and profiteering that ever got it to the point of letting the good idea fairy get this far.

      Better to keep building and funding new kit for them, and send that instead.

    2. Fortunately, this is about not refurbishing old crap to send to Ukraine. It doesn’t mean we are stopping the sending of new equipment to Ukraine. We committed to 91 LAV6s and we’ve only delivered about half because they aren’t done being built. They sent some of our existing ones to Germany for Ukrainians to train in and they get them as they are built. One bonus for us donating LAVs is they get modern battlefield troop feedback and the new LAV do out next year will have a larger autocannon (25mm-30mm) and better ied blast deflection. The model they showed off earlier this year had a drone launcher and anti-tank missile launcher which is something the top competitors have we’ve been lacking.

      Along with the LAVs, Ukraine got a lot of those Roshel Senators as they came off the Canadian assembly line. wiki tells me they’ve got 208 of them. They like them so much, they made a deal with Roshel for them to get made in Ukraine.

      They made a lot of old equipment decisions that sounded good at one point but no longer make sense. This is apparently one of them. I bet the Ukrainians would rather wait a bit for another batch of LAVs then get a mixed bag of logistical nightmare in old armoured vehicles. My only real concern is who made a lot of money on the deal that didn’t get done?

    Leave A Reply