# Government To Spend Money  On New Tanks Despite Wage Freeze!!



## Benoit (19 Jan 2004)

Any thoughts on this?
SourceCTV News Net)


----------



## Pikache (19 Jan 2004)

Link?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jan 2004)

Umm if you are referring to the Stryker its not a tank...very far from it.


----------



## btk_joker (19 Jan 2004)

yay


----------



## Slim (19 Jan 2004)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1074430179541&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467 

Try this.
Slim


----------



## MJP (19 Jan 2004)

And it‘s not a wage freeze...it‘s a capital spending freeze.


----------



## JasonH (19 Jan 2004)

Excuse my language but how the **** does that work out? 

66 tanks for half a billion.  Yet the US is odering up to 2100 for 4 billion?!

Then again I don‘t even have grade 10 math lmao but still how the **** does this work out?


----------



## JasonH (19 Jan 2004)

Canada is interested in only one version, likely costing between $5 million and $6 million per vehicle, plus simulators and two years‘ worth of spare parts. 

The U.S. order, which includes cheaper variants, averages about $2 million per vehicle. 

---

Okay nevermind


----------



## JasonH (19 Jan 2004)

Sorry to post a lot but why don‘t we go for the cheaper varients and save up for a round of tanks?  Be it Abrams or Challangers or something else?  (Not thinking of money right now)


----------



## patt (19 Jan 2004)

i was readion on canoe new‘s web page and they said there still going ahead with the strykers


----------



## Slim (19 Jan 2004)

One of the primary drawbacks to tanks is they are parts and labour intensive like nothing else on the planet.( jumbo jets included.) They cost so much more than every other piece of kit that we own. Go find a guy that is Leo qualified and ask him how often they spend fixing the things that go wrong and how often we don‘t have parts for whatever it was that broke in the first place.

Then there is the issue of transportation. Tanks take up way more space than anything else being carried ( even Hummers...for those of you who think that they‘re too big!) Also a tank‘s spare parts must be carried as well.

The final point I will make is that a tank will spend more time "down" than any other military vehicle.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jan 2004)

The final point I will make is that a tank will spend more time "down" than any other military vehicle.

Except a Sea King...


----------



## PriceCHofO (19 Jan 2004)

Beat me to it...


----------



## onecat (19 Jan 2004)

"Then there is the issue of transportation."

with may 30 C-130‘s I doudt the CF will bring any of them by air.


----------



## Garry (19 Jan 2004)

down time is a maintenance issue. I was on the leopards when they were brand new, and they pretty much always worked. As they got older, parts started going...and as we had the "high time‘ tanks in the Leopard fleet, we seemed to often be the guinea pigs...I remember when the torsion bars finally died- seemed like they lasted so many years, then the whole Sqn let go within a few months of each other. Tough to find replacements.

One of the things we as a military do is try to go cheap- we buy the minimum amount of spare parts, and never upgrade...the Sea king is a perfect example- Canadian Helicopters still fly them, and make money...they‘re safe and efficient-and have been upgraded continually- same for the marine corps- see what they use to fly the President?

Were doing it now with every aircraft in the Forces, including our new EH101.

Seems we just dont learn.


----------



## Franko (20 Jan 2004)

I seem to recall the Dutch or German army is practically giving away their Leo2s(A3/4 variants) for about 1 million a piece. M1A1s are going for about 2.5. I can‘t understand why the politicians don‘t read the fine print on the Styker"for operations OTHER than war". It‘s going to be a bad investment, for the crews and the public. I‘ll look around for the links

Regards


----------



## onecat (20 Jan 2004)

I‘m sure the politicians have read the fine print, and is why they want them. I think its all part of the Liberal plan to change the CF ina peace keeping only force, that can‘t be used in any other way. By only buying equipment like the Styker, they are insuring that CF can‘t go to a war like Iraq.

The German Leo2‘s would be a great deal, cheaper and I‘m sure we get loads of spares too.  But that is not going to happen.  

Garry I totally agree with you on the upgrades.  It‘s one the CF has always had, they always seem to buy everything at once, and just never upgraded it.  They could of done this the Seakings back in the 60‘s and 70‘s but instead we have earliest model with way too flight hours on them.  If they actually bought this stuff with use and wear in mind the CF would be much better off.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (22 Jan 2004)

They don‘t often buy good value, what Canadian politicians do is buy the best "GREASE" for themselves or families do you recall 500,000,000. for no choppers? how about airliners, don‘t forget the F18 etc. there has been much "grease"


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jan 2004)

Whats wrong with the CF18? Its a good multi roled twin engine fighter that does all the missions we require of it well. It was a smart purchase we just never kept it updated until now.


----------



## scm77 (22 Jan 2004)

Will they bring Strykers on missions like Afghanistan?  Or would they only be for combat?

Also why does the US have to have them be able to fit into a C130 when they have bigger planes like the C17 and C5.  Why don‘t they just use those?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jan 2004)

Because C130s can land in out of the way ill maintained airfields with shorter runways.

Hmmmm and the last I heard combat was still occuring in Afghanistan.


----------



## combat_medic (22 Jan 2004)

Let me get this straight; from the article I read it seems that they‘re saying that this vehicle is just a light armoured, self-propelled 105. It doesn‘t seem (to me) that this is a replacement for a tank at all, and seems to be more of an artillery purchase rather than an armoured one. Thoughts?


----------



## ArmyAl (22 Jan 2004)

Combat medic your spilling the beans, the arty is secretly taking over the CF, the light infantry thing was a good excuse until you opened a can of worms!


----------



## Doug VT (22 Jan 2004)

It‘s a direct fire support vehicle alright.  It can‘t fire on the move, only accurate while stationary.  Not a bad vehicle to have in ones arsenal, however not even close for a filler for our tanks.  It would only be good as our light arty, employed in the light-direct fire role, only more mobile.


----------



## Franko (22 Jan 2004)

Doug...what are you basing those facts on? It is able to fire on the move, quite accuratly I might add. The REAL problem is it‘s not a tank at all. It also takes upwards of 4 hours to prep for ops after it gets in theater in the back of a Herc. The auto loading carosel has a problem as well, it jams at times. T&E exposed this in the states during trials. As for mobility, wheels over tracks? Speedy for sure. No protection at all for the crews in a fire fight.

The Armour Corps is going to have to re-write ALL of our doctran. The bloody CC can‘t even be up during firing! How is he supposed to watch for enemy when he‘s looking forward all the time. As far as I know it isn‘t equiped with a hunter/killer sight.

Regards


----------



## corporal (26 Jan 2004)

And so the story continue‘s,we all know at our level of the inad of this veh,yet we are not privy to all the info that we assume dnd/politician‘s have, so why are we purchasing this piece of crap? And how about giving voice to the people in charge? Those that are currently serving are somewhat tied but there must be a way. suggestion‘s?


----------

