# The project to get Leopard 2 Armoured Engineering Vehicles for Canada



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2010)

From MERX:


> .... Published      2010-10-06
> Closing     2010-12-22 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST
> 
> The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the conversion of 13 Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) into Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEV), plus an optional 5 MBT conversion, and associated integrated logistics support ....



From the Statement of Work (excerpt attached):


> .... 1.3.1 The results of Operation MEDUSA in Afghanistan in September 2006 confirmed that the Main Battle Tank (MBT) was still required on the battlefield. As a result, the Leopard 1 fleet was immediately deployed to Afghanistan where its deficiencies quickly became apparent and it was determined that a newer tank was required in order to sustain not only this mission but future operations as well. As a result, the Leopard 2 fleet was acquired. After an in-depth analysis of the use of the Armoured Engineer Vehicle (AEV) in Afghanistan, the Army subsequently determined that its structures would require Leopard 2-based AEVs. This capability would be required to support not only the new Leopard 2 MBTs but other vehicle fleets such as the Light Armoured Vehicle III (LAV III) and the Tracked Light Armoured Vehicles (TLAV) and future fleets such as the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) and the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV).
> 
> 1.3.2 Canada purchased surplus Leopard 2 MBTs in an “as is” condition. Canada does not own configuration information (such as specifications, engineering drawings, Interface Control Documents (ICDs), software requirements and design documents) or the technical publications for the Leopard 2 MBTs being provided as Government Supplied Materiel (GSM) under this Contract ....


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2010)

Why are we reinventing the wheel, when there already is an existing _Pionierpanzer 3 Kodiak_? 

I am pretty sure the Germans or Dutch would be more than happy to sell us the already built vehicles and we would probably not be paying any more than it would cost to convert our existing Leopards....


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why are we reinventing the wheel, when there already is an existing _Pionierpanzer 3 Kodiak_?


My guess:  just like with music on the radio - Canadian content.


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why are we reinventing the wheel, when there already is an existing _Pionierpanzer 3 Kodiak_?


Because we have been peicemealing the requirement.  We told sold our want to by X quantity of hulls, and after the committing ourselves to that path we decided we wanted a certain number to be AEVs.  So now, we are stuck converting gun tanks to engineer tanks.

Government & bureaucracy don't particularly like approving large purchases only have the Army come back with a hand out looking for someone to finance all the other enabling costs (like AEVs & ARVs to support tanks)


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Government & bureaucracy don't particularly like approving large purchases only have the Army come back with a hand out looking for someone to finance all the other enabling costs (like AEVs & ARVs to support tanks)



You mean we should plan properly to begin with?  Heresy!


----------



## Lance Wiebe (7 Oct 2010)

There never was an AEV new built on the Leo2 chassis; all of them are converted gun tanks.

Having said that, I am sure that there are some surplus Leo2 based AEV's out there somewhere.

But....13 seems to me to be an unusual number of hulls to convert.  I wonder where that number came from?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2010)

Amendments 

1)  Bidder's conference/vehicle inspection to be done in Switzerland and Holland, and
2)  more detailed info post-security check is available from German Min of Defence, not Canadian Embassy in Germany.

More in attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2010)

No worries.  New deadline is now February 11th, 2011 at
2:00 PM EST - more in attached amendment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2011)

..... this time, to March 18th, 2010, 2:00 PM EDT - more details in attached bid amendment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2011)

*Sale of surplus Leopard 2 Battle Tanks to Canada*
Swiss government news release, 11 Feb 11
News release link


> Bern, 10.02.2011 - Switzerland sells 12 surplus Leopard 2 Battle Tanks (Pz 87 Leo) to Canada. The battle tanks supplied without armament and further components will be converted to protected special vehicles.
> 
> Following the reduction of military strengths in connection with Armed Forces 95 and Armed Forces XXI, various weapon systems were decommissioned, mothballed, sold, or disposed of. The Leopard 2 Battle Tank (Pz 87 Leo) is one of many systems which are no longer needed in the originally procured quantity. Part of the Pz 87 Leo fleet was therefore mothballed at various storage sites.
> 
> ...


English and German versions of statement also attached.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Feb 2011)

I found this to be an interesting statement in the news release.



> . . .  The parties agreed not to disclose the terms of sale.



I wonder who initially suggested that.


----------



## Haletown (12 Feb 2011)

the article says  . . . will be converted to support vehicles.

Anyone know who is doing the converting and to what?

I'm guessing the conversion will end up providing these

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2161.html

and if that is the case a further guess is that this lot of Leo 2 chassis will go to Rheinmetall for the conversion.

Anyone know for sure?


----------



## AIC_2K5 (12 Feb 2011)

If these hulls are in fact intended to be converted to AEVs as part of the Force Mobility Enhancement project, I find it odd that we are acquiring only 12 from the Swiss. FME lays out the procurement of 13 AEVs (with an option for 5 more) as well as 2 ARVs (with an option for another 2).

So if this purchase is indeed for FME, where are the other hulls coming from? Another country? Our existing fleet of Leopard 2s? Perhaps whoever's running the show in Ottawa thinks that - after demands for individual and collective training, and force generation - are met, we'll have spare tanks available for conversion...


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2011)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I found this to be an interesting statement in the news release.
> 
> 
> > .... The parties agreed not to disclose the terms of sale.
> ...


I guess nobody said anything about news releases about the sale.



			
				Bubbles said:
			
		

> .... So if this purchase is indeed for FME, where are the other hulls coming from? Another country?


Blackadder1916 was quicker than me to spot the disclosure line (thanks for sharing that), but I do remember this....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Amendments
> 
> 1)  Bidder's conference/vehicle inspection to be done in Switzerland and *Holland*, and
> 2)  *more detailed info post-security check is available from German Min of Defence*, not Canadian Embassy in Germany.
> ...


Some hints maybe?


----------



## AIC_2K5 (12 Feb 2011)

Seen, thanks.


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2011)

Bubbles said:
			
		

> If these hulls are in fact intended to be converted to AEVs as part of the Force Mobility Enhancement project, I find it odd that we are acquiring only 12 from the Swiss. FME lays out the procurement of 13 AEVs (with an option for 5 more) as well as 2 ARVs (with an option for another 2).
> 
> So if this purchase is indeed for FME, where are the other hulls coming from? Another country? Our existing fleet of Leopard 2s? Perhaps whoever's running the show in Ottawa thinks that - after demands for individual and collective training, and force generation - are met, we'll have spare tanks available for conversion...


I had heard a previous DLR state that the whole tank project got rolling on the promise of an increadable range of capabilities and committing to a budget that could not deliver most of them.  The origional plan was to take all the new AEV and additional ARVs out of our initial tank purchase.  If we managed to convince TB to front the money for new hulls for even some of those vehicles, then we are doing very well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2011)

From MERX, another deadline extension:  "Solicitation Closes on 2011-05-25, at 02:00 PM, Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDT)"

More details on where they'll be fielded attached.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2011)

I wonder if the Dutch sell off will open up opportunities to pick up spare parts and perhaps even some spare hulls?


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 May 2012)

This story seems a bit odd....


> Under fire for bungling multibillion-dollar equipment programs, the Conservative government is clamping down on the information Canadians receive about military spending, declaring previously public documents as now secret and quietly awarding a $105-million contract for 13 new armoured vehicles, then claiming the deal was for transmission parts.
> 
> In early April the government awarded a $105-million contract to a German firm, FFG, to build 13 Leopard armoured engineering vehicles for the Canadian Forces. The only information put out by government was a brief and inaccurate notice stating that the company had been awarded a contract to provide “vehicular power transmission components.” The notice also claimed the deal was only for one item.
> 
> But defence industry sources say the government is misleading the public; the deal is actually for 13 specialized armoured vehicles, and not transmission parts ....


Postmedia News, 10 May 12

Here's the original bid document (Google Docs), which lists the category of the work, in spite of how much MORE was being contemplated, as "N2520: VEHICULAR POWER TRANSMISSION COMPONENTS", and here's the award document (Google Docs) for the biggest chunk of the work awarded, listed under the same GSIN category.

Conspiracy to hide info?  Doesn't look like it to me, considering how detailed the original bid document is re:  MORE than just transmission work.

Sour grapes "industry sources"?  Maaaaaaaaaaybe ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2012)

More from the House of Commons on the Leopard-AEV MERX postings:  a response from the Foreign Affairs Minister ....****


> .... Let us look at a backgrounder on the website of the Department of National Defence dated July 8, 2009, which explains the whole project. Let us look at the MERX listing from April 11. It indicates very clearly a Leopard 2 conversion to an AEV, not transmission equipment. The minister has been completely open and completely transparent on this file.


.... and from the Defence Minister:





> The MERX posting clearly describes these projects. It is a detailed project description, and summaries appear in both the Public Works and Government Services and the Department of National Defence websites. We can table them. For almost three years that information has been publicly available. It was provided to the media and the general public July 8, 2009.



****A note to whoever wrote the Minister's Question Period response:  the award announcement on MERX (alternate site for posting here) appears to be dated April 5, not April 11.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2012)

With apologies for any kittens killed in the posting of this latest story.....


> Defence Minister Peter MacKay is denying the Department of National Defence tried to hide details of its military spending by quietly awarding a $105-million contract to a German company to build armoured vehicles.
> 
> Speaking exclusively to CTV's Question Period, MacKay said information about the project was readily available online.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (14 May 2012)

> The fact they didn't issue a press release suggests they didn't want people to know about it.



really? I suppose they didn't want the public to know about the toilet paper and paper cups either.....I'll bet there was no press release for those puchases.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> really? I suppose they didn't want the public to know about the toilet paper and paper cups either.....I'll bet there was no press release for those puchases.....


_Generally_ true, but:
1)  not without exceptions (like announcing less than $6K of roof work around Montreal); and
2)  this was a $100M+ deal not announced in the midst of a flurry of other contract announcements in the recent past (check here, here, here, here, here and here).

Unlike Rideau Guy, I don't see sinister intent, given the info was out there (albeit needing to be hunted down a bit - but I thought that's what reporting's all about, right?).  

From a government comms strategy angle, though, it _does_ draw the eye a bit that there was no announcement.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2012)

.... just out on the project:





> The Force Mobility Enhancement (FME) project includes the acquisition of a fleet of Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEV) that will provide crucial support to the Leopard 2 tanks, Light Armoured Vehicle III, and future fleets, such as the Close Combat Vehicle and the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle. The project will also include the installation of tactical mobility implements on the fleet of Leopard 2 main battle tanks.
> 
> The first phase of this project is to acquire Armoured Engineer Vehicles (AEV). The ability of these vehicles to operate under fire will further enhance the Canadian Forces’ mobility and deployability in a wide range of missions. This phase will also acquire Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARV) in support of the AEV.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wookilar (16 May 2012)

ARV's? pffft Since when does it make sense to have recovery vehicles? We haven't had them all this time surely they aren't required now?  :

Bloody hell when are the brass going to realize that we need support vehicles in the INITIAL purchase and not years after. Makes it pretty hard to do any battlefield recovery without borrowing gear from someone else.

And where do I sign up? ;D lol Loved working on the ARV, recovery was the best part of the job IMHO.

Arte et Marte

Wook


----------



## aesop081 (16 May 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Bloody hell when *are the brass* is the gorvernment going to realize that we need support vehicles in the INITIAL purchase and not years after.



Slight fix.

In the end, the brass can only spend what the government says, on what the government says. It is not uncommon for the "brass" to be told "yeah ok, but your are buying X number of Y and thats it. Z will have to wait. So you do you want Y or not ?"


----------



## Wookilar (16 May 2012)

Understood, deal with it all too often. The politicians and bureaucrats may tell us how much money we can spend on a particular project, they generally do not dictate how many of each chassis we buy with those funds.

I have to argue that you MUST plan for support vehicles inside your initial allocation, not at some future time as yet to be determined.

Ever try to support a battle run in a vehicle that has no hope of: a) keeping up; b) no lift capability; and, c) no recovery capability (other than calling a flatbed of some sort)? That is leaving out all the issues of self-protection and focusing only on the tech side of the house.

Having 45 brand new tanks is awesome and empowering and sexy. What happens when one breaks down and the old recovery vehicle you have used for the last 20 years (+) can't do it?

I understand all about risk management, but does higher really think they can run an effective battle without recovery capabilities? That's us, not the politicians.


----------



## Franko (16 May 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> ARV's? pffft Since when does it make sense to have recovery vehicles? We haven't had them all this time surely they aren't required now?  :
> 
> Bloody hell when are the brass going to realize that *we need support vehicles in the INITIAL purchase and not years after*. Makes it pretty hard to do any battlefield recovery without borrowing gear from someone else.
> 
> ...



"The normal procurement and implementation of a new MBT fleet takes about 10 to 15 years, historically speaking."

That was part of a brief I got a couple of years ago by the implementation team.

I think we're doing pretty good in the timeline so far. I'm just glad we're not rolling around in *shudder* MGS.

Regards


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2012)

.... via the Office of the Premier of New Brunswick last week:


> FFG Canada, an international joint-venture company, will create 26 new jobs in Bathurst.
> 
> Premier David Alward joined FFG Canada president Barry Kyle at the announcement in Bathurst today.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Jul 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> recovery was the best part of the job IMHO.
> 
> Arte et Marte
> 
> Wook



The only thing more fun than recovery was ditching the vehicles as part of a recovery course, then watching the candidates figure out how you possibly got the vehicle mires above the fenders, yet were still able to get back to dry land without getting dirty. >


----------

