Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT

[McG]

You are right that it would probably have been a better decision to have the upgrades done by KMW in Germany.  However . .

We've "lost" the capacity - and we have to accept that fact.

The Challenger 1 FCS & the current Abrams FCS are both from the same Canadian source.
A large many of M113A2 were converted into TLAV & MTVL in Canada.
The LAV family of vehicles are build primarily in Canada.
Canada has produced several add-on & upgrade armour packages.
Rhinemetal (a company with a lot of experience in this area) has recently established a big presence in Canada.
I also suspect the Leo C1 to Leo C2 conversion was Canadian work (at least partially).

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The Leo C1 to C2 conversion was mostly done by Wegmann in Germany, but the matching of turrets to hulls, and the installation of the barrels was completed by DEW in Canada.

Trying to find a Canadian company that has experience in converting, for example, a hydraulic turret drive to an electric turret drive may be problematic.

I noticed in the LOI that no mention was made of converting the commanders' station of the Leo2A4 with the "hunter-killer" version of the Leo2A5/A6.  I wonder if it was because the Crown suspects that no Canadian company has the capability and that those upgrades will be done in Europe, or if it is because we do not plan to upgrade the Leo2A4 commanders' station?

 

[McG]

As of last week, the intent was that all the Leopard 2 would be identical on the in side (so as to eliminate the requirement for in theater conversion courses).  The hunter killer sight on the ops fleet will also be on the training fleet.  I don't know why it's not in the LOI.  Could be that we've not yet decided if we want the German sight or the Swiss sight (or maybe another one all together).

 

[geo]

You are right that it would probably have been a better decision to have the upgrades done by KMW in Germany.  However . . The Challenger 1 FCS & the current Abrams FCS are both from the same Canadian source.
A large many of M113A2 were converted into TLAV & MTVL in Canada.
The LAV family of vehicles are build primarily in Canada.
Canada has produced several add-on & upgrade armour packages.
Rhinemetal (a company with a lot of experience in this area) has recently established a big presence in Canada.
I also suspect the Leo C1 to Leo C2 conversion was Canadian work (at least partially).

All the TLAV work was done in the 202 workshops... I would venture that, if a commercial contractor was seeking / hunting for tradesmen, the best of our 202 staff would be No 1 on their list of potential candidates... and THAT would not be a good thing IMHO

 

[McG]

All the TLAV work was done in the 202 workshops...

Go Google DEW Engineering.

 

[geo]

Hmmm... OK, done.

I note that here http://www.dewengineering.com/whats_new.htm they talk a lot about the work on the Bison Command vehicle & Ambulances.  Also some of the seat design for Blast resistance.

While DEW may have been involved in some of the design / CAD work that went into the TLAV, I got to see a lot of our old APCs on the 202 yard being worked upon - a bit of a "chop shop".

 

[McG]

geo,
In days gone by, DEW was heavily involved in the MTVL & TLAV project.  A year ago they were still doing design & develpment work (physically) on M113.  If you want to pretend there is no experience there just because you did not physically see it, then go float your boat.  The reality is that the company does have experience (which you've suggested does not exist in Canada).

 

[ironduke57]

... The hunter killer sight on the ops fleet will also be on the training fleet.  I don't know why it's not in the LOI.  Could be that we've not yet decided if we want the German sight or the Swiss sight (or maybe another one all together).

The Leo2 had the "hunter-killer" capability from the beginning and I don´t know of any changes to this between A4 and A5/A6.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[McG]

The commander's PERI-R 17 panoramic sight has been moved to the left rear of the commander's station on the 2A5. The commander's improved independent sight now includes a thermal channel.  You can see the sight behind the Comd's hatch on the 2A5.  The unimproved sight is forward of the hatch on the 2A4.

 

[geo]

geo,
In days gone by, DEW was heavily involved in the MTVL & TLAV project.  A year ago they were still doing design & develpment work (physically) on M113.  If you want to pretend there is no experience there just because you did not physically see it, then go float your boat.  The reality is that the company does have experience (which you've suggested does not exist in Canada).

MCG
don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that outside of CF talent was used to concept, design vehicle improvements & new builds.  I just have to take a look at GM Diesel.... uh... General Dynamics... uh... whatever and the construction of the Piranah/LAVIII/Stryker/Auslav, etc....
Am certain that DEW had been instrumental in designing & modeling a lot of the work that our mech & techs produce.

 

[McG]

Am certain that DEW had been instrumental in designing & modeling

and building.

 

[ironduke57]

You can see the sight behind the Comd's hatch on the 2A5.  It is not there on the 2A4.

Ups. My fault. I misunderstood you both.

In the A5 the periscope was relocated and is now mounted behind the commander's cupola, not in front of it anymore.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[McG]

The Commander's station is different as a result.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

MCG;

I'm glad to hear that the commanders station will be common throughout the fleet.  I hadn't known that decision had been made.

So we do know that the fleet will all have the L44 barrel, TED, and the hunter killer. 

But, I think we can safely assume that the external configuration between the "training" tanks and the "operational" tanks will be different.

 

[McG]

I'm glad to hear that the commanders station will be common throughout the fleet. 

The sigh of relief might be premature still though.  One of the problems with launching a major capitol project at UOR speeds is that many of the essential steps are missed in ensuring that a plan is in place before we've committed (or ensuring that we've got the price accurately determined before sealing a cap on it).  When the statement of requirement is written a year after the decision has been made, we're stuck with the decision even if it's not meeting the full requirement. 

If money gets tight (and it is) then some of the things intended may get dropped.  So, while it is intended, I'd wait for the contract to be signed before getting too high hopes that the training tank will be a 2A4+ as opposed to a 2A4.

But, I think we can safely assume that the external configuration between the "training" tanks and the "operational" tanks will be different.

No assumption required.  That is the plan and it is the low cost route so money issues will not change it.  Personally I don't like it because it limits the pool of replacement vehicles for Ops & it denies us the option of ever deploying a larger force.  Everything should be built to the Ops standard.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

No assumption required.  That is the plan and it is the low cost route so money issues will not change it.  Personally I don't like it because it limits the pool of replacement vehicles for Ops & it denies us the option of ever deploying a larger force.  Everything should be built to the Ops standard.

I understand the bit about the SOR, just notice the way the LOI left out the minor tidbit about the commander station. 

Leaving the tanks as an A4+ isn't a bad idea, as long as the external mods are completed so that they can be upgraded to the A5 standard relatively quickly and easily.  Leaving a few tons off of the training tanks would make life easier for the power pack, suspension, and probably, buildings and trees.  I knid of doubt that will be done, though.  The wording of "training" tank and "operational" tanks doesn't leave much to the imagination, does it?

 

[TCBF]

- Better than when our training tanks were Cougars...

 

[geo]

- Better than when our training tanks were Cougars...

I consider the Cougar days to have been our "Peacekeeping / Constabulary" days.
Now that we are back to being on a "war fighting" frame of mind, we've started our reality check - progress is ongoing

 

[TCBF]

- Up until a year ago, the Cougar fleet had more 'trigger time' in action than the Leo C1/C2 fleet did.

 

[GAP]

Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada
08-Oct-2008 11:50 EDT
Article Link

It would seem that the Canadian Forces are taking some of the lessons re-learned during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan to heart. Canada’s DND:

“The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles…. [Canada’s existing Leopard C2/1A5] tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.”

In October 2003, Canada was set to buy the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System to replace its Leopard C2 tanks. In the end, however, the lessons of war have taken Canada down a very different path – one that now has them renewing the very tank fleet they were once intent on scrapping with one of the world’s best tanks, and backing away from the wheeled vehicles that were once the cornerstone of the Canadian Army’s transformation plan.

This updated article includes a full chronology for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks, and adds information concerning DND’s exact plans and breakdowns for their new tank fleet. along with recent reports from the front lines…
More on link