MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,143
- Points
- 1,210
Compromises will always be made in AFV design
Canada's tanks
- Thread starter jfposada
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 17,029
- Points
- 1,260
I agree with your point. I reckon asking an actual tanker(s) would help.
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
Agreed, but you can make educated ones.
The End User isn't always the best person from a design aspect.
Get input on what the KPP's are that are needed from their perspective, and weighting of the requirements.
Assess that also based on current and expected threats (which quite often the current users aren't necessarily familiar with, especially if some are locked behind SCI)
Then see what industry can do -
One of the pillars to the US Army NGCV portfolio is hybrid electric drive -
Now given that the M10 Booker, AMPV, and Stryker are part of that portfolio, I'm not sure of the gymnastics required to adapt some of those.
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Points
- 1,060
What drives the cost discrepancy between a Leo1 and a Leo2? Mechanical systems or elsewhere? Would you take a Leo 1 over a Leo2? How about Leo2A4 vs 2A8? Are the systems driving cost the ones providing the performance improvement?
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,492
- Points
- 1,160
I do very much like the AMPV but alas, for Canada it has one fatal flaw...it's not a GDLS product. Domestic production of AFV's gives the CA the best chance of keeping its fleet at least reasonably current (something like a National Shipbuilding Strategy for AFVs) while foreign purchases are only likely to happen once the existing fleet is on its last legs.
I guess it wouldn't be impossible to negotiate with BAE to build an AFV production facility in Canada and there would be some great potential synergies with them across a whole range of systems for the Canadian military beyond the River-Class - AMPV/Bradley or CV90, M109, Archer, BvS10, ammunition, Mk41 VLS, APKWS guidance kits for 70mm rockets, etc., etc., etc. - but I have a tough time imagining the political will being there to cut out GDLS in favour of bringing in BAE in their place.
We will never buy enough tanks for London to be viable with Abrams builds/maintenance only. We could potentially have BAE produce tracked AFVs for the Reg Force and shift the LAVs to the Reserves but that would require a tectonic shift in the way the CA organizes the Reserves and I just don't see that happening any time soon.
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
Availability, Age of the system, Gun and of course market demand.
No one is building Leo1's anymore, so most are coming from armies old stock that may or may not be viable platforms without major rework.
A8's are new production L55 cannon, and the FCS can fire the DM11 Programable munition like the Abrams.
The A8 has more passive protection systems as well as the Trophy APS - so combination of performance improvements.
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
I hate the Reg / Res concept - and think a Hybrid force is the only way truly forward for Canada.
That said, if you look at vehicle demands for the CA in a 2 Bde Armoured force, and a 2 Bde Motorized (LAV) force (and ignoring the 2 LI Bde's)
You could easily have a GOCO Government JV GDLS Abrams-X facility in say Medicine Hat that is setup to build 30 tanks a month, and run a 7-8 tank/month maintenance line, a similar setup with BAE to make several different AMPV/Bradley based systems, and keep GDLS-London open.
Canada needs at least 300 tanks in my opinion to have operational units, training spares, and a limited war reserve -- that is enough to get a factory running -- then just needs to keep replacements going, and help with some FMS sales from LIMA.
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Points
- 1,060
a thread on the italian MBT program
new hulls and italian engine
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting that the MBT acquisition is less than the support versions.
132 MBT and 140 Support versions (AEV, AVLB, and ARV), and keeping 125 of the upgraded Arietes MBT in service.
I'm guessing the additional 7 KF-51Panthers will be for support schoolhouse tools? Still seems to be a lot of Support versions for a ~250 MBT fleet.
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Points
- 1,060
i noticed that too! What do you think is the reason? Is there a standard rule of thumb to apply?
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,143
- Points
- 1,210
perhaps their plan is to use the extras to support their mechanized battalions as well?
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,492
- Points
- 1,160
Or maybe they've seen the loss/disabled rates and difficulty in assaulting prepared positions in Ukraine and decided to adjust accordingly?
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Points
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
Honestly not sure - NATO Armored Bde's tend to vary in tank #'s significantly as well as support tank systems.
Italy has 2 Armored Divisions, and 4 Mech Divisions (III and 5 Corps respectively) they are all combined arms setups, but currently the Armored Divisions are 1 Armored Bde, and 2 Mech Bde's, the same as their Mech Divisions (yeah I don't understand that logic either, and the new tanks are only replacing their Leopard 1 tanks - so there doesn't seem to be an increase planned for the number of Tank Battalions/Armored Bde's).
There are 2 Tank Battalions and 1 Infantry Battalion in each Armored Brigade, as well as a Artillery Regiment (M109), and Engineer Company
They have 1 Tank Battalion and 2 Infantry Battalions, 1 Arty Reg't (M109), as well as an Engineer Company for each Mech Bde.
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
I think it is also a combination of being able to have AEV's to dig in formations quickly under fire.
They do not seem to have any breaching ability planned - the AEV is a blade and bucket - more for each moving than lane clearance, so the focus seems to be on defensive construction.
The M1150 Breacher based on the M1A1 Abrams is the only current MBT that has a real breacher versions for clearance.
- Reaction score
- 7,012
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Points
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
They are color coded.
3 MBT and 2 AEV, 2 ARV, and 2 MBT starting in 2027 - then continuing to 2035 when it concludes (last MBT in 2033, but the support variants continue to 2035).
- Reaction score
- 2,028
- Points
- 1,060
Yes but those are tank based not ifv based. I don't see any ifv based ones do you?
- Reaction score
- 23,097
- Points
- 1,260
There are no IFV based ones that I could tell.
Which to me is a good thing as the IFV isn't big enough or powerful enough to do that task. There was a brief attempt at making a Bradley dozer, and the old M109 chassis ARV, but they couldn't do a lot.
Similar threads
