Canada's tanks

[OldSolduer]

The problem with the loss of the tank from the CA is that it also means the loss of being able to conduct combined arms offensive action against peer states. There is no combined arms attack without the tank in our doctrine. So unless we want our army to be strictly a light force, we need MBTs and a lot more of them because oh boy, are the ones we have getting long in the tooth.

And the loss of skill sets by soldiers who were....skilled in tank warfare.

Chinook enters the chat

 

[FJAG]

And the loss of skill sets by soldiers who were....skilled in tank warfare.

Chinook enters the chat

This gets me back to the introduction of the AVGP Cougars and Grizzlies in the mid 70s. There was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether these were true light vehicles with some warlike/peacekeeping purpose or merely training vehicles in order to prepare both officers and other ranks for duty with 4 CMBG.

The Cougar was obviously not a tank but, more often then not, our exercises were shaped to use them like that. We did use Grizzlies on some peacekeeping missions.

I think that you can use Ersatz tanks and APCs (like cars and pickup trucks) in training, especially the early stages and in areas that aren't proper ranges. The cheaper and non-military the better because you can buy lots and don't get sucked into the idea that they have a real tactical value. Obviously they have zero value as a deterrent. I doubt that any Russian ever considered that Canada would field a division based on 4 CMBG and using either 1 Combat Group or the SSF. We did recreate 1 Cdn Div in those days, but it was limited to 4 CMBG and the M113 tracked components in 5 CMB/CMBG.

Unless you have a proper combined arms force to train for and rotate through you should not waste money on vehicles that are pseudo-tactical like the AVGPs were - especially now-a-days when the primary threat is LSCO. Quite frankly I never agreed with the version of thought for the AVGP and even the LAV as a tool for failed states. Many failed states actors have weapons capable of making short work of those.

 

[KevinB]

This gets me back to the introduction of the AVGP Cougars and Grizzlies in the mid 70s. There was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether these were true light vehicles with some warlike/peacekeeping purpose or merely training vehicles in order to prepare both officers and other ranks for duty with 4 CMBG.

The Cougar was obviously not a tank but, more often then not, our exercises were shaped to use them like that. We did use Grizzlies on some peacekeeping missions.

I think that you can use Ersatz tanks and APCs (like cars and pickup trucks) in training, especially the early stages and in areas that aren't proper ranges. The cheaper and non-military the better because you can buy lots and don't get sucked into the idea that they have a real tactical value. Obviously they have zero value as a deterrent. I doubt that any Russian ever considered that Canada would field a division based on 4 CMBG and using either 1 Combat Group or the SSF. We did recreate 1 Cdn Div in those days, but it was limited to 4 CMBG and the M113 tracked components in 5 CMB/CMBG.

Unless you have a proper combined arms force to train for and rotate through you should not waste money on vehicles that are pseudo-tactical like the AVGPs were - especially now-a-days when the primary threat is LSCO. Quite frankly I never agreed with the version of thought for the AVGP and even the LAV as a tool for failed states. Many failed states actors have weapons capable of making short work of those.

It (the AVGP/LAV/Stryker) is a Taxi.
It’s not a Mechanized Infantry vehicle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It (the AVGP/LAV/Stryker) is a Taxi.
It’s not a Mechanized Infantry vehicle.

Since when has that stopped us from using vehicles like that as a tank in the past?

 

[FJAG]

It (the AVGP/LAV/Stryker) is a Taxi.
It’s not a Mechanized Infantry vehicle.

I don't think the definition is that strict. That font of all wisdom on earth - Wkipedia - says the following:

Mechanized infantry are infantry units equipped with armored personnel carriers (APCs) or infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) for transport and combat (see also armoured corps).

As defined by the United States Army, mechanized infantry is distinguished from motorized infantry in that its vehicles provide a degree of armor protection and armament for use in combat, whereas motorized infantry are provided with "soft-skinned" wheeled vehicles for transportation only.1 Most APCs and IFVs are fully tracked or are all-wheel drive vehicles (6×6 or 8×8), for mobility across rough ground. Some militaries distinguish between mechanized and armored (or armoured) infantry, designating troops carried by APCs as mechanized and those in IFVs as armored.

1. Infantry Division Transportation Battalion and Transportation, Tactical Carrier Units. (1962). United States: Headquarters, Department of the Army. p. 15

 

[KevinB]

I don't think the definition is that strict. That font of all wisdom on earth - Wkipedia - says the following:

Well my definition is that Mechanized Infantry work with Tanks.

Hence why I discount the wheeled systems for that role.

I prefer the term Motorized Infantry for things like the LAV, even if the it is a little overkill for the term.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Just sharing some browsing

There's really only 4 tank models to choose from for Canada. From what I've been able to glean from searching the interweb (these are estimated prices from numerous sources as actual costs are never really disclosed)

there's 2 models of Leopards:
2A7, which is almost a direct replacement, cost about $22 million ea
the 2A8 would be $44 million ea (Germany is lagging in replacing it's own stocks so it might be a long time getting these into Canadian inventory.)

M1A2s, if the US would sell them, come in around $40 million ea (Not particularly palatable in today's political climate)

None of these estimates include training, upgrades, operational, and long term maintenance costs.

K2 Black Panthers, loosely based on Polands purchase and may include long term support etc bring it in at 36 million ea
Korea seems open to opening plants in buyers countries as the Polish (K2s) and Australian (K21s) deals have shown. There's also opportunity for K9 SP Howitzers, K21 IFVs, and the K239 MLRS.

 

[OldSolduer]

The current state of affairs will see Canada kicking the can down the road...boink boink

 

[KevinB]

Just sharing some browsing

There's really only 4 tank models to choose from for Canada. From what I've been able to glean from searching the interweb (these are estimated prices from numerous sources as actual costs are never really disclosed)

there's 2 models of Leopards:
2A7, which is almost a direct replacement, cost about $22 million ea
the 2A8 would be $44 million ea (Germany is lagging in replacing it's own stocks so it might be a long time getting these into Canadian inventory.)

M1A2s, if the US would sell them, come in around $40 million ea (Not particularly palatable in today's political climate)

None of these estimates include training, upgrades, operational, and long term maintenance costs.

K2 Black Panthers, loosely based on Polands purchase and may include long term support etc bring it in at 36 million ea
Korea seems open to opening plants in buyers countries as the Polish (K2s) and Australian (K21s) deals have shown. There's also opportunity for K9 SP Howitzers, K21 IFVs, and the K239 MLRS.

You missed the KF-51 Panther.
With the Leopard2 JV partner divorce Rheinmetall was left with what do, KNDS was going forward with the Leopard 2A8, and RM wanted to stay in the tank business, so the KF-51 Panther is their answer.
KF-51's have been mocked up with Leo2 A4 hulls, and RM has offered upgrades to A4's like that, but also has a new hull of their own.

Italy has gone to the KF-51, as have Hungary (not necessarily a plus) but also Ukraine, with the RM factory in Ukraine starting production on them.

Given Canada has a RM footprint already - and the whole REARM aspect, the KF-51 Panther with domestic production in Canada may just be a very attractive aspect.

Upgrades on current A4 hulls run around 7-10m Euro (8.1-11.73m USD, and 11.37-16.24m CAD), and Italy's purchase works out to be around 26m Euro (30.51 USD and 42.25 CAD) per tank - but that is including sustainment and RM is suggesting 15-16m Euro as the "walk away price per tank for new customers (so around 19.19m USD and 25.19 CAD).

 

[Czech_pivo]

You missed the KF-51 Panther.
With the Leopard2 JV partner divorce Rheinmetall was left with what do, KNDS was going forward with the Leopard 2A8, and RM wanted to stay in the tank business, so the KF-51 Panther is their answer.
KF-51's have been mocked up with Leo2 A4 hulls, and RM has offered upgrades to A4's like that, but also has a new hull of their own.

Italy has gone to the KF-51, as have Hungary (not necessarily a plus) but also Ukraine, with the RM factory in Ukraine starting production on them.

Given Canada has a RM footprint already - and the whole REARM aspect, the KF-51 Panther with domestic production in Canada may just be a very attractive aspect.

Upgrades on current A4 hulls run around 7-10m Euro (8.1-11.73m USD, and 11.37-16.24m CAD), and Italy's purchase works out to be around 26m Euro (30.51 USD and 42.25 CAD) per tank - but that is including sustainment and RM is suggesting 15-16m Euro as the "walk away price per tank for new customers (so around 19.19m USD and 25.19 CAD).

Canada needs to be pitching the opportunity to use Suffield as a training/testing ground once again for its Allies and to whoever we go with for our tank replacements

 

[KevinB]

Canada needs to be pitching the opportunity to use Suffield as a training/testing ground once again for its Allies and to whoever we go with for our tank replacements

I suspect that Poland has a huge interest in being the NATO Armor Center of Excellence.
But more realistically, I think Ukraine will make allies an offer they cannot refuse with massive training areas, and the potential for live fire force on force with the RuAF...
Seriously Ukraine will have massive areas that are not suitable for habitation if a peace deal is made, and given their experiences, would have some relevance to any Army concerned about facing Russia.

 

[Prairie canuck]

You missed the KF-51 Panther.
With the Leopard2 JV partner divorce Rheinmetall was left with what do, KNDS was going forward with the Leopard 2A8, and RM wanted to stay in the tank business, so the KF-51 Panther is their answer.
KF-51's have been mocked up with Leo2 A4 hulls, and RM has offered upgrades to A4's like that, but also has a new hull of their own.

Italy has gone to the KF-51, as have Hungary (not necessarily a plus) but also Ukraine, with the RM factory in Ukraine starting production on them.

Given Canada has a RM footprint already - and the whole REARM aspect, the KF-51 Panther with domestic production in Canada may just be a very attractive aspect.

Upgrades on current A4 hulls run around 7-10m Euro (8.1-11.73m USD, and 11.37-16.24m CAD), and Italy's purchase works out to be around 26m Euro (30.51 USD and 42.25 CAD) per tank - but that is including sustainment and RM is suggesting 15-16m Euro as the "walk away price per tank for new customers (so around 19.19m USD and 25.19 CAD).

It'd still not in production despite the contracts with Hungary, Italy, and Ukraine. Until they have some coming off the line, wherever that may be, I tend to consider it a paper tank. I'm not dismissing it as a potential future procurement but actual production lines would legitimize it.

 

[ueo]

This gets me back to the introduction of the AVGP Cougars and Grizzlies in the mid 70s. There was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether these were true light vehicles with some warlike/peacekeeping purpose or merely training vehicles in order to prepare both officers and other ranks for duty with 4 CMBG.

The Cougar was obviously not a tank but, more often then not, our exercises were shaped to use them like that. We did use Grizzlies on some peacekeeping missions.

I think that you can use Ersatz tanks and APCs (like cars and pickup trucks) in training, especially the early stages and in areas that aren't proper ranges. The cheaper and non-military the better because you can buy lots and don't get sucked into the idea that they have a real tactical value. Obviously they have zero value as a deterrent. I doubt that any Russian ever considered that Canada would field a division based on 4 CMBG and using either 1 Combat Group or the SSF. We did recreate 1 Cdn Div in those days, but it was limited to 4 CMBG and the M113 tracked components in 5 CMB/CMBG.

Unless you have a proper combined arms force to train for and rotate through you should not waste money on vehicles that are pseudo-tactical like the AVGPs were - especially now-a-days when the primary threat is LSCO. Quite frankly I never agreed with the version of thought for the AVGP and even the LAV as a tool for failed states. Many failed states actors have weapons capable of making short work of those.

Maybe check with various militias across the world!

 

[KevinB]

It'd still not in production despite the contracts with Hungary, Italy, and Ukraine. Until they have some coming off the line, wherever that may be, I tend to consider it a paper tank. I'm not dismissing it as a potential future procurement but actual production lines would legitimize it.

The turret is in low rate initial production, the hull is admitted a little bit behind as they had tried several prototypes before confirming the design. RM had hoped to have tanks off the line by 3rd quarter 25, but that date sailed and now they are saying mid 1st quarter of 26.
Part of the issue with the Italian tanks is the EU only recently approved the JV with Leonardo. RM is still tooling up the Ukrainian factory and quite frankly isn’t going to be exporting anything for quite some time.

Which admittedly doesn’t really affect Canada, as the only way Canada is going to get a tank these days before 2032 is either tanking older M1A2’s of the US Army (which you noted it probably politically and economically poison right now) or fast tracking a program that has domestic production as part of it, and doing turret modernization to the Leo2’s in service until Canadian hulls could be built.

Leo2A8 delivery is running at 12 years from order at this point in time (potentially longer if more units get added to existing orders. LeoA7 isn’t any different as it’s the same line building them, and I believe they are shuttering the A7 line as soon as the last one on order is built to focus on the A8.

Lima OH is in pause mode on the US Army M1A2 Abrams until the M1A3 design is finalized. So refurbished Abrams is the only option for those not in the export queue already.

South Korea could probably deliver tanks sooner, but isn’t part of REARM, so…

 

[FJAG]

The turret is in low rate initial production, the hull is admitted a little bit behind as they had tried several prototypes before confirming the design. RM had hoped to have tanks off the line by 3rd quarter 25, but that date sailed and now they are saying mid 1st quarter of 26.
Part of the issue with the Italian tanks is the EU only recently approved the JV with Leonardo. RM is still tooling up the Ukrainian factory and quite frankly isn’t going to be exporting anything for quite some time.

Which admittedly doesn’t really affect Canada, as the only way Canada is going to get a tank these days before 2032 is either tanking older M1A2’s of the US Army (which you noted it probably politically and economically poison right now) or fast tracking a program that has domestic production as part of it, and doing turret modernization to the Leo2’s in service until Canadian hulls could be built.

Leo2A8 delivery is running at 12 years from order at this point in time (potentially longer if more units get added to existing orders. LeoA7 isn’t any different as it’s the same line building them, and I believe they are shuttering the A7 line as soon as the last one on order is built to focus on the A8.

Lima OH is in pause mode on the US Army M1A2 Abrams until the M1A3 design is finalized. So refurbished Abrams is the only option for those not in the export queue already.

South Korea could probably deliver tanks sooner, but isn’t part of REARM, so…

Yup to all of that. About the only thing which would work is if the RM facility in Canada was upgraded significantly to produce tanks domestically and for export. The government's move for industrialization and NATO would be pleased with that as it would give them another factory which is pretty far out of the risk zone. I expect RM home office wouldn't be too pleased with that as they like their jobs to remain German. But profit is profit (and I think there is a lot of profit in tanks.

Personally I favour the Panther to other Leos because of its "lower" weight compared to the A7/8.

 

[KevinB]

I think RM at this point sees profit in external to German production, and frankly they won’t meet demand in the timelines customers want without a few new venues.

Plus German companies have a lot of advantages in external production due to German pension laws. HK was basically all to happy to open their facility here.

RM has a number of plants external to Germany already, albeit mostly munitions or electro-optics and fire control systems, but a few AFV ones.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would look to see what sub components we can produce right now, tracks, roadwheels, final drives, etc and set up a government back contract to produce them. Then expand our refurbishment facilities to be handles to handle larger volumes and do more. Focus also on making barrels as that seems to be one of the industrial choke points.

 

[FJAG]

Plus German companies have a lot of advantages in external production due to German pension laws. HK was basically all to happy to open their facility here.

RM has a number of plants external to Germany already, albeit mostly munitions or electro-optics and fire control systems, but a few AFV ones.

A useful industrial move would be for Canada to push for RM Panther production and for KNDS to provide RCH 155 parts for instillation on GDLS-C LAV 10x10s. That might even interest Americans.

It's a time of great opportunities if one moves quickly and aggressively. It checks numerous boxes.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Gross civvy oversimplification:
-OS info has 51 turret being billed as a compatible upgrade path for A4 hulls- assume the switch from hydraulic to electic drive is manageable
-assume RM Montreal upgrade is viable at 20 KF51 turret assemblies and 20 turrent installs per year
-assume requirements at 1x Regiment+ (65 tanks) in Europe, 1x Reg+ (65) in Canada, 1x Sqn (20) at Armour School, 1x Sqn Deployable OpStock (20), 5x Texh ref/RCEME = 175

Order 175 KF51 turrets to be assembled and installed in Montreal w/ as much Canadian content as possible, 175 hulls to be manufactured in Europe

Tx - time to get Montreal spun up (1.5 years?)

Tx + 3.75 - time to get existing 74 hulls upgraded as stop gap / time to find 20 hull per year production in Europe

Tx + 3.75 + 5 above plus time to get remaining new turrets mated to new production European hulls

Line switches from assembly to depot level overhaul after 9 year production run. Original 74 turrets on tired hulls come in, get 4 refurbed and installed on new Euro hulls. (4 Years)

Continue with 20 per year refit cycle

 

[KevinB]

Gross civvy oversimplification:
-OS info has 51 turret being billed as a compatible upgrade path for A4 hulls- assume the switch from hydraulic to electic drive is manageable
-assume RM Montreal upgrade is viable at 20 KF51 turret assemblies and 20 turrent installs per year
-assume requirements at 1x Regiment+ (65 tanks) in Europe, 1x Reg+ (65) in Canada, 1x Sqn (20) at Armour School, 1x Sqn Deployable OpStock (20), 5x Texh ref/RCEME = 175

Order 175 KF51 turrets to be assembled and installed in Montreal w/ as much Canadian content as possible, 175 hulls to be manufactured in Europe

Tx - time to get Montreal spun up (1.5 years?)

Tx + 3.75 - time to get existing 74 hulls upgraded as stop gap / time to find 20 hull per year production in Europe

Tx + 3.75 + 5 above plus time to get remaining new turrets mated to new production European hulls

Line switches from assembly to depot level overhaul after 9 year production run. Original 74 turrets on tired hulls come in, get 4 refurbed and installed on new Euro hulls. (4 Years)

Continue with 20 per year refit cycle

I wouldn’t stop building but expand to do new builds and refurb.

That way you can expand the RCAC Armour.