Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

Imagine just being able to rotate tanks in and out of their stockpile.

Like a real Army almost.

 

[McG]

Like a real Army almost.

A real army might be buying more MBT instead of medium cavalry.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada has always, and will always be someone's side kick. Equipment commonality just makes things easier. We don't have the national desire to be more than a middle power.



When you're talking an Arleigh Burk, sure. A tanks not so much. Take into account all the personal, crewed and equipment we already use of theirs (M777, CF18 ect ect) I think crewing is an issue only in extreme scenarios, which we have already ruled out.



The CAF and Canada need to stop thinking we have some sort of unique set of requirements that demands we R&D and produce our own stuff.
Army uniforms are a good example, if it works for Norwary or Sweeden it will probably work for us.

CRCNs talk about the new Subs was refreshing. What ever we get is coming as manufactured by the home nation. If we have to buy everyone converters to plug things in, so be it. The meaning is we are done with Canadianization. Get the solution available.



My understanding is the K2 is essentially a derivative of the Abrams. I stand to be corrected.

Either way, the current temperature means spending any treasure on American made products is going to be a difficult sell, and rightfully so.

So Canada, as the perennial side-kick, will never stand up for itself? Will never figure out how to defend itself?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I've always been one that has suggested we use American gear where possible (barring some genuine unique Canadian requirement) simply due to the fact that we were always likely to fight in a theatre with the US and the American logistical chain has so much more depth than anyone else.

The one possible hitch to that is if the US continues to go down the road of leaving the defence of Europe to the Europeans. If the US pulls their troops out of Europe then we lose the benefits of their supply chain. In that case our best bet for commonality for tanks would be the Leopard 2. Denmark and Sweden (both partners in our Latvia Brigade) use the Leopard 2 as do Germany, Finland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Spain in our general operating area and of course production is in Germany.

The other option would be the South Korean K2 if we were to build in Canada so we can have our own direct supply chain as well as production in Poland which is close to where our tanks are most likely to be used.

Could we get enough tanks to justify building Leopards in Canada? In that case would we want to go with one of the proposed evolved models (which would affect our commonality with European users) or would we push for a common NATO version?

I am hopeful that once the current US administration is gone that the US commitment to Europe and NATO will veer back closer to what it was previously. I like the reduced weight and hybrid electric engine of the M1E3 and if we could order enough to justify production at GDLS-C we'd have the benefit of both commonality with the US and having our own domestic supply chain.

NATO tank commonality : Leopard, M1, Challenger, Leclerc, Ariete, PT-91 and now K2

There is both the French and the South Korean options if we want to limit our ITAR exposure, we should have also created ties between subs and tank contracts, certainly worth floating right now.