Faith in technology/equipment

[RyanNS]

I‘m new here and sorry if I this has already been discussed, but as a civilian I had some questions about Candian military technology and the faith that the soldiers who actualy operate it have in the equipment.

For example, the Leopard 1. Canada‘s MBT, how much faith in that tank does the average Canadian armor crew member have? I mean sure it might match up with T-72‘s or other older model tanks (t-62, challenger 1, M60) but how confident would you be fighting a battle against, say an M1A1 Abrams, Challenger 2, T-90, Leclerc, Leopard 2 etc.? I think the Leopard 1 would be severly undergunned and underarmored, but thats just my civlian opinion.

Also the new Canadian submarines. Aside from all the things we hear in the news that they need repairs, assume that they are in full operational status. How effective would these actually be against any navy? Would the actaully present a real threat to any of the worlds major navies?

Sorry if I sound disrepectful in anyway. I understand the Canadian Military is way too underfunded. I also respect and am extremely proud of all military men and women and continue to believe that Canadians make the best soldiers. I just wanted to hear some soldiers views on the equipment they use.

 

[Korus]

With respect to the Subs, they where designed by the Brits in the 80‘s, and where comissioned in the early 90‘s, but where quickly decomissioned when the Royal Navy decided that there was a greater need for nuclear missle subs than Diesel electric coastal deffense/shallow water attack subs. Obviously the subs wheren‘t designed to go across the ocean and take on an Akula.
But as it stands, you‘ve heard all the news reports on how well they‘re working...

As for the Leopard I, you‘re correct in saying that it‘s an older tank and may have trouble fighting with some of the newer armour out there, but you‘ve gotta keep in mind that not all countries have the newer armour.. I.e. I don‘t think Iraq has any T-80s or T-90s.

Of course those are just my opinions. It‘s an interesting subject, and I‘d love to hear other people‘s input on this.

 

[SpinDoc]

I think you have to put everything into context. The role of the tanks are not to really fight an all out war (anymore). In fact, I think the latest doctrinal idea that has been kicking around is to go to all AFV and be rid of the MBTs.

I, as a taxpayer, personally do not feel we need to throw gobs of money to buy Abrams just so we can kill other Abrams or T-90s. And I‘m sure a goodly number (if not the majority) of Canadians share my view.

Anyways, to put it into another context, the Kuiwaitis and Saudis DO throw gobs of money at their military to buy the latest toys that could be bought. Are they really any more effective than we are IN TERMS of doing their job? I don‘t think Canada‘s geopolitical situation warrants us to have/need deterrents like nuclear subs or Abrams.

Or stealth bombers and such. Nice to have, but do we want to spend money on them?

As for the subs, I‘m a landlubber, so I can‘t really offer much meaningful insight... other than I think I heard somewhere that diesel subs are substantially quieter than nucs. i.e. if an Upholder class was to play hide and seek with a nuc, we might come out on top in certain scenarios. The Brit subs that we got are supposedly pretty good if they weren‘t such lemons.

 

[Pikache]

Well, if you read Patrick Robinson‘s HMS Unseen, I think, he gives Upholder class a high mark.

Though I have no idea why Canada needs SSKs, but I‘d think if Canada can get the subs to work properly, we‘d get our money‘s worth.