Government To Spend Money On New Tanks Despite Wage Freeze!!

[Benoit]

Any thoughts on this?
SourceCTV News Net)

 

[Pikache]

Link?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Umm if you are referring to the Stryker its not a tank...very far from it.

 

[btk_joker]

yay

 

[Slim]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1074430179541&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Try this.
Slim

 

[MJP]

And it‘s not a wage freeze...it‘s a capital spending freeze.

 

[JasonH]

Excuse my language but how the **** does that work out?

66 tanks for half a billion. Yet the US is odering up to 2100 for 4 billion?!

Then again I don‘t even have grade 10 math lmao but still how the **** does this work out?

 

[JasonH]

Canada is interested in only one version, likely costing between $5 million and $6 million per vehicle, plus simulators and two years‘ worth of spare parts.

The U.S. order, which includes cheaper variants, averages about $2 million per vehicle.

---

Okay nevermind

 

[JasonH]

Sorry to post a lot but why don‘t we go for the cheaper varients and save up for a round of tanks? Be it Abrams or Challangers or something else? (Not thinking of money right now)

 

[patt]

i was readion on canoe new‘s web page and they said there still going ahead with the strykers

 

[Slim]

One of the primary drawbacks to tanks is they are parts and labour intensive like nothing else on the planet.( jumbo jets included.) They cost so much more than every other piece of kit that we own. Go find a guy that is Leo qualified and ask him how often they spend fixing the things that go wrong and how often we don‘t have parts for whatever it was that broke in the first place.

Then there is the issue of transportation. Tanks take up way more space than anything else being carried ( even Hummers...for those of you who think that they‘re too big!) Also a tank‘s spare parts must be carried as well.

The final point I will make is that a tank will spend more time "down" than any other military vehicle.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The final point I will make is that a tank will spend more time "down" than any other military vehicle.

Except a Sea King...

 

[PriceCHofO]

Beat me to it...

 

[onecat]

"Then there is the issue of transportation."

with may 30 C-130‘s I doudt the CF will bring any of them by air.

 

[Garry]

down time is a maintenance issue. I was on the leopards when they were brand new, and they pretty much always worked. As they got older, parts started going...and as we had the "high time‘ tanks in the Leopard fleet, we seemed to often be the guinea pigs...I remember when the torsion bars finally died- seemed like they lasted so many years, then the whole Sqn let go within a few months of each other. Tough to find replacements.

One of the things we as a military do is try to go cheap- we buy the minimum amount of spare parts, and never upgrade...the Sea king is a perfect example- Canadian Helicopters still fly them, and make money...they‘re safe and efficient-and have been upgraded continually- same for the marine corps- see what they use to fly the President?

Were doing it now with every aircraft in the Forces, including our new EH101.

Seems we just dont learn.

 

[Franko]

I seem to recall the Dutch or German army is practically giving away their Leo2s(A3/4 variants) for about 1 million a piece. M1A1s are going for about 2.5. I can‘t understand why the politicians don‘t read the fine print on the Styker"for operations OTHER than war". It‘s going to be a bad investment, for the crews and the public. I‘ll look around for the links

Regards

 

[onecat]

I‘m sure the politicians have read the fine print, and is why they want them. I think its all part of the Liberal plan to change the CF ina peace keeping only force, that can‘t be used in any other way. By only buying equipment like the Styker, they are insuring that CF can‘t go to a war like Iraq.

The German Leo2‘s would be a great deal, cheaper and I‘m sure we get loads of spares too. But that is not going to happen.

Garry I totally agree with you on the upgrades. It‘s one the CF has always had, they always seem to buy everything at once, and just never upgraded it. They could of done this the Seakings back in the 60‘s and 70‘s but instead we have earliest model with way too flight hours on them. If they actually bought this stuff with use and wear in mind the CF would be much better off.

 

[tmbluesbflat]

They don‘t often buy good value, what Canadian politicians do is buy the best "GREASE" for themselves or families do you recall 500,000,000. for no choppers? how about airliners, don‘t forget the F18 etc. there has been much "grease"

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Whats wrong with the CF18? Its a good multi roled twin engine fighter that does all the missions we require of it well. It was a smart purchase we just never kept it updated until now.

 

[scm77]

Will they bring Strykers on missions like Afghanistan? Or would they only be for combat?

Also why does the US have to have them be able to fit into a C130 when they have bigger planes like the C17 and C5. Why don‘t they just use those?