New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[30 for 30]

We would all like new tanks, but the CF is set on medium-weight forces, which makes sense considering how tight we are for funds. Maintenance and deployment costs for a contingent of 70 ton M1A1 beasts would probably be enormous. They would likely spend the next twenty years sitting in Alberta, just like our Leos right now. Should the Torys gain a majority, mind you, a proper MBT replacement could be in the CF's future.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

We are not tight for funds.

DND receives enough funds for us to maintain a credible fighting force.

It's our NDHQ, that huge, bloated blight of a cancer that is killing us right now.

One third of our budget never leaves Ottawa, did you know that?

There are 12,000 personnel on strength at NDHQ, did you know that?

26% of our Armed Forces are commissioned officers, did you know that?

Finally, did you know that since we cut the number of Generals to 70 some-odd, that the numner of Colonels and Naval Captains has jumped to over 600?  Now, you tell me where we're employing over 600 Colonel & Captains (N) plus 70-some Generals!

Clean up NDHQ, and a lot of our so-called funding problems will disappear!

 

[12alfa]

Well said!

 

[ags281]

Lance: Where did you find these numbers? I've been looking for a few good solid numbers on what resources are tied up at NDHQ as I also feel we need to clean up there, and was wondering how bad it actually is. If you could point me to some sources that would be great.


Regarding the concept of medium forces, regardless of whether it's the M8 or MGS, would it not make sense to have 2:1 or so of these to real actual MBT's? I'm a little wary of the Abrams as the logistical requirements (need for constant refuelling while trying to advance) are just silly, but we certainly need to maintain something heavy.

Not retaining at least some heavy armour capability doesn't make any sense to me. It would just mean that if any spot we were deployed to with our medium force started to really heat up we'd have to run away with our tail between our legs. I can't see a reputation as a nation of pussies that run at the first sign of danger and lack the ability to stand up for what we believe in doing credit to our past, nor would it succeed in retaining what international respect we have remaining. Just my opinion.

The best argument I've heard so far for getting rid of MBT's completely is that we haven't used them. Well, we haven't used them because we can't move them. We can't move them because we have no lift capability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we planning on getting a lift capability in the next few years? Doesn't that mean that we actually CAN use them soon? Or are we planning on a lift platform that can't lift anything (wouldn't be surprised   :)

And they tell us that having everything centered at NDHQ is supposed to lead to coherent policy. Sounds to me like a person in Victoria not talking to a person in Halifax is no different than a person in Ottawa not talking to a person in Ottawa across the hall.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Actually, I had a very hard time coming up with concrete figures from NDHQ as well.  So, I went to the source, and asked a few friends in NDHQ to do some digging for me.  Actually, getting numbers for ranks is not that hard, if you're on the DND mail system.  Do a sort by rank thingy.  I'm not on the system, so I can't explain it, but there is a way to do it.

For the non-aware among us, since Hellyers days as MND, NDHQ is run as a dual system.  All military staff are mirrored by civilian staff.  For example, for every General with his staff, there is a civilian General equivalent (getting the same pay and perks) with his staff.  One problem is that when we cut the military Generals down to under 80, we didn't cut the civilian equivalents, so now there are over 200 Generals and equivalents, plus their staffs.  Now take that for the Colonels and their equivalents, and you can see how NDHQ has become so bloated.  The 12,000 figure is the number of civilians and military personnel on the parade strength of NDHQ.  BTW, the civilians get paid from the military budget, of course.

Think we should start another thread?

I seem to be hijacking this one.......

 

[30 for 30]

Yes, "well said" perhaps, but I'm dealing with reality in my postings. I'm quite aware of the bloat at NDHQ and the excessive number of senior officers in the CF, and the millions this is costing DND. But the reality of the situation is that it is highly unlikely that in the coming years massive staff cuts are going to take place at NDHQ, and it is highly unlikely that a major reduction in the number of senior officers will occur anytime soon. Thus, with the status quo enduring, we ARE short of funds to create the ideal CF with all the super, perfect world kit everyone is wishing for.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

IF (I know, it's a big IF) the CPC party gets to form the next government, they have promised a "sweeping reform" of how NDHQ is manned.

For what it is worth, I actually received a promise on this.  Whether it is kept or not, we'll have to wait and see.

An independant study even indicated that over one billion dollars per year could be saved with a restructure of our upper end.  But, the study also said it would take about five years to implement.  Sigh. 

I really do hope that the CPC get elected.........

 

[30 for 30]

True, I suppose there is hope. If they pull off a majority in the coming years some good could occur. Hard to imagine we have a whole brigade of chairborne commandos at NDHQ.

 

[ags281]

True, I suppose there is hope. If they pull off a majority in the coming years some good could occur. Hard to imagine we have a whole brigade of chairborne commandos at NDHQ.

A minority/majority situation makes no difference for the restructure of NDHQ. Altering how a department organizes itself is a housekeeping matter and does not require legislation. As far as I knowl, the only real factor is the yea or nay of the new Defence Minister (who would, of course, do it only with the PM's approval).

There is rarely ever a problem when ministries start saving money. It's spending it, on equipment for example, that causes problems. The only objection I can see any opposition party raising is that it might lose some public servants their cushy jobs, but anyone who brings this to the public spotlight is not thinking straight. It would just give the conservatives the perfect chance to score serious high profile points: "Our opponents accused that we would destroy the health care system. Today we prove them wrong, as we have just assigned a significant number of experienced government employees to assist the Health Minister in delivering the best possible care to Canadians." No, criticizing it could backfire horribly, so I don't think that would be a problem

 

[RCD]

what is require is a Minister of Defence. who has some knowledge of it's portfolio, & some backbone to make the necessary changes thats badly needed.
As for tanks are concern the
(Stingray-2) is another consideration

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The ideal tank for Canada I think, would be one that weighed about 25 tons, bare boned, but would have modular add-on armour, that would bring its weight up to about 40 tons.  I say 25 tons, because trying to make everything fit in to a Herc is just plain stupid.  We have never used our Hercs to carry LAVIII's cross Atlantic or anything, so why would someone think we would start now? 

Anyway, 25 tons, with a minimum of a 105mm, but ideally 120 mm, tracked, equipped with a modern FCS.

I'm not aware of any production vehicle out there that meets this.  Is there something?

Or something developed, waiting production?

 

[12alfa]

CV120 = tons

 

[Tebo]

I sincerely hope that those in this community in a position to inform the new MND about NDHQ concerns will do so.   If I were a brand new minister on the scene I would be desperate for as much information from as many quarters as possible.   Make it happen.


Couple thoughts on the M8 / CV-90 type chassis
Tracked assests are essential for urban conflicts as wheeled vehicles are can be disabled by RPG hits to the wheels.

Integration of armour and infantry should be promoted to give commanders greater capabilities and coordination.   The idea of more ammunition and supplies or four/eight soldiers for close in support are excellent options that have their places in different situations.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The CV 90 series of vehicles is quite interesting.  I had not realized that they had one made for a 120.  Thanks for the info!

This vehicle has the right concept, similar to Canada's concept of building everything on the LAV chassis.

Unfortunately, the chassis from the LAV II(Coyote); the LAV III, and MGS are all different, and have very little in common, complicating the supply/training chain.

The CV 90 seems to all be based on a common chassis, which, I suppose, was Canada's original intent, we just screwed up.

I can't find anything about modular armour upgrades for the CV 90, however.

 

[Mortar guy]

Tebo,

I agree with you about the need for a tracked direct fire vehicle but not for the reasons you state. An RPG could disable a tracked vehicle a lot easier than it could a wheeled vehicle. If you blow one or even two tires off of a LAV III, it would still be able to move. If you damage a track or the running gear of a tracked vehicle it is f***ed. You can't move the thing with any significant damage to the tracks.

However, a LAV III/MGS has other, much more serious, disadvantages over tracks. Tracks can turn on a dime (literally) which is great for getting out of ambushes or even just getting through narrow streets. With a LAV you would have to do a 26 point turn if you wanted to turn around on a narrow street (a la Austin Powers in the golf cart). Also, tracks are much better able to get through debris and rubble that you would find in a urban combat scenario. An M113 can easily drive over rubble but a LAV, with its higher ground pressure, might have a hard time.

Anyway, all this to say that I agree with you!

Alex

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp

Lance and Mortar Guy, here is a site you might want to check out.   Look under the New Projects tab and check out the SEP project.

It is a 13.5 tonne modular system that can be fitted with a variety of modules (APC, Gun, Ambulance, Mor, CP etc) and can have additional amour mounted.

It apparently is intended to be supplied with sensors.

It is a low observable piece of kit and quiet.

It is a diesel electric hybrid with 2 engines.   Available both in tracked and wheeled versions (rubber band tracks).   All wheels independently driven with electric motors (including road wheels for the tracked version - bust a track and keep on going).   Both tracked and wheeled versions capable of pivot turns.





http://www.qinetiq.com/home/case_studies/defence/plastic_pank.html  - a plastic "tank" - actually a composite armoured APC (4 tonnes lighter than metal)



Silent watch/silent running when running off of electrical power only.

My personal favourite for future development.
;D


Also, with respect to the M113, I have seen this referred to in the Iraq situation as well, where people are suggesting that M113s should be issued in place of Hummers to offer better protection.   Some have even suggested the M113 is preferable to the Stryker with their boat shaped hulls.

If   you go back to Vietnam era videos and literature I believe you will find lots of pictures of Armored Cav guys riding around sitting ON TOP of their M113s.   Not down inside where they were protected.   As I recall this was because of two things, the flat bottom of the M113 offered no protection against mine strike, even with layers of full sandbags on the floor and also because the aluminum sides offered no protection against 7.62 AP let alone 12.7, 14.5 and RPGs.

At least that is what we were informed when I was in Gagetown some 20 years ago, (and the M113s were newer then ;D).

Cheers

 

[Tebo]

I agree with you about the need for a tracked direct fire vehicle but not for the reasons you state.

Sorry.   I was not detailed in my critique of wheels vs the RPG.   From Iraq there is a large instance of wheels catching fire from the RPG strike and cooking the crew inside unless the get out immediately.   But hey, it's not everyday someone can point out an erroneous claim and come out on the same side.   The knowledge is much appreciated.

 

[cpl forrester]

British tank or American tank both top of the line but the one u would take to the front is?                                                                    me personably is challenger 2 always go British more speed better armour bester fire control at better known to punch trough any armour on the field ( oh and the men that crew them British men spend twice as long training in them before being but on the line so all set aside who would u want covering ur six.....................

 

[Infanteer]

No use turning this into a pissing match Forrester.  Both the Challengers and the Abrams have their strengths and weeknesses, yet they are among the top of the pack when it comes to MBTs.  The quality of the crews is dependent on the training of their service, and Iraq has shown both the British and American zipperheads to be worldclass fighters.

 

[12alfa]

British tank or American tank both top of the line but the one u would take to the front is?                                                                      me personably is challenger 2 always go British more speed better armour bester fire control at better known to punch trough any armour on the field ( oh and the men that crew them British men spend twice as long training in them before being but on the line so all set aside who would u want covering ur six.....................

A small note:

The fire control system does not punch through anything.  Its the sabot rod that does this, and the FCS points it in the correct deg/elevatin only.

Second the M1 is faster than the challenger, more so if the challey is uparmoured like in Iraq.

3rd the M1A1Ha is better protected than the challenger in the areas needed.

Another point against the Challey is the tube being of a design that requires their ammo only, not standard NATO 120mm.

Small points but your assuming the Challey is better, it's not.
12Alfa