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

[Colin Parkinson]

I would have thought that the IDF would allow certain countries to obtain the Merk IV in order to keep the quite expensive production lines open, I can see for Opsec reason why they might not want to sell them to Turkey despite the close working arrangments they have on the M60 upgrade.

We could of course send our Leo's through a similar upgrade process, if the will and money was there, but the money would be better spent buying Leo II's that can be had a good price.

 

[Kirkhill]

Colin:

I am not sure that we could, cost effectively send our Leo's through a similar upgrade - at least insofar as transporting troops. I think with the Leo's engine at the rear that would pretty much preclude that.  In the Achzarit variant of the T55 it seems like the troops have to exit by squeezing out past the engine in the back.

 

[ChopperHead]

While the M1A2 is the best tank performance wise it is also the most expensive. the Leo2 A5 is right up there with it and more then capable but almost half the price, lighter, and more fuel effeciant. not sure about the how much the A6 will cost but presumably still alot less then the Abrams.

I think that for Canada the leo2 is the best choice with the most bang for the buck.

 

[Armymatters]

While the M1A2 is the best tank performance wise it is also the most expensive. the Leo2 A5 is right up there with it and more then capable but almost half the price, lighter, and more fuel effeciant. not sure about the how much the A6 will cost but presumably still alot less then the Abrams.

I think that for Canada the leo2 is the best choice with the most bang for the buck.

For the price of the Leopard 2 A6, the Spanish purchased 219 of the Leopard 2E (a advanced variant of the Leopard 2 A6 with more advanced armour and computers, plus other refinements), plus 16 Leopard 2 recovery tanks and 4 training tanks, for about 2 billion Euros in 1998. That also includes integrated logistical support, training courses for crew instructors and maintenance engineers and driving, tower, maintenance, aiming and shooting simulators. In total, that works about to around 9.1 million Euros (12.8 million Canadian) each tank, excluding the recovery and training tanks. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. However, the Spanish elected to op for co manufacture between Spain and Germany, so I am thinking that drove up unit costs.

In comparison, MGS costs around 9.1 million dollars each vehicle, as I mentioned before.

 

[ChopperHead]

Greece just bought 183 Leo2 A4's and 150 A5's doesnt say how much they cost but if Greece can afford to swing a deal like this i think we can swing a deal for some A5/A6's

they also have a contract for 170 A6's by 2009

 

[Eland]

I love "Lucas".  ;D

Positive ground and alla that, too.  >  If you think anything electric in the UK is bad, think about what a dog's breakfast their
telephone system was - before digital telephone technology became widespread.

 

[Eland]

For the short term, Prime Minister Harper needs to concentrate on the structural deficits in government accountability, finances, law enforcement and tax structures. So I will make a confident prediction; no tanks or programs for the next three years. (I could be wrong and hope so, but ....).

Given the long lead times for government to get around to this and then the actual procurement process; we might start thinking along the lines of "Future Armour" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961.0.html. The US Army will be into adopting the FCS by that point in time, and dinosaur like 60-70 tonne tanks will be out of favor to support strategic and operational mobility. (The arguments FOR these tanks will be overbalanced by the arguments for a lighter and mor nimble force IMO).

For my money (and given the discussion in this and other threads) I would look carefully at a CV 90120 derivative, probably with a low profile Wegmann turret, autoloader and the FCS and electronics required to fire both "dumb" and "smart" rounds.

As for your prediction, "no tanks... for the next three years" you might be right. Still, I like what I'm seeing in Harper when it comes to defence matters. He really seems to care about the military and its welfare, so even if he has other priorities, I could see him at least getting a start on laying the groundwork for a new tank buy.

A "light and more nimble force"? Uh, wasn't that the issue the LAV was to deal with? The FCS is all very well and good, but isn't a working prototype (and a doctrine which fits its capabilities) is many years away? That, of course, assumes that funding for the FCS is sustained.
Until then, I'd stick with what works and what's available.

I like the idea of a CV90120 hull with a low-profile turret. Something like that would be a much better choice than the MGS. Still, a lightly-armoured vehicle like you propose will not have the survivability that a full-fledged tank will. On the other hand, high mobility, good firepower and excellent sensor systems should help offset the risks somewhat.

 

[Kirkhill]

  If you think anything electric in the UK is bad, think about what a dog's breakfast their
telephone system was - before digital telephone technology became widespread.

Careful - My cousin worked for the GPO telephone service ;D

 

[a_majoor]

A "light and more nimble force"? Uh, wasn't that the issue the LAV was to deal with? The FCS is all very well and good, but isn't a working prototype (and a doctrine which fits its capabilities) is many years away? That, of course, assumes that funding for the FCS is sustained.
Until then, I'd stick with what works and what's available.

I like the idea of a CV90120 hull with a low-profile turret. Something like that would be a much better choice than the MGS. Still, a lightly-armoured vehicle like you propose will not have the survivability that a full-fledged tank will. On the other hand, high mobility, good firepower and excellent sensor systems should help offset the risks somewhat.

I am not saying what is desirable, but trying to predict what is possible given our realities. Yes LAV is lighter and more nimble, but they will need upgrading soon, and then more modern technology or a different threat will arise making them obsolete. The FCS is simply the biggest and most hyped system coming on stream in that time period, S_Baker can comment on the program but I have attended briefings which indicate the Americans have a well founded understanding of what they want to achieve out of the system (what will actually happen is a debate for a different thread). From what I understand, several prototypes are ready to be put through their paces as soon as next year....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin:

I am not sure that we could, cost effectively send our Leo's through a similar upgrade - at least insofar as transporting troops. I think with the Leo's engine at the rear that would pretty much preclude that.  In the Achzarit variant of the T55 it seems like the troops have to exit by squeezing out past the engine in the back.

I was thinking more of their upgrade programs for the M60's (Shaba or something) than the HAPC versions

 

[TCBF]

It's a new world, financially, compared to ten years ago.

Why?

Because we are slated to buy MGS for a price comparable to that of an M1A2.

Conclusion: We are not getting out of the tank business because of the cost!

Tom

 

[Eland]

It's a new world, financially, compared to ten years ago.

Why?

Because we are slated to buy MGS for a price comparable to that of an M1A2.

Conclusion: We are not getting out of the tank business because of the cost!

Tom

Well said. When I looked at the per-unit cost of the MGS, I was flabbergasted. But I wasn't surprised, because Canada has a long and well-developed history of buying overpriced, deficient kit which is obsolete by the time it actually gets issued. The recent G-Wagen and RG-31 purchases are anomalies, probably driven by a government clinging desperately to power with an election looming.

I have always maintained that the real reason why we're getting out of the tank business is an irrational and purely ideological opposition to tanks.

Canada is unique for being the only country in the world whose armed forces are abandoning its tanks in favour of something with less capability in support of a largely theoretical war-fighting construct. That construct assumes that from here on in, all we'll ever need to worry about is low-intensity conflict in mostly urban theatres.

 

[George Wallace]

I have always maintained that the real reason why we're getting out of the tank business is an irrational and purely ideological opposition to tanks.

Why yes.  Tanks are too aggressive looking and warlike for an Armed Force such as Canada to have.  We will NEVER be involved in a World Conflict such as that of World War II or World War I ever again.  No use maintaining obsolete ancient technologies and tactical doctrine.  We are reconstructing our Armed Forces along more modern ideas.  We are entering the Technology Age of Armed Conflict. 

That is why we are stepping back and developing a weapons System of Systems that was discarded years before the Cold War started.  ;D

The Tank proved its superiority over the Assault Gun and the Tank Destroyer, before the end of WW II.  Funny how many say that those who believe in Tanks are "Dinosaurs".

 

[ZipperHead]

I know it's been said before, but I think that given an unlimited budget, Canada would have both tanks and wheeled platforms. But seeing as how we have caviar tastes and a Kraft Dinner budget, we have to go with what we can afford, and what we would use. Tanks HAVE been used overseas (by Canada), but in such a limited role (for political and practical reasons), that a wheeled system has to be used. No point in having tanks in Canada that would likely never be deployed on operations (due to political will, logistical reasons, infrastructure of "host" country).

We used to fight the last war, but now it looks like we are casting our lot on what we GUESS will be the next war. I don't know which is more right (or precisely, wrong), but my feeling is that we are pursuing the right approach, with perhaps the wrong platform (MGS). As everyone here has asserted, they have their preferences, but it will be decision by someone is Ottawa (hopefully in CADPAT and not a wool suit) that decides our fate. And then we will be stuck with that decision for a good 20-30 years, and who knows where we will be by then, or who/what we will be fighting against.

Just for the record, I would love to see the latest incarnation of the Leo2 darkening our hangar lines (if we won the International Lottery sometime soon).

Al

 

[George Wallace]

Gee Allan, I am so glad you said "wool suit" as I would have been even more enraged had you said "silk suit".  Now, you have also given DND a good idea......use the Defence Budget to buy "POWER BALL" Tickets.....if we won it would in essence triple our existing Budget.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's a thought on pricing kit:

It served the previous Government's interests and philosophy to over-price any purchases.

A) The NGP (Natural Governing Party) was averse to military intervention.
B) The NGP believed strongly in the controlled distribution of funds domestically to generate both economic and political advantage.

Solution:

1. Maintain such budget as there was for defence at the lowest possible level commensurate with keeping international allies happy.
2. Include within the budget as many non-operational line items as possible thereby reducing the available funds for operational needs, which in turn restricts operational capability.
3. Inflate the price of equipment reducing the amount of equipment available and at the same time increase the amount of economic benefit flowing into the economy and at the same time making  political friends.
4. Slow down the procurement process and render it as inefficient as possible so that the Government can't respond in a timely fashion to military need.

Result:

1. A military with limited capability that ties the Government's hands when requested to intervene internationally
2. Political friends domestically that keep the NGP in power.

Counter:

Rewrite the rules and regulations (Orders in Council - not Acts of Parliament) so that the process moves faster and the inflated costs resulting from Industrial Benefits and Offsets are reduced.

Thus instead of  3 MCAD MGS and 500 MCAD Icebreakers 10 years from now, 1MCAD M1A1s and 100 MCAD Icebreakers 2 years from now.

 

[TCBF]

A certain person known to some of us as one of the best tank commanders in the Army (No names, but
it's J_m C_t__r__l) wrote "People have been predicting the demise of the tank for 100 years now, and will eventually be proven right in another twenty to fifty years, after which they will say "See? We told you so!"

Truly a prophetic man.

Tom

 

[Armymatters]

I would have to agree with Kirkhill. Who's fault is it if tanks are not used on our deployments? Simple: the government. Even when our allies deploy tanks to a peacekeeping mission to give the peacekeeping force some extra teeth, we refuse to send the tanks on the deployment. It is not because tank's aren't useful in our deployments, it is a lack of political will to deploy tanks on the part of us. Hopefully, with the new government, they may have more political will to send heavy armour and troops to our peacekeeping missions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I worked in the Base Commander's Office in Petawawa from 94-96.  I remember all too well the preparations for several deployments to Bosnia.  2 CMBG HQ would do the Estimate of the Situation.  Tanks would show up in the COAs everytime.  The Government would say NO everytime...

The Government line was "this is peace keeping... we don't want to look too aggressive".  Finally, on one of the KFOR (?) deployments, they let us send 4 or so over.

Much the same thing happened with ADATS on at least one occasion that I can recall, but they were never sent.

My take is that we are out of the tank business because our political leaders want us to be out of the tank business.  Not for any particular military reason...

 

[George Wallace]

I agree with SeaKing Tacco.  It is not a military decision, per say, but a politically driven one.  That "Kinder, Gentler Army" that the Lieberals have touted since Trudeau, and perpetuated by Chretien and Martin.  It is evident in other purchases also, where we have gone with the "Chevy" instead of the "Cadillac".  The "Chevy" is cheaper initially, but being of poorer quality, is more prone to break down, and more expensive in the long run to maintain. 

The costs of becoming a 'Totally Wheeled Force', are going to come back and bite us.  Not only are we going to be without the use of manoeuvrable and effective Armoured support, but also much of our Heavy Engineer support.