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

[Kirkhill]

Jantor:

The CV90120 is indeed something to consider - and if you go back and read all FortyBleep pages of this thread you will find that it has been considered by many posters, many times. 

The good news is that many people agree with you.

Cheers.

 

[Jantor]

Kirkhill: Thanks for your reply. I realize that the CV-90 family has been discussed before but I was just trying to provide a little feedback for what some of recent posters were discussing. Maybe provoke a little more fresh insight and opinion from the crowd. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enuff Jantor 

 

[-dikweed-]

I seem to  recall the Tories stating once (last year I think?) that they would buy a true MBT rather than the MGS.  Is this true or did I smoke too much crack this morning?

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Torie big ticket spending for this term is for logistic items, specifically new transport and supply ships, heavy strategic airlift (C-17), medium airlift (C-130J), and tactical airlift (helicopter).  While these items do little to add to the hitting power of the battle groups on paper, their ability to add to our force projection quite outweights that of new MBTs.  As has often been said, amateurs study tactics, and professionals study logistics.

 

[Eland]

Is the Hagglunds 32 tonne CV-90120 something to consider? If, and I mean if thoughts on acquiring tracked vehicles makes a comeback.

Looking at the specs of the CV90120, I'd say this would be the almost-perfect replacement for our Leopards. The key features of the 90120 which make this so are the light weight (max 35t), ability to add on armour, capacity to handle all standard NATO ammo, storage capacity for as many rounds as a Leopard I carries (ca. 45 rounds) - AND - the ability to be transported on one of the C17's the government is proposing to buy. If you had just the basic version of the vehicle, you might even be able to carry two of them on a C17, and the add-on armour, crews, ammo and other stores for both tanks in another C17.

With its relatively low profile and very high mobility, it would be superior to the MGS in overall effectiveness, to say nothing of cheaper.


(Edited by Moderator to separate quoted text from new post text.)

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2006/jun/120606news6.htm

Further to Eland's post re CV90120 - interestingly there is a Canadian connection as BAE has an association with a Canadian company building bandtracks for vehicles like the CV90/SEP/Bv206.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is the Leopard making a comeback?

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Army to keep aging tanks
Asks to cancel purchase of new, light-armoured replacements
David ********, Canada.com, 8 Jul 06
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0a9b5efa-4d55-4084-a1f5-cdb772194175&k=24613

In an abrupt about-face, Canada's army has put a halt to the disposal of its Leopard tanks and is now asking for permission to cancel the acquisition of two types of lighter armoured vehicles that were to be bought as replacements.  The Defence Department has blown up, sold or given away a little less than half of the army's fleet of tanks, but further disposal has been put on hold and the army requested last month that the Defence Department cancel the service's Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle programs.  Army officials refuse to discuss the reasons for the change of heart, but it is believed some senior officers raised concerns that future war zones would require better protection than that offered by the MGS and MMEV vehicles......

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Lobbyists for the Quebec-based firm Oerlikon Contraves, which was to build the MMEV, are working to ensure that program continues.

"We don't think that (the cancellation) is a good decision for Canada and not for Quebec certainly," said Oerlikon spokesperson Therese Menard.

"All the research was done for MMEV, all the work is done,'' she said. ``The military wanted to have the MMEV."

:rage:

Typical.  Oerlikon can get stuffed.  MMEV has finally been recognized for what it was - a brainless idea involving a colossal waste of money.

 

[ArmyRick]

I think what Oerlikon is saying that their cash cow will disappear if the MMEV project dies.... Tough.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Colin,

   
  My info tells me the Leos are back to stay and the MGS is out and we will be back into tanks real soon. Tracks are always cheaper to run if you run them right....kill the wheels, light bastards die. ;D

Armyrick you wanted a detailed source as I didnt have one that I could reveal at the time, I guess the source was correct.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Some of us knew quite some time ago...the press has taken over a month to figure things out...

Here's the thread on the cancellation - after the cat was let out of the back (no Leopard puns intended!)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45192/post-395651.html#msg395651

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

:rage:

Typical.  Oerlikon can get stuffed.  MMEV has finally been recognized for what it was - a brainless idea involving a colossal waste of money.

I expect "RocketMan" to give you a good talking to shortly....


Matthew.    ;D

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

He only posted once, didn't he? 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

By the way, this is definitely out of my lane, but I thought the armour spec's for the CV90-120 were 12.7mm all-around with only 30mm protection at the front.  If we're going to use it "as a tank", don't we need something that's significanly better protected than that?  I'm just thinking of how the Americans and British used their M1's and Challenger 2's in Iraq as mobile pillboxes to control key intersections and I would be very concerned about trying that tactic with any CV90.  In short, it maybe better than MGS in many ways....but it still seems deficient if you're going to use it in the ways that disqualified the MGS.

I'll now await opinions of people who know much more than me....

As always, thanks in advance gentlemen.


Matthew. 

 

[George Wallace]

The discussion here, is exactly that, (on the CV90120-T):

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=16825&st=0

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CV90-120 might be a replacement for the Leo's but certain is not a replacement for a Chally or Abrams. I would like to see a mix of Leo 2 with some CV90-120 and the rest of the CV family filling the IFV, SP Arty roles.

I think they have an engineering version also.

 

[George Wallace]

The CV90 is not a MBT, being not much more than any other IFV.  You do not replace a MBT with an IFV/APC.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I was trying to say on another thread - the defining characteristic of the Armoured Corps is Armour - the ability to take a punch and keep on moving.  What it carries to punch back - big guns, little guns, high angle or low angle, or even troops, seems to be secondary to the primary advantage that Armour offers - to be able to move in the face of enemy fire.

Or putting it another way, permitting own forces to "close with and destroy" even when the enemy is shooting back and there is no cover.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The wars we have been fighting in the last while have been against featherweights.  Our tech advantage has been so high that we have been able to avoid the terrible punishment of advancing against a foe without a total command of the air and electronic battleground.  In contested space, to advance requires armour sufficient to survive.  If we abandon heavy armour, or incorporate light armour gun systems to replace heavy tanks, then the next generation of armoured troops to fight on even terms are going to die in job lots when their "future Cougar" plays tank where Leopard 2A5's should roam.  No, I don't see who we'd be fighting, but in 1920 nobody saw Tiger's in our dance card either.