- Reaction score
- 1,429
- Points
- 1,060
its a step above with an autoloading 120mmCreeping up to 48 tones, but may have better protection than either vehicle.
its a step above with an autoloading 120mmCreeping up to 48 tones, but may have better protection than either vehicle.
Famous arms exporter JapanThe Japanese Type 10 is in the neighbourhood
Re: Centauro 2, I only bring it up (continually) to highlight what is possible in the platform - to try and shake the memory of the Cougar/MGS. A high velocity 120mm and all around STANAG level 6 is a completely different beastDespite my opposition to the M10 (on the grounds that it is one more vehicle type to maintain and can be seen as a "tank" by people who don't know better) and the MGS (due to its technical problems) I'm not adverse to a DFSV. I'm not fond of the Centauro 2, for the same reason as the M10 (one more vehicle type.) but not adverse to the Centauro 2 turret if it could be mounted on a LAV chassis in order to standardize the fleet. From a distance it may be doable albeit the Centauro seems to have a bit more mass and a stronger engine than the LAV6.
With our own lift, or using friends?Unpopular question: Given you deficiency in lift capability, why do we need a heavy armoured capability in Canada? If we can’t deploy it in sufficient numbers in a timely fashion, why do we need to maintain that capability?
Outsider Answer: because we do need and do have that capability deployed elsewhere (and should be trying to expand it), and its hard to generate trained tank squadrons without them having been on a tank before arriving in theatre.Unpopular question: Given you deficiency in lift capability, why do we need a heavy armoured capability in Canada? If we can’t deploy it in sufficient numbers in a timely fashion, why do we need to maintain that capability?
I was being a bit tongue in cheek in my previous post. The problem that I see is that the Canadian Government - especially this Canadian government - has little or no appetite to equipping the Canadian Army. If you parse the details of our "brigade in Latvia" it becomes clear that we are committing little more than we did before on a full time basis; basically a mech rifle coy, a tank squadron an artillery battery. We're adding a bde HQ and maybe an arty regt HQ and some odds and sods. The rest of the eFP battlegroup are international contributors.Re: Centauro 2, I only bring it up (continually) to highlight what is possible in the platform - to try and shake the memory of the Cougar/MGS. A high velocity 120mm and all around STANAG level 6 is a completely different beast
I agree with you about the drawbacks of adding a completely new vehicle type (though the the prospect of a quick MOTS purchase with the R&D done makes one stop to think). But rather than use Centauro turrets I'd hope to go a step further and see if GDLS can keep it all in house, namely by seeing if either theGriffin I turret with the XM360 was viable or the Booker turret could be upgunned with the 360, and if either is viable on a LAV.
It's not an unpopular question but its one used to deflect the real issue. The solution to rapid deployment is quite simple. Our NATO commitment is Latvia. Latvia is a heavy armour (and all kinds of other things) commitment. Preposition the equipment and the ammo stocks in Latvia in secured bunkers and deploying equipment becomes a minor matter. The RCAF can easily airlift the additional personnel needed to round out the brigade.Unpopular question: Given you deficiency in lift capability, why do we need a heavy armoured capability in Canada? If we can’t deploy it in sufficient numbers in a timely fashion, why do we need to maintain that capability?
Militarizing our two Class 1, publicly-held railroads might be a challenge but perhaps a boon to operating crews come contract time.Or did you just watch several minutes of Patriot launchers at a train crossing?
![]()
Lockheed Martin Launches Patriot Missile From VLS in First-Ever Test - Naval News
Lockheed Martin vertically launched a PAC-3 MSE for the first time in a test that downed a cruise missile target.www.navalnews.com
The discussion was about bringing ships into Ottawa, and by inference, other Canadian cities, to supply air defence. This was made possible by adding Mk70 PDS Sea Cans to the decks of the ships.
Or you could forget the ships and shunt trainloads of Mk70 PDS Sea Cans around the country by rail.
One hundred rail cars = one hundred launchers with 400 cells.
Cells with SM2s, SM3s or SM6s or CAMMs or ESSMs (4 per cell). And now Patriots.
Other options include Tomahawks and NSMs for Coastal Defence.
No militarization needed. Just an OiC under the Emergencies Act once an International or War Emergency is declared. One simply needs to expropriate the required engines and container cars required and a manual on how to operate an engine.Militarizing our two Class 1, publicly-held railroads might be a challenge but perhaps a boon to operating crews come contract time.
How many tanks can we bring per C-17 chock? How long does it take to get sealift across the ocean?With our own lift, or using friends?
But as for the idea of not maintaining stuff we can’t use right now, ask the RAF how they liked the years of not having a Maritime Patrol capability after the Nimrod was scrapped.
Outsider Answer: because we do need and do have that capability deployed elsewhere (and should be trying to expand it), and its hard to generate trained tank squadrons without them having been on a tank before arriving in theatre.
That being said, we should be striving to have as many tanks as we can crew and maintain forward deployed, with few as a absolutely possible to generate those trained crews kept domestically.
Ok. Accepted.So here's my take on a training tank and the Cougar in particular. I was around when they rolled those out. We thought the Grizzly with a MG turret was a step up from the M113 except when you went close to a muddy field. The Cougar, on the other hand, was recognized as a practical joke by everyone except some black hats who considered they made a worthwhile recruiting tool. You do not need an ersatz "tank" for training. You could learn recce skills in a jeep and tank tactics in a 5/4 with a plywood turret and a gun made out of 4" PVC and a thunderflash. (Don't laugh. It's essentially what most western armies did in the 1930s) It works, but only if there is a real armament program to build the real tanks in a reasonable time. Until then you need just enough extra real tanks to train your new and replacement crews (and to be spares when war finally breaks out)
With respect, there's an undeniable irony in these para's being back to back.If we're going to spend money then let's spend it on what we need to equip and sustain our force in Latvia - that means more tanks and IMHO, IFVs and SPs. (and a lot of other things like VSHORAD, ATGMs, drones, EW, cyber, digital comms etc etc) We don't need an DFSV like Centauro - before that what we need are mortars and ATGMs under armour, and a few more serviceable Leo 2s. Enough to equip our force and a reasonable training stock.
There's a fundamental flaw in how Canada does defence. Canada focusses on limiting expenditures on what we need to meet today's commitments rather than building a future force that gives the country some flexibility in how it meets security challenges that are reasonably foreseeable in the future.
I'm a 44-tank regiment guy but what would I know, I'm not a tanker. All that I know is that tankers around the world have been having the argument about the size and structure of the size and organization of a tank company for decades. A lot have settled on the 14-tank coy, 3 coys per bn + 2 command tanks.Could we field a 59 regiment in this manner with the 82 tanks we started with, if they were a homogenous fleet of combat grade tanks? Would 23 meet the domestic requirements?
With respect, there's an undeniable irony in these para's being back to back.
We seemed to manage well enough to get them into Afghanistan in sufficient numbers to be effective and relevant. The question with respect to having tanks in your inventory is will you need them at some point for a mission that needs doing. Latvia is that mission.I don’t see us ever deploying heavy armour fast enough and in big enough numbers to be relevant. I’ll also argue that if we need rapid deployment of assets, so do our allies and it won’t be available when we need it most.
Why is it a pipe dream? It's easily done. Even Canada used prepositioned equipment in 4 CMBG in part while the US used REFORGER in large part.We know that pre-positioning them is probably a pipe dream.
Canada had a permanent presence in Germany for close to 4 decades. We spent almost a decade in Afghanistan. All of our potential foes are folks who play the long game.You need a permanent presence in that location and while Latvia is it now, it probably won’t be in the long term.
No one wants to or needs to move it theatre to theatre.I just find the lack of agility to deploy heavy armour from theater to theater.
We didn't move it around then either other than by European rail networks. Both the Canadians and the German railroad companies were highly efficient at it because they practiced it often. The RCAF played only a minor role in flying in augmenteesMade sense in the 80s when we were in Germany.
I guess that's one opinion. Is it your proposal then that we should simply tell NATO to pound salt and get out of Europe?Doesn’t make much sense now, other than keeping a semblance of capability.
Unpopular question: Given you deficiency in lift capability, why do we need a heavy armoured capability in Canada? If we can’t deploy it in sufficient numbers in a timely fashion, why do we need to maintain that capability?
It's not an unpopular question but its one used to deflect the real issue. The solution to rapid deployment is quite simple. Our NATO commitment is Latvia. Latvia is a heavy armour (and all kinds of other things) commitment. Preposition the equipment and the ammo stocks in Latvia in secured bunkers and deploying equipment becomes a minor matter. The RCAF can easily airlift the additional personnel needed to round out the brigade.
We seemed to manage well enough to get them into Afghanistan in sufficient numbers to be effective and relevant. The question with respect to having tanks in your inventory is will you need them at some point for a mission that needs doing. Latvia is that mission.
Why is it a pipe dream? It's easily done. Even Canada used prepositioned equipment in 4 CMBG in part while the US used REFORGER in large part.
This is neither rocket science math nor a difficult logistics issue to solve.
Predeployment of heavy forces is the only option to ensure you have those tools.That is the question. But you're on Army.ca so chances are the hive decision has already been made.
This is why Canada needs a POMCUS type depot storage system. If I was Galactic Space Emperor, I had have 4 Armor Bde of Gear in Latvia, 1 in a pre deployed Bde, 1 for the flyover Bde and two Bde’s worth of spares.Everyone wants to get them into theatre, but no one has a plan to sustain/replace them once they get knocked out or break down. They are basically one and done toys.
I’d go further and push all the armor to Latvia, and run the school in Latvia, Poland or Germany.Put them all, except what is required for training, in Latvia.
Agreed.Its not a deflection at all. And this attitude speaks to the general apathy that the CAF has towards sustainment. Its a very fair question. If we don't have a plan for after the first time we get punched in the nose then the whole thing is for not and we've just wasted lives and equipment for peacetime politics.
AckThe low intensity of that conflict and complete inability of the enemy to deny our over seas supply lines is skewing your view on this. Russia will have surface, sub surface and air defence which will be hunting for our sustaining forces.
Which is why y’all need extra kit that is there and ready.This is the only way it works, just put them all there now, with the exception of what is required at the armor school; and hope they last long enough if the environment heats up. Because will be years before Canada sees replacement tanks should we need them in a conventional WW3 scenario.
110%It is when you have neither the ability to support that strategic lift in the air or at sea assets to move your equipment and people that make this a difficult logistics issue to solve. Throw into the mix that enemy gets a say in how many of our toys actually make it to theatre and its now a more complicated and difficult issue to solve.
Predeployment of heavy forces is the only option to ensure you have those tools.
This is why Canada needs a POMCUS type depot storage system. If I was Galactic Space Emperor, I had have 4 Armor Bde of Gear in Latvia, 1 in a pre deployed Bde, 1 for the flyover Bde and two Bde’s worth of spares.
I’d go further and push all the armor to Latvia, and run the school in Latvia, Poland or Germany.
The same goes for the Heavy Infantry.
Agreed.
The CA needs to reform - if you accept a 2Div structure then 1 CAD is a 30/70 entity in Europe, with a large maintenance support network there to keep everything running, and your 2nd Armor Bde and most of the 2 Inf Bde’s to that DIV are Reservists that come over for annual training.
Ack
Which is why y’all need extra kit that is there and ready.
110%
I don't think you'll find any disagreement here that we need hundreds. The government has forgotten since the peace dividend who will actually win a war if the flag goes up, and it looking like it might. It's time for the RCAF and RCN to be good corporate citizens and recognize the Army needs every new penny for the next 5 years to properly be prepared, Navies and Air Forces don't win wars in Europe or continental Asia.We are cut from the same cloth.
IMHO If Canada wants to play the tank game it needs hundreds, not 10s. And anything less than hundreds is just wasted resources for the sake of cap badges and sacred cows that should be allocated elsewhere.
We do not have a big enough force to be all singing and all dancing, and our inability to concentrate what we resources we do have leaves us broad but weak and fragile.
World War Two would beg to differ…I don't think you'll find any disagreement here that we need hundreds. The government has forgotten since the peace dividend who will actually win a war if the flag goes up, and it looking like it might. It's time for the RCAF and RCN to be good corporate citizens and recognize the Army needs every new penny for the next 5 years to properly be prepared, Navies and Air Forces don't win wars in Europe or continental Asia.
Canada needs to wean itself off the roto system.