Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT

[X-mo-1979]

Leopard=my porn.

It's the reason I stayed in the army.

 

[Mackie]

???

I think you have a few things confused here.

KE is not DU.  KE is "Kinetic Energy" NOT "Depleted Uranium".

Upps.
I notices. 

About Ke Amunition: http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

 

[vonGarvin]

FYI: KE ammo is anything that uses its motion to cause damage (in simple terms).  So, fists of fury are KE, ball ammo is KE, and so forth and so on...

 

[Mackie]

I know. I read out.
My question: The much higher peak pressure of M1s with the same gun? Reduce service life?

 

[vonGarvin]

My question: The much higher peak pressure of M1s with the same gun? Reduce service life?

Yes.  Same with any gun/cannon.  Each barrel has a life expectancy expressed in terms of "Equivalent Full Charge" (EFC).  The actual EFC for each type of weapon varies.  Some "bullets" will use in excess of 1 EFC per round, others less than 1 EFC per round.  Armourers will keep track of the EFCs per barrel, which helps aid them in their servicing of the barrel (eg: at x EFCs, conduct such and such test).

 

[PzBrig15]

Hello ,
I ´am a ex-soldier from the German-Army .
I repair 1986 the MBT Leopard 2 A4.
I interested for the actually Leopard 2 A6M Can-Version.
Can anyone post photos or links ( Action-Pics from Afghanistan / ISAF).
Thanks

Sorry for my bad english , but my teacher was a silly-man.
He speak at the first time,who see me english, but I understand
this man ..........great,or ???

 

[midget-boyd91]

Try this thread here, there should be plenty of pictures there:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65930.0.html  (Leopard 2 Pictures)

  I'm sure you will also find many other pictures if you look for them using the search function.


Midget

 

[vonGarvin]

Hello ,
I ´am a ex-soldier from the German-Army .
I repair 1986 the MBT Leopard 2 A4.
I interested for the actually Leopard 2 A6M Can-Version.
Can anyone post photos or links ( Action-Pics from Afghanistan / ISAF).
Thanks

Sorry for my bad english , but my teacher was a silly-man.
He speak at the first time,who see me english, but I understand
this man ..........great,or ???

Herzlich Willkommen in "army.ca".  Hier gibts viele Fotos vom leo 2A6CAN.  Man kann die Suchfunktion einfach benützen.  Viel Glück!


"Mortarman"

 

[tomahawk6]

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-225-16850&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=pdldErIx17TWSULPr3KQEg%3d%3d

Tank Replacement Project

Trade Agreement: NONE
Tendering Procedures:
Attachment: None
Competitive Procurement Strategy: N/A - P&A/LOI Only
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements:
LETTER OF INTEREST
TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT

1. GENERAL
1.1. The Government of Canada (GOC) has a requirement for the
upgrade and conversion of up to 100 Leopard 2 tanks in Canada.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. The Tank Replacement Project will provide Canada with a
long-term, sustainable replacement of its current main battle
tank fleet, including some variants such as recovery vehicles.
The project consists of 2 phases as follow:
2.2. Phase 1 of the Project, which is currently in progress,
includes the loan, support and sustainment of 20 mission-ready
Leopard 2 A6M Main Battle Tanks (MBT) and 2 armoured recovery
vehicles (ARV) to meet urgent operational requirements in
Afghanistan in 2007. It also includes the procurement of 100
Main Battle Tanks and the restitution of the loaned German
tanks.
2.3. An agreement was signed between the Government of Canada
and The Netherlands Government on 14 December 2007 for the
purchase of 80 Leopard 2 A4 and 20 Leopard 2 A6 main battle
tanks which will be the basis for all future work.
2.4. The restitution may be accomplished through a
restitution-in-kind approach by which the Canadian government
will use the 20 Leopard 2 A6 tanks purchased from the
Netherlands. These tanks would be brought to the same
configuration as the tanks loaned from Germany. As a result, the
loaned Leopard 2 A6M tanks currently in Afghanistan would be
retained by Canada for Phase 2.
2.5. Phase 2 includes the upgrade and conversion of the tanks,
repair, and/or overhaul of major components to be completed in
Canada. Canada is considering selecting one contractor as a
system integrator for the entire Phase 2 work. Canada may also
consider one contractor for the work associated with the tanks
and a second contractor for the work associated with the
variants.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1. The intensity and complexity of recent military operations
in countries like Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that
main battle tanks provide military forces with protection,
mobility and firepower that cannot be matched by more lightly
armoured wheeled vehicles.
3.2. The capabilities provided by Leopard 2 tanks increase the
flexibility of the Canadian Forces to employ ground forces in
medium to high threat environments until 2035.

4. PURPOSE OF LETTER OF INTEREST
4.1. The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to
communicate the Canadian Forces' requirements and solicit
information and feedback from the industry regarding possible
upgrade and conversion to the MBT and/or recovery variants. The
information may be used to support the Crown's decision-making
process such as finalizing its requirement and determining its
procurement strategy.
4.2. It is anticipated that subsequent to this LOI, the
government will issue a request for Price and Availability (P&A)
information.
4.3. This is not a bid solicitation and no contract will result
directly from this LOI or subsequent Price and Availability
(P&A) request.

5. PROJECT SCOPE
5.1. The interim requirement is contained within Annex A. The
Statement of Work (SOW) will be developed in due course based on
an internal analysis of available information from various
sources, including information received from industry. In
general, the project scope may consist of the following:
5.1.1. Upgrades of up to 92 Leopard 2 tanks to a Canadian
Leopard 2 standard;
5.1.2. Conversion of up to 8 Leopard 2 A4 tanks to Canadian
Leopard 2 Bpz ARV 3 recovery vehicle;
5.1.3. Initial Repair and Overhaul (R&O) of up to 100 tanks or
their major components consisting of Leopard 2 A6M (up to 20)
and Leopard 2 A4 (up to 80). However, the Department of National
Defence may opt to conduct the Repair and Overhaul utilizing
internal resources; and
5.1.4. Logistic support associated with the introduction of this
new capability into the Canadian Forces. Potential work may also
include requirements for munitions and test, ancillary and
training equipments. The requirement for In Service Support
(ISS) is not yet determined.

5.1.5. Following the upgrade and conversion, Canada's Main
Battle Tank requirement may be as follows:

Quantity Vehicle
Requirement

20 Tanks (2 A6M CAN) Operational-Ready
Operational Tanks
Level



2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
Operational Tanks
Operational-Ready Level


20 Tanks (configuration TBD)
Operational Tanks


2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
Operational Tanks
Operational-Ready Level

20 Tanks at Training Level (2 A4+)
Training Tanks

(Individual & Collective)


2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
Training Tanks

(Individual & Collective)


20 Tanks at Training Level (2 A4+)
Training Tanks

(Individual & Collective)

2 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
Training Tanks

(Individual & Collective)

12 Logistic Stock Vehicles
TBD

5.1.6. The upgrade and conversion will be associated with, but
not limited to the following issues, as detailed in Annex A:
5.1.6.1. Primary Focus/Core Requirements:
i. Canadian Communications;
ii. Recovery Vehicle;
iii. Survivability/Protection Technologies;
iv. Electric Turret Drive;
v. Climate control including crew cooling; Integrated Logistic
Support (ILS); and
vi. Repair and Overhaul.
5.1.6.2. Secondary Focus/Longer Term Requirements:
i. Component Obsolescence;
ii. Firepower;
iii. Fire Control System;
iv. Turret Ergonomics and Configuration;
v. Mobility;
vi. Tank Mounted Implements (mine rollers, mine ploughs and
dozer blade); and
vii. Miscellaneous.


6. PROCUREMENT MILESTONES

6.1. In providing responses the following schedule should be
utilized as a baseline:
Milestones
Projected Timeline
LOI closing
9 April 2008
Price and Availability release
June 2008
Price and Availability closing
September 2008
Draft Request for Proposal
April 2009
Request for Proposal release
June 2009
Request for Proposal closing
September 2009
Contract Award (CA)
November 2009
Initial delivery of 20 tanks and 2 recovery vehicles
2011
Project Closeout
TBD

7. SECURITY
7.1. Respondents are requested to indicate their ability, and
that of any subcontractors, to accommodate personnel and
facility security requirements, together with controlled goods
restrictions (e.g. International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR)), export licenses and 3rd party release requirements.
Respondents are to clearly identify any implications that may
affect delivery of the proposed project in accordance with the
Industrial Security Program of Public Works and Government
Services Canada (PWGSC) requirements.
8. INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL BENEFITS (IRB)
8.1. The work is to be performed in Canada to the maximum extent
possible, in such a manner as tonot put at risk the operational
requirement. In all aspects, the maximization of Direct work in
Canada should makebusiness sense.
8.2. The eventual contractor will be required to provide
high-quality Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) equivalent
to 100% of the contracted value. All IRB requirements will be
negotiated and accepted by Industry Canada (IC) and the regional
development agencies prior to Contract Award.
9. REQUESTED INFORMATION
9.1. Based on the requirements detailed in this document, the
LOI seeks potential suppliers to provide the following
information:
9.1.1. Capability of the respondents to have access to the
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights of the Leopard 2 A6M, Leopard
2 A4 and recovery vehicle and other upgrades. Respondents are
requested to demonstrate their ability to access and use the
Intellectual Property of the vehicle systems, sub-systems and
any components.
9.1.2. The respondent's interest and capability for the
different aspects of the work addressed at Annex A. Respondents
are invited to provide their comments and concerns on the
technical aspect, feasibility and reasonability of the
requirement. Respondents should feel free to provide alternative
recommendations where applicable. Respondents should explain
their rationale for a change or addition to the requirement.
9.1.3. In responding to this LOI, respondents should clearly
identify all assumptions with clear explanations for why those
assumptions were made.
9.1.4. Industrial capacity and infrastructure requirement for
this work and if such capacity and infrastructure are in place
in Canada.
9.1.5. A statement of the delivery capability. Indicate whether
or not the initial of delivery of 20 tanks and 2 recovery
vehicles in 2011 can be achieved. If not, then provide the best
possible delivery schedule. The respondents should highlight any
critical areas that will impact the schedule either positively
or negatively
9.1.6. Information on any controlled goods restrictions (e.g.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Controlled
Goods Regulations), export licenses, security and 3rd party
release implications that may affect delivery of the solution,
and constraints and assumptions associated with the proposed
upgrade and conversion.
9.1.7. Company point of contact for future communications.
10. NOTE TO POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
10.1. This is not a bid solicitation and a contract will not
result from it.
10.2. The Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) is
currently being developed and is subject to change based on the
evolution of the requirement, which may be as a result of
information provided by industry.
10.3. Potential respondents are advised that any information
submitted to Canada in response to this LOI may be used by
Canada in the development of a competitive Request For Proposal
(RFP).
10.4. The issuance of this LOI does not create an obligation for
Canada to issue a Price and Availability (P&A) and Request For
Proposal (RFP), and does not bind Canada legally or otherwise,
to enter into any agreement or to accept or reject any
suggestions.
10.5. Canada assumes no responsibility or obligation with
respect to the cost of preparing a response to this LOI.
10.6. Participation in this LOI is not a condition or
prerequisite for participation in any subsequent Price and
Availability (P&A) or Request For Proposal (RFP). As a result of
this LOI there will be no short listing of firms for the
purposes of undertaking future work.
10.7. Respondents to this LOI should clearly identify all
submitted information as to whether or not it must be considered
as confidential and/or proprietary. Information provided in
response to this LOI will be divulged only to government
officials authorized to participate in this pre-procurement
activity. However, respondents must be aware that aspects of
their response may be used as a basis for modifying the draft
documents, as any future procurement for this requirement is
prepared.
10.8. PWGSC reserves the right to meet with industry concerning
the feedback, suggestions or alternative approaches related to
the project scope.
11. ENQUIRIES
11.1. All enquiries, clarification requests and other
communications related to this LOI shall be directed exclusively
to the point of contact named below.
11.2. Interested suppliers that intend to respond to this LOI
are requested to advise PWGSC by email so that questions and
answers, clarification or changes may be promulgated if required.
12. CLOSING DATE
12.1. Responses to this LOI are to be submitted to the point of
contact identified below, on or before the close of business on
9 April 2008. You are requested to submit fourteen (14) hard and
electronic copies of your response to the point of contact.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good catch - thanks for sharing!

Here's a .pdf version for when the link expires.....

 

[McG]

The following news article came about as a result of the press finding the LOI (quoted above) ... I'm surprised that the press is surprised about the time lines.  Do they expect these things grow on trees?

Canada to rely on borrowed German tanks until 2011
Ottawa Sun
By MURRAY BREWSTER, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Canada will be forced to rely on borrowed tanks for the war in Afghanistan until 2011, a federal tendering document has revealed.

Public Works Canada recently asked the defence industry if it was interested in upgrading some of the 100 Leopard tanks it purchased second-hand from the Netherlands last fall.

The first of those refurbished, 60-tonne A6s will not be ready for service for another 3-1/2 years — just as Canadian troops begin their withdrawal from Kandahar.

The “initial delivery of 20 tanks and two recovery vehicles” is not expected until some time in 2011, said the letter of interest issued to industry on March 19.

The federal government likely won’t even issue a tender for the work until November 2009.


When the $1.3-billion tank-replacement program was announced almost a year ago by former defence minister Gordon O’Connor, the plan called for Canada to borrow 20 mine-resistant Leopards from Germany for immediate use in Afghanistan.

Those tanks arrived in theatre last summer and were to be returned once the Dutch Leopards had been purchased and upgraded to Canadian battle standards.

The loan arrangement with the Germans, which isn’t costing Canadian taxpayers anything, was expected to run until September 2009.

The fact that the Dutch tanks won’t be ready by that time means the loan will likely have to be extended.

National Defence was asked to explain the reasons for the delay, but declined. Most information and interview requests are flagged to the attention of the Privy Council Office — the administrative arm of the prime minister’s office.

The only comment defence officials made was that “a number of options were being considered, including replacement in kind and extending the loan.”

It has been suggested that, given the wear and tear on the German Leopards in Afghanistan, it would be simpler for Canada to hold on to the borrowed vehicles and replace them with spiffed-up ones purchased from the Dutch.

“As stipulated in the arrangement, Canada will be returning the tanks in the same condition that they were received,” Defence spokesman Jeremy Sales said in an e-mail note.

It was suggested last fall that some of the upgrade work might have to be done in Europe because Canadian industry isn’t capable of overhauling the iron monsters.

A defence expert said the delay can likely be traced back to the fact that few Canadian companies have the technical ability to overhaul battle tanks and the Defence Department virtually gave up the skill in the late 1990s, when it planned to phase out tanks.

“I’m not surprised it’s going to take that long to pull the upgrades together given that we no longer have the capability,” said retired colonel Chris Corrigan, who spent 32 years in the armoured corps.

“That was a straight dollars-and-cents budgetary decision.”

One of the companies that could be in line for the refurbishment, which was estimated in the range of $200 million, said last year that a worldwide shortage of armour plating — generated by the war in Iraq — could also contribute to delays.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he doesn’t understand why it will take until 2011 and accused the Conservative government of mismanging the program by spending the federal treasury dry in wartime.

“If the troops need equipment, they need equipment,” said Coderre, who pointed to the fact the Tories recently rushed out to buy 15 retired German tanks for spare parts.

The federal government spent $120 million to buy 100 surplus Leopards from the Netherlands, the vast majority of which are older A4 models, dating from the mid-1990s. The Dutch government mothballed them at the end of the Cold War.

In about the same timeframe, the Canadian government began to consider whether it needed tanks at all and began planning to retire its fleet of Leopard C1s, which were purchased in the 1970s.

Plans to acquire a mobile gun system were started under the former Liberal government. But with the rising casualty count in Afghanistan and the need to shield troops behind heavy armour, defence bureaucrats were forced to reconsider the role of the tank in modern warfare.

Corrigan said he worries the urgency will go out of the tank program once Canada’s combat role comes to an end. “We’ve always had this on-again, off-again attachment to tanks and there’s always been a need to re-educate bureaucrats as to their usefulness,” said Corrigan, who is a member of the Royal Military Institute.

“They’re absolutely essential to the modern army.”

 

[X-mo-1979]

They’re absolutely essential to the modern army.

.... I remember a certain Mcpl telling that to a certain General when he came to talk to a certain regiment a couple years ago.

Imagine that.

 

[geo]

Ummm... if the newish Dutch Leo2s are only delivered in 2011 then I can only ask myself..... are they truly "surplus" to their needs?  From my perspective, if I declare something as surplus, the buyer can pert much get his hands on the kit RIGHT NOW!?!  WTF???
IIRC there is supposed to be a mix of 2A4, 2A6 and ARVs.... soo - why would we have to upgrade the 2A6s beyond the "M" additional armour plating on the bottom?

 

[George Wallace]

Ummm... if the newish Dutch Leo2s are only delivered in 2011 then I can only ask myself..... are they truly "surplus" to their needs?  From my perspective, if I declare something as surplus, the buyer can pert much get his hands on the kit RIGHT NOW!?!  WTF???
IIRC there is supposed to be a mix of 2A4, 2A6 and ARVs.... soo - why would we have to upgrade the 2A6s beyond the "M" additional armour plating on the bottom?

I would think that three years for "Refits" would be a reasonable amount of time.  Seems that it took much longer for the Workshops in Montreal to do the same with the same number of Leo 1's that we had in the mid 80's.

 

[geo]

considering that the german manufacturers are just up the Autobahn from Holland (German army proved that ) would certainly be a lot easier to have them look after whatever refit the 100 might require.... IMHO!

 

[McG]

Ummm... if the newish Dutch Leo2s are only delivered in 2011 then I can only ask myself..... are they truly "surplus" to their needs?  From my perspective, if I declare something as surplus, the buyer can pert much get his hands on the kit RIGHT NOW!?!  WTF???

They are surplus geo.  In fact, some of the maintenance problems that have to be sorted before we get them are a result of sitting idle for a dog's age.

considering that the german manufacturers are just up the Autobahn from Holland (German army proved that ) would certainly be a lot easier to have them look after whatever refit the 100 might require.... IMHO!

but the government has already promised this work to be done in Canada.  They really don't care about your humble opinion.

 

[TCBF]

I would think that three years for "Refits" would be a reasonable amount of time.  Seems that it took much longer for the Workshops in Montreal to do the same with the same number of Leo 1's that we had in the mid 80's.

- Yup.  And after some of the hachet-jobs "Two-Oh-Two Paintshop" did on our vehicles, most of the RCAC would be happy to have some 'old world craftsmanship' applied to them in Germany.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I see that bureaucratic who know nothing about military issues are again making decisions that should be made by the military, nothing changes.

Oh that's right , I almost forgot, the privy council doesn't trust the military to make its own decisions :. Yet again a bunch of bloated bureaucrats do know so much more than our military commanders. I wonder were they get all their so called expertise from, the "military channel" (Oozing with sarcasm). Wankers can't tie their own shoe laces without a form, yet again their making decisions on a major piece of military hardware that most of them have only seen either on a television set or in a picture. "Something wrong with this scenario."

 

[McG]

- Yup.  And after some of the hachet-jobs "Two-Oh-Two Paintshop" did on our vehicles, . . .

Don't worry about 202.  The government promise was to give the work (and so the jobs & money) to Canadian commercial industry.  So maybe it will be DEW, GDLS or Rhinemetal.

 

[geo]

The only thing I see happening if the vehicles are brought back to Canada for refit by commercial contractors is that they will have to "raid" EME & weapon tech tradesmen currently in the service.  Offering them promisses galore to leave the service ... thereby stripping us of our internal resources.

We've "lost" the capacity - and we have to accept that fact.
Time to look at where we can find it AND move on from there.
Develop the caacity for the future - certainly - but delaying everything till 2011 (or later) is NOT the solution.