Extreme heat in army tanks endangers troops; forces use tank blanket to keep troops from baking

[Thorvald]

A6 for the Regular army and A4's for the reserves.........please.........

Ok ok, stop, I'm salivating enough as it is!  Don't get my hopes up

If we had a proper Reserve Armoured Regiment in Ontario with the A4's, C2's or even whats left of the C1's, I'd almost quit my civilian job, take the huge pay cut and go full-time (huge tank lover here... not obvious eh).

I know, we've had this discussion before in previous threads regarding maintenance and training for the Primary Reserve to handle main battle tanks, don't want to hijack this thread for that purpose, just dreaming.

Cheers

 

[brains]

Someone with an interest and is searching for informaiton on a subject is that not allowed?

 

[TAS278]

Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality). 

As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?

Convince me.

I think I see what you are saying, If i read you right then I believe I do agree. Regardless this is still not an annoucenment and still a press leak.../"getting a feeling" type of thing. We need to do something though

 

[George Wallace]

So let me see if I have this straight -
The Aussies, with their Abrams, essentially have done the same thing: buying older refurbished models that can be further upgraded if time, money and circumstances permit/require.

There in lies the rub.  The expense of an upgrade adds to the purchase more than would have been spent on buying the upgraded model in the first place.  Then we have the same problems we had with the C1's in upgrading to the C2......if time, money and circumstances permit/require.  Do you trust a change in Government....Liberal's or in a fantasy the NDP,....to approve an upgrade?

 

[TAS278]

There in lies the rub.  The expense of an upgrade adds to the purchase more than would have been spent on buying the upgraded model in the first place.  Then we have the same problems we had with the C1's in upgrading to the C2......if time, money and circumstances permit/require.  Do you trust a change in Government....Liberals or in a fantasy the NDP,....to approve an upgrade?

That is the truth right there

Who knows what is going to happen in 2 years... If they are going to procure these, they are going to have to do it yesterday.

 

[Kirkhill]

Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality). 

As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?

Convince me.

I continue to have vague recollections of that first press conference where the CDS was paired off with then MND McCallum.  I remember being struck at the time by the way that the CDS chose his words.  I don't recall him ever saying that Tanks were not needed.  I do recall him saying that the MGS was needed.  It was needed because the Tanks were not being deployed, not being supported with a budget and could not be deployed by available lift assets.

The inference I made from that was that the battle groups need the 105mm (if not the 120mm) as a support weapon.  The only ones we have are attached to Tanks.  Tanks are not permitted on deployment.  Tanks are not deployable.  Therefore money spent on tanks would continue to be a waste.  If putting a 105 on a LAV chassis gets the 105 into theatre then better that than 105s on Tank chassis's that are going no place.

If I am correct in my inferences, many ifs there, then much has changed.

Tanks are deployed. Tanks are demonstrating their usefulness.  Strategic lift is on-line and coming available (both air and sea).  Many of the conditions that resulted in Tanks being millstones have been removed.  They are no longer hangar queens.  They are now contributing parts of the force structure.

If you are looking for answers I suggest you might consider looking in that direction.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

If we had a proper Reserve Armoured Regiment in Ontario with the A4's, C2's or even whats left of the C1's, I'd almost quit my civilian job, take the huge pay cut and go full-time (huge tank lover here... not obvious eh).

Only if we were to go into a WW III/IV scenario would you see that.  There is no place to train with them.  Meaford is too small.  Petawawa is actually too small.  One or two bound Traces do not make for much in the way of training.  

The C 2's are pretty much seeing their last days.  There are no C 1's left, except for Gate Guards.  The CWM doesn't even have one.

The remaining Leo 1 MBT's will likely be scavanged for parts to keep the ARV's, AVLB and AEV's functioning.  If Leo 2's are purchased, then Leo 2 ARVs and AEV's will have to be purchased also.  I don't think there is a Leo 2 AVLB, nor a Leo 2 AA tank.

 

[GAP]

Or we could always use this

 

[TAS278]

ROFL

 

[Kirkhill]

There in lies the rub.  The expense of an upgrade adds to the purchase more than would have been spent on buying the upgraded model in the first place.  Then we have the same problems we had with the C1's in upgrading to the C2......if time, money and circumstances permit/require.  Do you trust a change in Government....Liberal's or in a fantasy the NDP,....to approve an upgrade?

No.  I don't trust a change in the government to do anything.  I do trust in the inventiveness of driven people to get around any road blocks - regardless of time or money constraints.  Most of our "upgrades" have not made economic sense (aircraft in particular). They made political sense.  As most of us are aware the real cost of any system is not the steel or aluminum box that the public sees but the stuff that is jammed inside.
Economically it nearly always makes more sense to buy new rather than commit to block upgrades.  However even the US has to deal with political realities.

I come back to my experience with vessels in the US fisheries.   Laws were put in place to ensure that an expanded US fishery would benefit US fishermen.  It required that any vessels built for the fishery had to be built in the US.  So Norwegians bought up any scrap fishing boat they could find and towed it back to Norway.  They then stripped the machinery out of her, took off the superstructure, cut out the decks, removed the hull plates, cut the ribs back to the keel, removed the stem and stern then sliced the keel in two and inserted a long stretch of new keel.  They then started to rebuild.  When they were finished the only thing left of the original boat was the chunk of the keel with the original keel registration number in her.  These US boats, refitted by Norwegians, then were sailed by Norwegian crews under US flags in US waters.

Did it make economic sense to incur the additional costs of buying, towing and stripping?  

Likewise with the proposals to Upgrade the existing C130s.  By the time they put new avionics in, new engines on, new wings, a new centre box and new landing gear and tires what was left of the existing aircraft.  Another example - the C1/C2 105mm upgrade to the C3 by RDM.  What was left of the original guns compared to what is now in the armouries?

With the 20/80 scenario I could see a future CDS finding funds to upgrade a troop a year, or maybe up armouring a squadron....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The best financial move and the best political move are rarely the same thing. Even if the current government which is Forces friendly becomes a majority, the political game will continue. Strike while the iron is hot, better to have Leo2A4’s that have can be upgraded than a tiny number Leo C2’s that will be worn out by service overseas and no replacements.

If the government wanted value for money would they have started the gun registry? Or multiple other financial failures?

 

[George Wallace]

The best financial move and the best political move are rarely the same thing. Even if the current government which is Forces friendly becomes a majority, the political game will continue. Strike while the iron is hot, better to have Leo2A4’s that have can be upgraded than a tiny number Leo C2’s that will be worn out by service overseas and no replacements.

We are trying to tell you that it is better to get A5's or A6's and not get A4's.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am understanding that it would be better to get A6s than A4s.  But the A6s are not readily available and cost more than the budget will bear currently (keep in mind that the government currently is having to deal with finding Green Money to prevent the next Ice Age showing up on schedule). The A5s would be a good solution but if I read Lance, Ironduke and CSA105 correctly the Germans are not ready to part with them.  So the A4s are available, the price is right and they can be upgraded and are still better than your favourite bete-noire the MGS-POS.  And if you get really lucky maybe more can be bought in the future with a friendly government and a long term mandate.

Cheers George.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Clearly the Leo I needs to be retired, it has served us well but it is nearing (or is past based on your perspective) of its operational life and need to be replaced. I would be interested in seeing the requirements definition that says that the Leo II is the tank that Canada actually needs for the next 30 years (based on current replacement mentality). 

As far as I have observed nothing has been published as a requirement that would exclude great deals from the states, UK, or a host of other heavy metal providers or proven mobile gun platform suppliers. Since the armoured corps does not appear to have a strategic vision, exactly how is this decision being weighted and evaluated? Our leadership just recently was telling us we did not need armour, that MGS will fit the bill, now was that the budget reality speaking or a strategic analysis of the world situation?  Either way they were clearly wrong, what has changed in their process to make this decision right for our future?

Convince me.

Kirkhill covered this, but I'm going to add my two cents.

In 2002 there was a lot of theory about the future of warfighting, some of which was validated by the available operational experience (OEF 2001/2002).  At various times I was told that we would never advance to contact, that network-enabled precision firepower would win the fight and that rapid deployment was the key.  Defence involves economics (making choices to allocate resources (all resources, not just money)), and decision makers made some calls based on that theory and practice.  Decisions often involve making guesses about the future (most likely/ most dangerous).

In late 2006, Canada had its own recent combat experience.  We have slugged it out in ways  reminiscient of 1944, and some "old-school" lessons have surfaced.  People are now in the process of analysing that information and making decisions.  Some of those decisions may involve new tanks.  They may not.

If they do involve new tanks (and I would support that idea but I'm biased) then there are several systems that could fit the bill.  I imagine that M1 (take your pick of variant) or Leopard II (take your pick of variant) would be prime candiates, although I like the Challenger if only for its HESH round.  HESH is more important that Sabot right now.  I would venture, however, that this type of program would be different than most acquistions.

Of what exactly do you wish to be convinced?  

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

Kirkhill

I disagree with much of that statement.  I would much prefer that we have the upgrades done by KMW prior to their shipping to Canada, than having to ship them back later.  I have seen the work done on refits by a certain Work Shop here in Canada and wouldn't trust them to change a tire on a Mtn Bike.  The Swedes, and others have been able to get top of the line Leo 2's, so why should we settle for obsolete tanks?  

 

[Colin Parkinson]

George
I would love it if we got all A6's, but a delay could cost the forces a better tank, we all know what will happen to this deal if the Liberals get back in or form a minority government. I have seen to many almost deals evaporate. The C2's have been good to us, but we have likely run out of upgrades and how long will the chassis last in the current operation tempo? If they become unrepairable with no replacement in place and a Liberal government in power, you can kiss the Armour Corp goodbye.

 

[ironduke57]

... The C2's have been good to us, but we have likely run out of upgrades ...

Well theoretical you could still upgrade the Leo1´s with an 120mm cannon, but I doubt that it would pay out.
(Leopard 1A6. Pic: http://www.haaland.info/leopard1/versions/bilder/leopard1a6proto2.jpg)

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Kirkhill]

Ironduke57:

Any chance you have ready access to the historical unit upgrade costs of the following-

A4 to A5
A5 to A6
A5 to A6 (retaining the L44)
A6 to A6M

Is it feasible to immediately acquire the A4s and have KMW upgrade them to A5s prior to shipment?

George, with limited funds available, which would you prefer: 20 A6s with 80 A4s or, given a unit price on the A4s of around 300K and the A6s of 6Mill (20:1), 4 additional A6s?

 

[George Wallace]

Kirkhill

Please go back to what Lance and Ironduke57 have been saying about the differences between the A4's and A5's and the similarities between the A5's and A6's.

I do not agree with having two or three different tanks.  One will do, so that we will have a good body of trained Crewmen and Maintainers. 

I do not want to see people learning their skills on the Battlefield.  I would prefer them to be trained before they get there. 

I do not want to see a tank purchased to only have it returned to the Mfr for upgrades immediately on delivery. 


Admittedly, if we do purchase these tanks, or any tank, they will have to have Cdn mods done to them before they are sent into Theatre.  Wpn mount mods, Comms mods, etc. will have to be done.  There is much to be considered, and those decisions should not be left to people who are not knowledgeable in what the requirements are, nor to people who have no experience at all in the intricacies of what it takes to operate Tanks.  That is what is so frustrating in this current discusion on a 'Rumour'.  Too many less than knowledgeable folk muddying the waters of a serious discusion.

As to would I take 20 over 80, the answer is yes.  I have made that decision before and still believe in getting quality over quantity.  That is what the CF expects of its' soldiers, and what it should expect of its' equipment.  I could reverse you opinion to 'upgrade later', to one of 'purchase more later'.  (A opinion being held in other major purchase discusions.)

 

[Kirkhill]

As to would I take 20 over 80, the answer is yes.  I have made that decision before and still believe in getting quality over quantity.  That is what the CF expects of its' soldiers, and what it should expect of its' equipment.  I could reverse you opinion to 'upgrade later', to one of 'purchase more later'.  (A opinion being held in other major purchase discusions.)

Good enough George and thanks.  I understand what you are saying and in that case perhaps the money spent on the 80 A4s might be better spent on an additional 4 A6s to give a fleet of 24 A6s.  You might even be able to afford a few more if you don't have to pay for 80 more crews and support for the tanks.

At that rate you might find your way up to a full 3x14 regiment of A6s.  We may have already found the money for 24 A6s.  You only need to find money for an additional 18.

Cheers.