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

[Armymatters]

I think the step to 120 has been the fact that we have pretty well maxed out on the capabilities of 105.  The 120 still offers some room for advancing in its capabilities and abilities to be effective against new developments in armour protection.  The 105 doesn't have the 'punch' in most cases to take on some of the new developments and the abilities to increase that 'punch' have pretty well peaked.  The 120 gives us more options in warhead design and munitions ('Standard' tank ammo and Missiles). 

The Germans are also working on improvements to the 120mm gun. The original gun had a L44 barrel, and now, the Germans developed the L55 tube, which offers better velocity, range, and penetration of current ammunition. The Germans have already equipped the Leopard 2 with the L55 barrel (in the Leopard 2A6 variant), and the French use a L52 barrel in the Leclerc tank. In theory, every tank with the L44 barrel can be re-equipped with the new L55 barrel for better performance, and that includes earlier Leopard 2 tanks and the M1 Abrams. The 120mm gun has plenty of life in it left, and won't be replaced in the near future.

With the issue of manufacturing ammunition, I suppose we can buy it off the Americans until licensing can be acquired from the Germans or the Americans. However, the fact that the American M829 series sabot now uses depleted uranium, that would be quite a turn off for everyday Canadians, so the German DM63 sabot using tungsten is perhaps more politically palatable...

From the literature I have read, upgrading the Leopard 1 to the 120mm gun was tried in the Leopard 1A6, but that project was ended in 1987, as by then, the Leopard 2 was in widespread service and the 1A5 (new turret plus imaging systems and fire control systems) provided a viable upgrade path at a fraction of the costs of re-gunning the Leopard 1. Doing our own thing with re-gunning the Leopard C2 can be done (the Germans actually produced a prototype of the Leopard 1A6) techincally, but the costs would probally be prohibitive in my view. So probally a mix of politics and costs killed that project for us.

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

The Germans are also working on improvements to the 120mm gun. The original gun had a L44 barrel, and now, the Germans developed the L55 tube, which offers better velocity, range, and penetration of current ammunition. The Germans have already equipped the Leopard 2 with the L55 barrel (in the Leopard 2A6 variant), and the French use a L52 barrel in the Leclerc tank. In theory, every tank with the L44 barrel can be re-equipped with the new L55 barrel for better performance, and that includes earlier Leopard 2 tanks and the M1 Abrams.

There are many options availeble. From Germany:
L51 105mm smooth-bore = 1700 m/s with new specificaly designed KE ammo
L44 = 1670 m/s with DM 53
L47 = 1690 m/s with DM 53
L55 = 1750 m/s with DM 53
From Belgium:
CV 53 caliber 105mm rifled = 1620 m/s with specificaly designed KE ammo
From Switzerland:
L50 (equips CV 90-120) = 1710 m/s with DM 53
From France:
F1 52 caliber = 1790 m/s with OFL 120

I think the best gun if we want a light mbt is the L50 because it is almost as light as the L7. If we would use it with the OFL 120 round it would have an initial speed of 1770 m/s.

 

[Armymatters]

There are many options availeble. From Germany:
L51 105mm smooth-bore = 1700 m/s with new specificaly designed KE ammo
L44 = 1670 m/s with DM 53
L47 = 1690 m/s with DM 53
L55 = 1750 m/s with DM 53
From Belgium:
CV 53 caliber 105mm rifled = 1620 m/s with specificaly designed KE ammo
From Switzerland:
L50 (equips CV 90-120) = 1710 m/s with DM 53
From France:
F1 52 caliber = 1790 m/s with OFL 120

I think the best gun if we want a light mbt is the L50 because it is almost as light as the L7. If we would use it with the OFL 120 round it would have an initial speed of 1770 m/s.

Thanks for that info, but playing the devil's advocate, I think we should adopt what our major NATO allies are adopting, namely sticking with either the L44 barrel or the L55 barrel that is becoming standard. Since the L55 barrel is newer, and is being fitted to the Leopard 2, and being considered for upgrading the US M1 Abrams, perhaps a system using the L55 barrel for commonality sake. Perhaps we should watch what our other NATO allies are doing, as they are considering upgrading to the L55 gun, and follow the trend. I have heard that the Brits are going to change over to a smoothbore cannon as they are currently using a rifled 120mm gun on their Challenger 2 tanks just so they can take advantage of the plentiful 120mm smoothbore rounds in NATO stocks.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Yes, the British are adopting the smoothbore.  Not by choice, but as a matter of economics.  Being the only developer, user, tester and so on has proven to be too expensive.  The British gun is, in my opinion, a better gun than the German gun, but it is also much more expensive to produce, aside from ammunition costs.

The Leo1A6 did indeed exist, complete with an independent commanders sight.  I was in it, and played with it for a bit.  Their were only two real additional costs (the cost of the 120 gun wasn't that expensive), and they were the independent commanders sight, and the cost of ammunition.  Someone determined that getting rid of all of our stocks of 105, and replacing all of it with 120, would cost in excess of 50 million bux.  Of course, that cost including destroying, not firing, the 105 ammo, transportation, licensing fees, training, and on and on.  So the 120 turned in to a non-issue.  It was also, of course, slightly out of the mandate of the thermal sight upgrade project......

I really wish we could have afforded the TED though.  (turret electric drive)  Magic!

 

[a_majoor]

The main reason to go for the longer gun barrel is to increase the muzzle velocity and thus the kinetic energy of the round. Unfortunately in today's environment, a long gun barrel will give the tank commander some mobility headaches in complex terrain (think Falujiah), and the current "it" ammunition is MPAT (Multi Purpose Anti Tank) which is good against troops, bunkers, "technicals", light armour and tanks up to T-55 and probably T-72's without ERA or the "Dolly Parton" upgraded armour. I am pretty sure this sort of ammunition will ring the bells of any tank crew in a more modern tank on the receiving end as well.

As well, much of the development in tank ammunition over the past two decades is towards "Smart" rounds like TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) or STAFF (Smart Target Acquisition, Fire & Forget). Advocating L-55 barrels needs to be considered in the context of how and where the tank might be used, as well as some crystal ball gazing. If the staff makes a case the major enemy will have lots of tanks, then the use of extended barrels and hyperkinetic rounds makes sense. If the case isn't as clear, or you want to preserve as many options as possible, then a more "general purpose" weapon and range of ammunition may be the way to go. (Don't forget your combat team will be working in a network centric environment, it might be easier to utilize other assets to deal with any enemy tanks which show themselves).

Lance has some excellent points. Independent sights, electric turret drive for more reliability and smooth response etc. would enhance any AFV regardless of the weapon mounted. Too bad we are so penny wise but pound foolish.....

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

I really wish we could have afforded the TED though.  (turret electric drive)  Magic!

Didn't we? I was sure that our tanks had TED.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Didn't we? I was sure that our tanks had TED.

No, I couldn't convince them....it would have cost less than $200K per tank to install, and we proved (with Norwegian help) that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!

 

[TCBF]

"that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!"

And I found it a VERY unpleasent experience - in the C1 - when the pump block or whatever blows and sprays boiling hot 'Cherry Juice' all over the turret crew.

Tom

 

[Armymatters]

No, I couldn't convince them....it would have cost less than $200K per tank to install, and we proved (with Norwegian help) that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!

Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!

 

[TCBF]

"Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!"

- Gotta look at the big picture here.  Maybe the TED would have been serviced in Germany, and the Hydraulics in Canada.

Tom

 

[Armymatters]

"Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!"

- Gotta look at the big picture here.  Maybe the TED would have been serviced in Germany, and the Hydraulics in Canada.

Tom

I don't know, electric drives are fundamentally more reliable and easier to fix than hydraulics. I have fixed systems using hydraulics and electric systems in the past (I have some training in engineering and repairs), and have found electric systems to be easier to fix when damaged, and easier to service.

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

In short, I am seeing that one nation is getting shafted defense wise, and the other is pretty well off, in terms of equipment. Guess which one? And that nation can fix that by spending some money on its forces, especially for a proper tank.

Instead of buying them brand new, we should buy them used and upgrade them. Switzerland is offering for sale 150 leo 2A4s (enough to equip 4 regiments) and upgrading the rest of their fleet like that:
-A state-of-the-art command and control system integrated
-The electrical turret drive
- By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised.
-The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.

I you want to see some pics: http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87532

I think we sould use the Swiss upgrade as a model for our upgrade:
-Fit the L50 light gun (mabie they could make us a small deal)
-Complete up-armor (by the same Canadian company that uparmoured our 5 SFOR Leos)
-Fit the KBCM defensive aid suite (including GALIX)
-Replace the existing commander sight with the LEMUR SW armoured commander sight (includes thermal and day sight and laser range finder) fitted with a 25 mm cannon (to allow the tank to engage enemy targets in a 3D environement)
-Replace the existing engine with the Euro Pwr Pack 1500 hp engine so more fuel can be carried.
-Fit TED, new suspension and new tracks.



 

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

5. Moving our equipment overseas is a issue that has been identified within the CF and plans are in place to address them. The CF ALSC Project is one of those projects, but there are doubts about the planned ship's ability to do everything it asks for. As the Americans have found, a Roll On, Roll Off platform is more essential than a LPD. Priority should therefore go to a proper RO/RO ship than a LPD. Three ships are more than sufficient in the 20,000 gross ton range. Such ships can be acquired from civilian sources, as these ships do not need to be military spec vessels as they are meant to work behind the front lines. A example of such a ship is the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel.

Need 3 RO/RO vessels? Buy the Pacificats: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm

 

[Armymatters]

Need 3 RO/RO vessels? Buy the Pacificats: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm

Those ships are no longer aviable. The current owners are currently planning to use them for a ferry service out on the West Coast. Also, the ships are highly undesirable due to their design. Design faults in service with BC Ferries are as follows:

- High fuel consumption. The four 8,375 brake horsepower (6.2 MW) engines driving waterjets required an inordinate amount of diesel fuel and to be used at 90% power for cruise speed thus prone to break down. This is largely due to BC Ferries' insistance on using diesel engines rather than the more efficient gas turbines that were originally planned.
- Due to an unusually wet and windy winter, there was a higher than normal amount of flotsam in the waters along the route, some of which was sucked into impellers for the ferries' engines causing breakdowns, and sailing cancellations.
- When operated at full speed, the Pacificat fleet created a wake which was reported to have damaged waterfront wharves and property in coastal areas near the 2 terminals. This required that the ferries reduce speed in certain areas, and alter course in others. Thus the speed advantage was reduced.
- International fast ferry standards do not permit anybody to stay on the car deck. This meant all passengers had to move up to the passenger deck. This was a change for some local residents who were used to sleeping away the 95 minute voyage in their cars.
- The air on vehicle decks became uncomfortably warm, either from the heat of the vessel engines or lack of air circulation. This made some people wary of bringing pets aboard the Fastcats, however, the ferries had kennels at the bow and stern of the vehicle decks which increased air circulation thus providing a cooler environment.
- There was little outside deck space for passengers. The existing ferries had large decks and it was common for passengers to spend the entire sailing circling the decks of the ship, or sunbathing on the lifejacket containers.
- The design of the ferry did not allow trucks or other heavy vehicles to be loaded on the ship. Only two buses were allowed to be on the ferries at a time.
- The ships had a more modern, European style interior which was perceived by the locals as being cramped compared to the existing ferries.
- Loading took longer than the older ferries due to balancing issues. This further negated the ships superior speed.
- The design of the ferries prevent the ship from sailing in extremely rough weather. The ships are too narrow to be stable on the open oceans during rough weather.

Of those issues, fuel consumption, stability and load restrictions are the key thing. The ferries are unsuitable for a military transport.  That is why I recommend ordering the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel. It's a bigger, ocean-going ship that can do more than the Fastcats, and do it better. The service speed of 20 knots is plenty fast enough, especially when tanks and other heavy equipment can be carried.
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf


Edit: And can the moderators split the parts regarding sealift into another thread? It is taking over this thread on tanks, and sealift warrants a entirely different thread to debate about.

 

[Armymatters]

Instead of buying them brand new, we should buy them used and upgrade them. Switzerland is offering for sale 150 leo 2A4s (enough to equip 4 regiments) and upgrading the rest of their fleet like that:
-A state-of-the-art command and control system integrated
-The electrical turret drive
- By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised.
-The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.

I you want to see some pics: http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87532

I think we sould use the Swiss upgrade as a model for our upgrade:
-Fit the L50 light gun (mabie they could make us a small deal)
-Complete up-armor (by the same Canadian company that uparmoured our 5 SFOR Leos)
-Fit the KBCM defensive aid suite (including GALIX)
-Replace the existing commander sight with the LEMUR SW armoured commander sight (includes thermal and day sight and laser range finder) fitted with a 25 mm cannon (to allow the tank to engage enemy targets in a 3D environement)
-Replace the existing engine with the Euro Pwr Pack 1500 hp engine so more fuel can be carried.
-Fit TED, new suspension and new tracks.

I suppose we can buy the hulls (most Leopard 2 hulls after batch 4 are the same), and buy new turrets of the A5 or A6 standard. The A5 standard introduced a new turret that had thicker armour, and was more ballistically shaped (from flat slabs to wedge-shaped). Changes also include the vehicle commander's sight was moved to new position behind his hatch, and turret control went all-electric. Future upgradeability provisions were also made to the tank, so it can now take a 140mm gun among other things. The A6 mainly offered an upgraded gun (to L55 gun). But that is a radical change, and perhaps the Germans can sell us some of their A5's instead.
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a5.htm
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a4.htm

 

[George Wallace]

I imagine the people who are doing the "Cost Accounting" in Supply and Services would have a "Field Day" with you.

 

[TCBF]

"http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf

Edit:  Got it now.  Thanks.  Interesting.

Tom

 

[Armymatters]

"http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf
Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The file is either corrupt or the Player does not support the format you are trying to play."

Tom

Adobe PDF file...
Or the link that links to the PDF:
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/en/06vsls/roro.html

 

[a_majoor]

As was noted, the issue of how these things are supposed to get where they are going looms very large in the big picture. Any ship will have the loading and balancing issues the Pacificats did, on a greater or lesser scale. Since the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variations, you need a very well engineered ship to deal with these issues. Each time one trundles aboard or disembarks, you have 70 tonnes mass shifting around in the ship. (since they will come with tank transporters, HEMMET type fuel tankers, MRT's etc., plus the rest of the combat team, you can start to see the scale of the problem).

Simply making the ship REAL LARGE to minimize the ratio between the cargo mass to the ship mass misses the point; the ship becomes a huge logistical burden in its own right, a giant target near enemy shores and will be difficult to dock or whatever, especially in unimproved harbours if we are considering a "robust" PSO, and very much so against an enemy who is actively opposing us. Smaller ships need active measures to deal with weight and balance issues, ballast tanks, pumps and valves, external stabilizers etc., all which add to the cost of the ship.

While nothing is impossible, given the smaller funding and resource envelope we will be working with under almost any imaginable condition it would be wise to carefully consider how these factors interlink. A LAV based combat team or battlegroup is relatively easy to move, has a small logistics tail and can move quickly in theater under its own power. It doesn't have the muscle for direct assaults, but the smart commander tries to avoid this anyway (read your Sun Tsu). A medium combat team/battlegroup based on CV 90 or equivalent vehicles has a bigger logistics train and trades some strategic and operational mobility for enhanced firepower and protection. A heavy force in Generation three tanks and IFVs is the inverse of the LAV based team, heavy, relatively immobile without supplementary transportation but packing incredible firepower and protection.

Finding or building ships and planes to transport the team/battlegroup becomes easier if you are using light vehicles with small logistics slices, and progressively more difficult/expensive as you work your way up the chain. Calculations based on the notional “11Canadian Infantry Brigade” (11 CIB) use a daily consumption figure of 106 kilograms per man . At this rate of consumption, a 1200 man battle group would need 127 tonnes of consumables a day, requiring a fleet of at least 12 heavy cargo trucks to support it.  Bigger and heavier vehicles drive this figure up rapidly (and all those trucks need fuel as well....).

Trading all these factors in my own mind has led to the conclusion that we really need to evolve towards the CV-90120 based combat team or equivalent solution. This provides a reasonable balance between mobility, protection and firepower, give us strategic and operational mobility and provides the commander with a rapier to wield in battle, rather than a stiletto (LAV combat team) or a two handed broadsword (heavy combat team).

 

[Armymatters]

As was noted, the issue of how these things are supposed to get where they are going looms very large in the big picture. Any ship will have the loading and balancing issues the Pacificats did, on a greater or lesser scale. Since the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variations, you need a very well engineered ship to deal with these issues. Each time one trundles aboard or disembarks, you have 70 tonnes mass shifting around in the ship. (since they will come with tank transporters, HEMMET type fuel tankers, MRT's etc., plus the rest of the combat team, you can start to see the scale of the problem).

Simply making the ship REAL LARGE to minimize the ratio between the cargo mass to the ship mass misses the point; the ship becomes a huge logistical burden in its own right, a giant target near enemy shores and will be difficult to dock or whatever, especially in unimproved harbours if we are considering a "robust" PSO, and very much so against an enemy who is actively opposing us. Smaller ships need active measures to deal with weight and balance issues, ballast tanks, pumps and valves, external stabilizers etc., all which add to the cost of the ship.

While nothing is impossible, given the smaller funding and resource envelope we will be working with under almost any imaginable condition it would be wise to carefully consider how these factors interlink. A LAV based combat team or battlegroup is relatively easy to move, has a small logistics tail and can move quickly in theater under its own power. It doesn't have the muscle for direct assaults, but the smart commander tries to avoid this anyway (read your Sun Tsu). A medium combat team/battlegroup based on CV 90 or equivalent vehicles has a bigger logistics train and trades some strategic and operational mobility for enhanced firepower and protection. A heavy force in Generation three tanks and IFVs is the inverse of the LAV based team, heavy, relatively immobile without supplementary transportation but packing incredible firepower and protection.

Finding or building ships and planes to transport the team/battlegroup becomes easier if you are using light vehicles with small logistics slices, and progressively more difficult/expensive as you work your way up the chain. Calculations based on the notional “11Canadian Infantry Brigade” (11 CIB) use a daily consumption figure of 106 kilograms per man . At this rate of consumption, a 1200 man battle group would need 127 tonnes of consumables a day, requiring a fleet of at least 12 heavy cargo trucks to support it.  Bigger and heavier vehicles drive this figure up rapidly (and all those trucks need fuel as well....).

Trading all these factors in my own mind has led to the conclusion that we really need to evolve towards the CV-90120 based combat team or equivalent solution. This provides a reasonable balance between mobility, protection and firepower, give us strategic and operational mobility and provides the commander with a rapier to wield in battle, rather than a stiletto (LAV combat team) or a two handed broadsword (heavy combat team).

Perhaps the Norsky class RO/RO carrier can do the trick?
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/norsky/

Norsky has been designed to provide flexibility and maximum freight capacity, both for its current operator and any future deployment. Reflecting this, the vessel has exceptionally high deckroom on the main deck level, enabling P&O North Sea Ferries to optimise its double-stack ro-ro container transportation method. Clearance on the main deck is 7m.

Deck scantlings and the vessel’s general sturdiness reflect the provisions made for a lifetime of transporting industrial exports in Northern Europe. The vessel has also been built to Finnish-Swedish 1A ice class requirements, and has received the relevant notation from classification society Lloyd's Register.

Norsky contains the equivalent of 2,630 linear metres on three decks, corresponding to a full load of 210 trailers. Norsky features a split stern ramp and has dispensed with the mezzanine deck sections seen in earlier ships. Cargo access is provided by a MacGregor designed system based on twin, 16m long axial stern ramp/doors at main deck level. The wider starboard ramp caters for traffic to the main and tanktop levels, while the narrower port ramp feeds freight to a fixed ramp leading up to the weather deck. Transfers to the lower hold are by way of a ramp leading down from the aft part of the main deck.

Norsky has a deck load rating for 120t on 40ft mafi-type trailers at main deck level, and has the ability to transport 100t loads in the lower hold, with a headroom of 5m.

Access to the upper deck level via the 7% gradient ramp on the port side imposes a 5m headroom limitation. On the upper deck, maximum load is limited to 55t for trailers, but the design of the area is also conducive to lo-lo working of container stacks up to 60t. Freight stowed on the weatherdeck gains a large measure of protection from the seas by way of the forward superstructure and also the raised bulwarks. The latter meet the height requirements of the chemical industry.

The vessel has a fully Dutch crew of 14 and, in addition to crew quarters, has six two-berth cabins for commercial drivers. Given the shortness of her current trading pattern, these are not likely to be used often under the current charter.

It's a ferry yes, but it is a big North Sea ferry. And the North Sea is known to be one of the roughest seas in the world, besides the Atlantic Ocean. Definetely seaworthy, and big enough to boot.