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

[Eland]

I agree with SeaKing Tacco.  It is not a military decision, per say, but a politically driven one.  That "Kinder, Gentler Army" that the Lieberals have touted since Trudeau, and perpetuated by Chretien and Martin.  It is evident in other purchases also, where we have gone with the "Chevy" instead of the "Cadillac".  The "Chevy" is cheaper initially, but being of poorer quality, is more prone to break down, and more expensive in the long run to maintain. 

The costs of becoming a 'Totally Wheeled Force', are going to come back and bite us.  Not only are we going to be without the use of manoeuvrable and effective Armoured support, but also much of our Heavy Engineer support.

A friend of mine started his career as an officer in the Armoured Corps and then remustered into Logistics. One day, we were debating the utility of the MilCOTS truck purchase for the PRes. He insisted that it was cheaper in the long run to buy a vehicle and keep repairing it until it could no longer be repaired. Even if the vehicle in question had limited tactical utility. I've always thought that it made more sense to buy kit that is robust, lasts long, requires relatively infrequent maintenance, and most important, does the job you want it to with few compromises or limitations. As things stand now, the MilCOTS is being employed in a way it was not designed to be employed

I recognize that we can't afford to buy top-drawer kit in every instance for the Reserves. Or for the Regular Force. However, as you point out, it's this nickel-and-dime, lowest-bidder mentality that gets people killed, or renders you unable to properly do the job you set out to do. Freedom isn't free, yet Canadian military planners routinely fail to realize this in their quest to maintain a military without spending any real money.

What many fail to realize about the 'total wheeled force' is that at its root, it's comprised of what are basically armoured cars, with all their limitations in terms of survivability and mobility, to say nothing of firepower. I am not, as a matter of principle, against the use of armoured cars. They can be quite useful - when employed as liaison, recce, CP, and general support vehicles on reasonable roads. They can be used as APC's, in environments where you need to get infantry deployed quickly, and where the threat profile is low to moderate.

Even the Soviets, when they were planning for a hypothetical assault on NATO troops positioned in the Fulda Gap, recognized the limitations of the hordes of wheeled BTR-60s, BTR-70s and BTR-90 APC's they were planning to throw into battle. That recognition led them to decide to employ the vehicles as platforms that would carry follow-on troops for mop-up operations after the shock armies with their BMP1s, BMP2s and T72 tanks had done their work.

However, to hear current Canadian military planners talk, you'd think that they seriously believe that wheeled vehicles like the LAV and MGS can be deployed in a full-bore advance to contact against enemy troops in well-prepared defensive positions, armed to the teeth with all manner of anti-tank weapons. If they don't believe that, then they're committing a sin of omission by not telling Canadians that the only realistic roles the "Total Wheeled Force" (TWF) can fulfil are:

- rear-echelon and flank screening tasks for a larger, better-armed force
- security taskings in urban environments that have been pacified but in which a small risk of a recrudescence of violence exists
- follow-on formations supporting heavy brigades equipped with tanks, tracked IFV's and self-propelled howitzers

In other words, supporting roles within the confines of a US or UK-led coalition force. Given the Canadian Army's lack of organic transport assets, and currently established deployment time-frames (eg. typically D+90 or D+120), this almost necessarily means being relegated to a peripheral role. Sadly, that willingness to accept a peripheral role when Canada can do more, seems to operate in service of the fiction that Canada is first, foremost and always a peacekeeping nation, even when peacekeeping in the current strategic environment is no longer a realistic option.

 

[Kirkhill]

UK tanks until 2035.

West continually rebuilding old tanks (Leopards, Challengers, Abrams)
Very few western new builds (expensive, unproven and unnecesssary due to existing numbers of "upgradeable" tanks thus poor sales on LeClerc, Ariete, Karan, Merkava as well as new Leos, Challengers and Abrams)
Increasing sales in low end tanks like Pakistani Al-Khalid, Chinese Type 98 and Russian T-90.

Main Battle Tank Rolls On as a Dominant Battlefield and Market Force
 
 
(Source: Forecast International; issued March 1, 2006)
 
 
NEWTOWN, Conn. --- Despite the transformational nature of modern armed forces, the Forecast International Weapons Group is confident the main battle tank will remain an integral part of modern force structures throughout the coming 10-year forecast period. In its annual analysis “The World Market for Tanks,” the Forecast International Weapons Group projects that the international market will produce nearly 7,800 main battle tanks, worth in excess of $31.6 billion, through 2015. 

This year’s analysis notes the increasing, and largely hidden, impact of modernization and retrofit work on the market. According to Dean Lockwood, Forecast International Weapons Systems Analyst, “While generally transparent to this analysis of new-production tanks, increased modernization and retrofit is becoming a significant force on the international market.” 

Through its Challenger Lethality Improvement program (CLIP), the British Army now intends to maintain its Challenger 2 tanks in first-line service through 2035. In 2004, U.S. Department of Defense contract awards for the maintenance, RESET (repair of field/battle damage), and upgrade of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps M1 Abrams inventories were equivalent to 32.6 percent of the total value of all new-production main battle tanks rolling out that year onto the international market. In 2005, U.S. DoD contract awards supporting existing M1 Abrams tanks were equivalent to 21.3 percent of the total value of all new-production main battle tanks that year. 

The international market for main battle tanks continues to exhibit two distinct product tiers. The upper tier consists of the state-of-the-art designs with correspondingly high price tags (over $5 million). The expense associated with the modernization and retrofit of these high-end main battle tanks pales in comparison with the prospect of new tank procurement. Thus, new production of high-end tanks (AMX Leclerc, Ariete 2, Challenger 2, Karan, Leopard 2, M1A1 Abrams, and Merkava Mark 4) continues to decline, accounting for less than 13 percent of all production and worth about 17 percent of the market through the forecast period. 

The lower tier features cheaper, more widely available tanks (mostly designs of the former Soviet Union). In terms of sheer numbers, Lockwood believes that Pakistan’s Al-Khalid, the Type 98 of the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation’s T-90 will account for nearly 45 percent of all new tanks rolling out worldwide, worth about 40 percent of the market, through 2015. 

On the international market for main battle tanks, the days of U.S. and European domination over new production appear to be long gone. Nevertheless, the international market for main battle tanks remains a vibrant, dynamic environment. According to Lockwood, “As threat scenarios and force structures continue to evolve, the main battle tank rolls on as a significant force multiplier and the quintessential symbol of modern mobile warfare.” 


Forecast International, Inc. is a leading provider of Market Intelligence and Analysis in the areas of aerospace, defense, power systems and military electronics. Based in Newtown, Conn., USA, Forecast International specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market assessments utilized by strategic planners, marketing professionals, military organizations, and governments worldwide. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-98.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90.htm

 

[a_majoor]

West continually rebuilding old tanks (Leopards, Challengers, Abrams)
Very few western new builds (expensive, unproven and unnecesssary due to existing numbers of "upgradeable" tanks thus poor sales on LeClerc, Ariete, Karan, Merkava as well as new Leos, Challengers and Abrams)
Increasing sales in low end tanks like Pakistani Al-Khalid, Chinese Type 98 and Russian T-90.

Given the escalating prices of Generation 3.5 tanks, it is no surprise armies chose to husband their budgets by rebuilding already existing Generation 3 tanks like the Leopard 2, M-1 or Challenger. For third world armies looking to get into the mechanized warfare business in a big way, there is no possible source of modern Western Generation 3 or 3.5 tanks, certainly not in the numbers they would like (a thousand M-1A2 with the full digital suite? They will be ready for pick up in 2015....), so getting simple and inexpensive ex Soviet designs is the way to go.

Of course, I am still waiting for the CV 90120 as the CF tank...anyone.....anyone....Bueller?

 

[AmmoTech90]

A very capable gun that is being replaced by a rifled 120mm.  Same design as Leopard2/M1 but not sure on calibre length.  The project is going ahead, just a bit slowly.

Just looking at my old posts and spotted a brain fart...
The rifle gun on the Chally is being replaced by a smoothbore...sometime...eventually...maybe, not the other way around.

D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When you consider how cheap we could have bought Leo’s 2 for and how many times we could of, it makes you cry. Funny everyone says the tank is dead! Yet the US Infantry in Iraq love having them around.

The LAV’s are great, but they are no “Uberweapon” A mixed forces gives you far greater options than one designed to fight one type of war in one type of environment. The majority of the army can go light, but keep a nucleus of a heavy armoured force, with tracked Arty & Engineers and IFV’s

The CV-90’s are doing well in Africa

 

[3rd Horseman]

Colin,

   Did we not have the Leo2 in our country a few years ago so we could switch out the turret and send the hull on to another lucky country because we could not get the libs to buy them for free.

  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]

3rd Horseman, please validate your source. new MBT are not even on the defence procurement horizon.

 

[tomahawk6]

When you consider how cheap we could have bought Leo’s 2 for and how many times we could of, it makes you cry. Funny everyone says the tank is dead! Yet the US Infantry in Iraq love having them around.

The LAV’s are great, but they are no “Uberweapon” A mixed forces gives you far greater options than one designed to fight one type of war in one type of environment. The majority of the army can go light, but keep a nucleus of a heavy armoured force, with tracked Arty & Engineers and IFV’s

The CV-90’s are doing well in Africa

Didnt know there were Leo's in Iraq. I DO know that the infantry love the Abram's.

 

[Armymatters]

Didnt know there were Leo's in Iraq. I DO know that the infantry love the Abram's.

Australia operates the Leopard 1 in an engineering config, similar to Canada's Badger vehicle. Also, the Royal Marines operate the Hippo, which is based on Leopard 1 chassis.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Army Rick,

  Id love to validate it but it was just info I got from what I would call a very reliable source. Next time I eat dinner with him I will ask him again for more details. The casual conversation was about the Leo being refitted and brought back in full as it was supposed to be a few years ago. The source was political so I would assume he got it from the military.

Edit: Has anyone heard rumblings of this on the inside of the Armour halls?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

  Did we not have the Leo2 in our country a few years ago so we could switch out the turret and send the hull on to another lucky country because we could not get the libs to buy them for free.

This is not correct.  Our Leopard C1s (a version of the Leopard 1A4) were refitted with German surplus Leopard 1A2 (upgraded to A5) turrets to become the C2.  The A2 turrets are cast and date from the 1960s; however they have the full A5 sight and computer package and additional turret armour.  Some hulls with thin bottoms were removed from service.  The Leopard 2 is a different tank entirely and is not compatible with the Leopard 1.  Urban legend has us turning down surplus Leopard 2s (or "new Leopard 1A5s) offered by Germany some time ago, but I'm not sure how far that really went - and I was on the Army Equipment Board at the time.

Id love to validate it but it was just info I got from what I would call a very reliable source. Next time I eat dinner with him I will ask him again for more details. The casual conversation was about the Leo being refitted and brought back in full as it was sopposed to be a few years ago. The source was political so I would assume he got it from the military.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  The Leopard 1 upgrade proceeded (basically) as originally designed after new tanks were shot down (Baril hated tanks).  There's very little more - save addition of the "Kosovo" armour package that was abandoned - that could be done to the current vehicles.  You might be referring to the Leopard 2 urban legend mentioned above.  I am told that all direct fire systems procurement is "under review", so you can take that for what it's worth...

I do hope you're right, though!

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting if true, but at this point in time it would probably make far more sense (there's that word again!) to move ahead with a new project.

My picks, in order of ability/plausibility are as follows:

1. Pick up and refurbish Generation 3 tanks being cast off from other nations (i.e. Leopard 2, Challenger etc.) Plus side; they can be had quickly and are interoperable with our NATO allies. Minus side, they are not logistically compatible with anything else we have.

2. CV90120. Plus side; a very nice piece of kit, modern firepower and FSC suite, light weight and relatively easy to transport. Minus side; light weight also equals less protection, and should be purchased with a whole slew of other CV90 family vehicles for logistical support and interoperability issues inside the battlegroup.

3. Generation 3.5 tanks. This would include the Le Clerc, latest version of the M-1,  Merkava Mk-4 and the "Black Eagle" (very outside possibility, mentioned for completeness). These are the most modern machines out there and will last into the 2030's and beyond. There should be little on the modern battlefield they cannot deal with. Minus side; They are huge machines, come with an astronomical price tag and are not usually in series production so delivery will take a lot of time.

4. Do it yourself. Creating a Generation 4 machine either through massive revising of existing machines (CV90120++ or the German Puma) or building something from scratch. Plus side, there is no question of getting the machine YOU want. Minus side; Canadian industry is probably not able to do this in a timely or cost effective manner. The Indian ARJUN MK I is a sad story, the tank has taken over 26 years to develop and may never be fielded, a warning of what could go wrong if we try this.

 

[TCBF]

I imagine the fact that the MND was the 37th Commanding Officer of The Royal Canadian Dragoons and the CDS was their 43rd CO  is bound to encourage rumours of an inevitable  "Armoured Mafia"  ready to turn all of the MFRCs into Tank versus Tank Simulation Centers,  but the truth is less dramatic and it's business as usual.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If we're going heavy, I agree getting cast-off stuff from NATO allies certainly fits into our budget well.

If we're going light, I'd really like to see trials of the M-8 AGS before another dollar is spent on the MGS.


Matthew. 

 

[Armymatters]

If we're going heavy, I agree getting cast-off stuff from NATO allies certainly fits into our budget well.

If we're going light, I'd really like to see trials of the M-8 AGS before another dollar is spent on the MGS.


Matthew. 

If I remember correctly, the M8 AGS was canned.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If I remember correctly, the M8 AGS was canned.

I read over on Tank-Net.org earlier this week there was an update from BAE on its development....somebody cited Janes.


Matthew. 

 

[TCBF]

"If we're going light, I'd really like to see trials of the M-8 AGS before another dollar is spent on the MGS."

- Has the M8 AGS kept pace with the MGS?  Are all of the 'golly wow' technologies developed with the MGS transferable to the AGS?  A lot has happenned in two years.  Is it a moot point?  We may have crossed the Rubicon on this already.

 

[a_majoor]

I failed to mention the M-8, but as it is not in series production (and may never be) I will leave it on the shelf for now. The other reason for not mentioning it is it packs a 105mm cannon, while virtually everything out there on tracks will be firing a 120mm or 125mm smoothbore (Unless you decide to fight the British, who will hammer you with a 120mm rifle). Since we will be operating alongside NATO and Anglosphere allies who tend to use 120mm smoothbores, the sensible thing to do would be adopt a system carrying the same weapon.

This argument is mooted somewhat if we envision a large Canadian Cavalry Corps with some sort of 105mm armed LAV III, but even then, I would say the argument for tanks to be interoperable with other tanks is stronger than having two different vehicles with very similar capabilities.

 

[Mortar guy]

Arthur,

There is a 120mm version of the M8. It's called the Thunderplug or Thundermonkey or something like that. (Sorry, I'm short on time).

MG

 

[muskrat89]

The Thunderbolt    http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/lighttanks.htm