Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

It's really about misuse, isn't it. There are numerous vehicles out there, including many in our inventory, that are useful as long as they are used for a purpose which they can handle.

I can think of a purpose for our TAPVs and even those of our Bisons and TLAVs which are still serviceable (and the non serviceable can be parts stocks). There are armies out there going to war with 50 year old kit.

IMHO, the problem is that we continue to under resource the equipment and maintenance of equipment side of the army house. All that can be justified and covered up in peacetime, but some day there will be a reconning and, unfortunately, the folks that got the army there will be long gone and won't be held accountable.

 

[GK .Dundas]

It's really about misuse, isn't it. There are numerous vehicles out there, including many in our inventory, that are useful as long as they are used for a purpose which they can handle.

I can think of a purpose for our TAPVs and even those of our Bisons and TLAVs which are still serviceable (and the non serviceable can be parts stocks). There are armies out there going to war with 50 year old kit.

IMHO, the problem is that we continue to under resource the equipment and maintenance of equipment side of the army house. All that can be justified and covered up in peacetime, but some day there will be a reconning and, unfortunately, the folks that got the army there will be long gone and won't be held accountable.

And I am very much afraid that the people who will be paying the price will be those who are now in a hot contact with an opponent.

 

[Kirkhill]

Eventually they because a purpose built armored vehicle.
I wonder why

I’ve traveled in a few MRAP’s. They are a COIN vehicle at best. They aren’t a fighting vehicle and no matter how the US Army tried to attempt making then into one, the role was a complete failure for the purpose they where often employed.
If they were thought of as an armored bus, for transport from Point A to Point B it wouldn’t have been a complete disaster. But they were used for patrol vehicles and trying to get out of one in a hurry to fight was next to impossible. They were also about as top heavy as a TAPV and an inordinate amount were rolled over (causing injuries and a few deaths due to the fact that if you dropped them into a water feature you where totally FUBAR).

Agreed. But sometimes you just need an armoured bus.

 

[KevinB]

Agreed. But sometimes you just need an armoured bus.

100%
But often you can get them if/when needed.

Purpose built AFV’s are often in short supply when shooting starts.

Getting back to the tank aspect. I think it’s extremely important that the CA have an abundance of tanks given they’re in no domestic manufacturing of them.
Frankly I’d rather see GDLS be able to spit out some Abrams X for Canada even if it’s 24 a year, as then there would be surge capability’s for if there was a large need.

 

[WLSC]

That was the argument surrounding the Sherman, was it the best tank that the US could make? No it was not, but the supply situation, the logistics, the cargo capacity of the ships and the load limit of the cranes, down to the size of the bridging in theatre and then it was the best tank for the job. Making one element perfect, but causing issues down the road because of it can be a problem. Sometimes "good enough" is the right choice. My only concern with these is that we will get the absolute minimum we need for peacetime and have no depth in wartime.

I’ll throw an idea I’m not a fan at first sight. Why not a mix fleet? There’s an opportunity to show case a good national piece of kit even if not perfect. Can one frame/vehicle type do it all, yes but at what cost. Not all units have the same needs. I’m sure there’s a place for it as much there’s a place for a more robust vehicle.

I just think that if it work well for real now ( I understand that the UA is using what we give them), what not use it and show case it in the proper role.

 

[KevinB]

I’ll throw an idea I’m not a fan at first sight. Why not a mix fleet? There’s an opportunity to show case a good national piece of kit even if not perfect. Can one frame/vehicle type do it all, yes but at what cost. Not all units have the same needs. I’m sure there’s a place for it as much there’s a place for a more robust vehicle.

I just think that if it work well for real now ( I understand that the UA is using what we give them), what not use it and show case it in the proper role.

Because in Canada you don’t even get enough of the correct equipment.
So opting for a compromise solution results in another TAPV debacle.

Canada currently has no need for a vehicle like that. The role is filled by the LAV Cargo thing.

Better to get a true IFV and more tanks.

 

[McG]

I just think that if it work well for real now ( I understand that the UA is using what we give them), what not use it and show case it in the proper role.

Ukraine is using much of what it is given out of necessity. You assume it is working well, but humans have cut off their own limbs when necessity comes banging on the door. I would not assume the fleets are “working well” just because they are being used and because Ukraine is not publishing statistics on reliability and availability while it is fighting a war.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Coming back to tanks, based on the timeline of procurement (not only bureaucracy wise, but the waiting time for new orders) it seems like the only real question in the near term is the scale/scope of the Tank Life Extension program, and what can we do with the result. If the plan is to bring the A4's to A4M CAN standard once the A6M's are finished, that would bring us to what, 74 deployable, world class tanks, with a lot less parts and maintenance issues. Does that support 2 squadrons + spares in Latvia for the sqn(-) deployment plus frequent flyovers?

Then the tank replacement project can look at having enough to pre-position/deploy a full regiment with enough back home to cover training/secondary deployments.

 

[GR66]

As much as I'd love to see us get new tanks ASAP, I think the best course of action is to just proceed with the life extension program to buy us time. Time to get our act together and figure out exactly what we want our Army to be able to do, how it needs to be structured and what exactly our equipment needs will be. Hopefully by that time the Abrams X will be an in production option/possible alternative to whatever the current Leopard offering is at the time.

Alternately, if Hanwha Ocean/Babcock actually do get the contract to build our new submarines part of the Industrial Offsets portion of that contract could be a Hanwha Defence factory in Canada to produce K2 Black Panther tanks (or whatever their latest version at that time is) as well as K9 Thunder SPGs and K21 Redback IFVs.

My preference is for commonality with the US for sake of logistics, but having domestic production of the entire suite of combat vehicles sure would be enticing.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The work to bring the current Leo2A4Ms to that standard to replace the A6Ms in Kandahar had to be done in Germany due to the required specialized machinery. Our A6Ms are undergoing R&O and there is a Leopard maintenance facility going into Edmonton. These efforts should improve serviceability.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The work to bring the current Leo2A4Ms to that standard to replace the A6Ms in Kandahar had to be done in Germany due to the required specialized machinery. Our A6Ms are undergoing R&O and there is a Leopard maintenance facility going into Edmonton. These efforts should improve serviceability.

Inferences:
-the A6M's are not being brought to the same standard as the A4M's technologically/electrically
-The A4's training tanks are going to remain A4's training tanks

Ignorant assessment of result
- the post A6M R&O combined A4M+A6M fleet would allow for the eFP contribution to be expanded to full sqn, maybe sqn(+) while still allowing for the school tanks, conversion training in Canada etc.
-hydraulic turret drives on the A4's and A6M's are going to continue to be a problem, leading to a potentially earlier retirement
-tank replacement project should begin now and hopefully start receiving delivery in 2030

Alternate ignorant assessment
- I misread the TLE summary, it hasn't started yet, current A6M R&O is something outside of that, and there will yet be a fully upgraded (but not completely common) Leo 2 fleet in Canada's future

 

[WLSC]

Because in Canada you don’t even get enough of the correct equipment.
So opting for a compromise solution results in another TAPV debacle.

Canada currently has no need for a vehicle like that. The role is filled by the LAV Cargo thing.

Better to get a true IFV and more tanks.

At first sight, it would be better than the TAPV for some roles. Then again, it's only first impressions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because in Canada you don’t even get enough of the correct equipment.
So opting for a compromise solution results in another TAPV debacle.

Canada currently has no need for a vehicle like that. The role is filled by the LAV Cargo thing.

Better to get a true IFV and more tanks.

Sadly they won't have the funds for that and there is not the support for Reserve units to run LAV's. The AD, Tanks (and hopefully artillery renewal) are going to suck up most of the funds for the army that manage to get past the RCN and RCAF stuff. Canada is facing a debt repayment problem that is going to hamper the next few governments and DND is the one that is going to suffer. The domestic armoured vehicles designs should be the one to replace the Milcot pickups, you can use the more advanced design to replace the armoured G-wagons. The main reason is that it will be a easier sell to have domestic production providing the vehicles and you can have a continuous production and replacement, rather than a one time production that will never see any expansion or long term support. We really need a NSS program for vehicles here, including 2-3 ton tactical trucks.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

2 Cats were on the move along the 417 eastbound, caught them on haulers just west of Ottawa around noon today.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The U.S. Army’s New $13 Million Combat Vehicle That’s ‘Not a Tank’

The U.S. Army spent more than $1 billion to build the M10 Booker, which was unveiled in June. The Wall Street Journal explains how the new combat vehicle differs from tanks like the Abrams and why it is filling a gap for infantry forces. Photo Illustration: Jacob Nelson

www.wsj.com

 

[ueo]

As much as I'd love to see us get new tanks ASAP, I think the best course of action is to just proceed with the life extension program to buy us time. Time to get our act together and figure out exactly what we want our Army to be able to do, how it needs to be structured and what exactly our equipment needs will be. Hopefully by that time the Abrams X will be an in production option/possible alternative to whatever the current Leopard offering is at the time.

Alternately, if Hanwha Ocean/Babcock actually do get the contract to build our new submarines part of the Industrial Offsets portion of that contract could be a Hanwha Defence factory in Canada to produce K2 Black Panther tanks (or whatever their latest version at that time is) as well as K9 Thunder SPGs and K21 Redback IFVs.

My preference is for commonality with the US for sake of logistics, but having domestic production of the entire suite of combat vehicles sure would be enticing.

Time you say, cripes we've been diddling with an overall definition of a realistic force definition and resources since about the end of Korea?

 

[suffolkowner]

As much as I'd love to see us get new tanks ASAP, I think the best course of action is to just proceed with the life extension program to buy us time. Time to get our act together and figure out exactly what we want our Army to be able to do, how it needs to be structured and what exactly our equipment needs will be. Hopefully by that time the Abrams X will be an in production option/possible alternative to whatever the current Leopard offering is at the time.

Alternately, if Hanwha Ocean/Babcock actually do get the contract to build our new submarines part of the Industrial Offsets portion of that contract could be a Hanwha Defence factory in Canada to produce K2 Black Panther tanks (or whatever their latest version at that time is) as well as K9 Thunder SPGs and K21 Redback IFVs.

My preference is for commonality with the US for sake of logistics, but having domestic production of the entire suite of combat vehicles sure would be enticing.

I cant see us ever buying enough to justify domestic production of any of those what are we going to have of

150 MBT hulls at most including ARV/AEV?
48 SPH's?
??? tracked IFV/AFV/APC?

plus its the commitment to the parts and spares supply

Abrams X intrigues me though not the least because European options are not clear

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I cant see us ever buying enough to justify domestic production of any of those what are we going to have of

150 MBT hulls at most including ARV/AEV?
48 SPH's?
??? tracked IFV/AFV/APC?

plus its the commitment to the parts and spares supply

Abrams X intrigues me though not the least because European options are not clear

If we went with the Korean equipment, we could team up with Poland or someone else and share production of certain items, based on who has the best existing or easy to acquire manufacturing capability. So perhaps hull castings done in Poland, but turrets cast here. Gun tubes Poland and FCS made here, etc, etc.

 

[GR66]

If we went with the Korean equipment, we could team up with Poland or someone else and share production of certain items, based on who has the best existing or easy to acquire manufacturing capability. So perhaps hull castings done in Poland, but turrets cast here. Gun tubes Poland and FCS made here, etc, etc.

A front line country like Poland might appreciate having an alternate source of replacement parts & vehicles out of the direct line of fire. If China & Russia team up then getting parts from Korea may be impossible.

 

[KevinB]

If we went with the Korean equipment, we could team up with Poland or someone else and share production of certain items, based on who has the best existing or easy to acquire manufacturing capability. So perhaps hull castings done in Poland, but turrets cast here. Gun tubes Poland and FCS made here, etc, etc.

Because Poland is just a hop skip and a Juno from Canada? Sorry that’s an asinine idea for a combat system.