Future uses of the Leopard: APC, AD, FIBUA tanks, etc (Idea Feasibility?)

[dodge01rt]

Has anyone else seen this and what do you think?Good, bad?
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm
Jim

 

[beaverpass]

Attached image shows what a Leopard looks like after modification by a Texas firm. The Germans donated this chassis to them for concept trials, and the company has since bought five Leo chassis from Canada for the same treatment.

It has a 5000 gal. foam tank, foam gun, dozer blade and crew of two - driver and foam-gunner.
They call it the Jumbo Fire Tank, and it has performed very well in real bush-fire situations in the USA

 

[ramrod]

i see your point.also, why doesn't the army keep the leo's and upupgrade them like those two prototypes they used in KFOR (or SFOR i can't remember)?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Because the Gov't said we couldn't and that's who we work for, whether we agree or not.

Go over to the Armour forum, there's plenty on the subject there.

 

[PJOsborne]

I'm going to miss the Leos greatly. Personally, i'm not a big fan of the MGS.. there are simply too many negative points to that vehicle system to mention. I'd have preferred to see somethinglike the LAV-105 instead. At least with a turret, there's more ammunition available for combat.. the MGS is hampered by the autoloader's 18 round magazine  :-X

 

[Franko]

I'm going to miss the Leos greatly.

Please clarify this statement.

Regards

 

[PJOsborne]

Please clarify this statement.

Regards

sorry. I've been an armchair tank buff since my grandad told me stories of his encounters with tank crews on shore leave during the war. aside from that, i just really like the look of the Leopard, and i think it's a sad chapter to close in the CF's history books. there's a rich tanker tradition 

 

[Franko]

TANKS! 

Regards

 

[Zipper]

As for heavy vehicles, I believe that current and near term technology will allow a "convergence" of roles. When Armoured and Infantry platforms can now fire rounds to engage targets from 8-13km away (ground launched "Hellfire" or LAHAT through tube missiles), and improved sensors, communications and command and control systems can give relevant target information to the shooters in real time, then composite units may well emerge. These would use the vehicle mounted systems to engage "hard" targets from direct fire to "light artillery" range, while carrying infantry soldiers to deal with "close" threats. An Achzarit with a remote weapons mount on the deck is a mental starting point, or you could think of the Merkava's ability to carry a section in the back (the Italian Centurio tank destroyer can also be configured to carry a "close support section" of four troops). This will be a nightmare for many traditionalists (Is the team Infantry or Armoured? If there are no dedicated "guns" what happens to the Artillery?), but many new options have to be explored.

Are you not making the case for "all arms" type units? The idea of Cavarly being bantered around here would fit this quite well.

Getting back to first principles, why would we want to convert a Leopard to a heavy APC? What role would it play? Do we want to do that role? If you can answer those questions and come up with what role do we need to do that requires such kit, and why it is so important we are able to do that role, then the case for a heavy APC and supporting arms is made.

So is someone suggesting we take the turret off and make them into modern day kangaroo's?

 

[McG]

So is someone suggesting we take the turret off and make them into modern day kangaroos?

Significantly more advanced than a Kangaroo.  Have a look at the ACHZARIT or BTR-T.

 

[Zipper]

Significantly more advanced than a Kangaroo.   Have a look at the ACHZARIT or BTR-T.

Seen. Just breaking it down to the simplest equation. (My mind can only deal with so much. ;D)

 

[jimmy742]

Straying out of my lane here so this may sound naive. I do have a question. Assuming the Gov does decide to acquire the A6M, could some of the existing upgraded C1s be re-roled or modified for other use? For example, could we not create our own affordable successor to the M109 or similar type SP platform using the chassis? Or perhaps another type of specialized vehicle ( AD, cargo, etc...) ? If not, why is that? Is part of the reason we are looking at replacing them because of maintenance issues with the C1 ? It would be a shame to have spent all that money updating them in order to possibly discard them within a year or so.



 

 

[Franko]

Our Leos have been in service with the CF since the late 70s.

It's considered an upgrade of sorts. Would you like to drive around in a car that's been repaired/rebuilt over and over again for that amount of years?

Probably not.

Besides the Leo C2 can and is doing a great job currently in Afghanistan given the operational surroundings....the gov't is just putting out feelers as it were.

I liken it to going window shopping and nothing more.

As for taking another weapons platform and gerry rigging it on the Leo chassis, why bother.

The best route is to go and buy a purpose built system, doing it any other way would be literally trial and error...wasting taxpayers money and time.

My 0.02 Duram worth.

Regards

 

[jimmy742]

I meant C2. Shows you how much I know. I guess they'll be kept on inventory as is then.

 

[George Wallace]

jimmy742

I have an old 8 Track boom box in the basement, can you do me a favour and upgrade it to be a CD/DVD player so that I can record some MP3's?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I wonder if they would consider donating the leopard C2s to the ANA?

 

[Franko]

I wonder if they would consider donating the leopard C2s to the ANA?

They have enough of a time keeping their T-54/55 fleet running, never mind something that requires more than some lock wire to keep rolling.

Regards

 

[jimmy742]

jimmy742

I have an old 8 Track boom box in the basement, can you do me a favour and upgrade it to be a CD/DVD player so that I can record some MP3's?

Point taken. So that would mean all the C2s go to the scrap heap if the A6 is acquired ?

 

[George Wallace]

They can still be used for training and maintaining 'Tank' skills. 

The Government may decide to 'drive them into the ground' and leave them behind as scrap.

They may be the first use of our new C-17's in their return to Canada.

There are many options on the table.

 

[McG]

So that would mean all the C2s go to the scrap heap if the A6 is acquired ?

We would still have leopard hulls in the engineers (AEV & AVLB).  There might be utility in converting some Leo C2 into Cbt Engr Veh along the lines of what the US used to have with the short barrel very large caliber demolition gun.  Transfer the mine pough & rollers with these to the CERs.