I'll believe it when I see it.
Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,961
- Points
- 1,210
Honestly, the road the 2%, we should really triple this order. Build a storage facility for the over stock so we have spares ready to go. Equip units properly.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 2,982
- Points
- 1,160
I see what you did there….
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,914
- Points
- 1,260
Do you propose building the warehousing and indoor parking before or after buying the large fleets of Log Stock equipment that will need somewhere to be preserved?
- Reaction score
- 2,982
- Points
- 1,160
Honestly, what did the government do with EVERYTHING that was spare and 30% of what wasn’t spare …
Attachments
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,910
- Points
- 1,160
I was thinking quadruple. And an open option to buy more on short notice.
Also, by the time this project finishes, the MSVS will be nearly 20 years old. Perhaps we should look at an equivalent 6x6 Zetros model. Fully standardized on one pattern.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,816
- Points
- 1,260
We need large amounts of stuff sitting collecting dust in case shit happens. Militaries cannot wait around after the ball has dropped.
That was a lot of key strokes to say, I agree.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,443
- Points
- 1,160
It will take the Bell 429. I am not sure what weight helicopter the flight deck could take, but likely up to the Bell 214.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,961
- Points
- 1,210
And? In some cases it's allowed for fleet renewal or planned renewal. C6, for example, budget pending the RCAC wants to order new leopards from the factory to replace the ones we donated. Giving obsolete A4s and getting new A7 or A8s sounds like a no brainer to me.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,475
- Points
- 1,160
Back for the 1970 Octoberfest we flew into Montreal from Shilo and were issued new 3/4 and 2 1/2 to trucks out of storage. They had 1952-1954 CFR numbers on them and maybe 20 miles on the odometers. Many developed seal leak problems over the next few weeks.
Long story short, you can store these vehicles safely outdoors. They do not need to be indoors. On the other hand they can't just be left unattended for over a decade. Some level of examination and maintenance is needed if they are to be instantly combat capable. My guess is that with more modern engines that becomes even more a necessity than for the old reliable kit we had back then.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 24,669
- Points
- 1,260
Except the big issue is maybe the Leo 2 isn't the best tank for Canada, then you throw good money after bad...
You really can't store vehicles outside for long - unless they are prepped for LTS and tarped, even then they need maintenance every 4-6 months.Back for the 1970 Octoberfest we flew into Montreal from Shilo and were issued new 3/4 and 2 1/2 to trucks out of storage. They had 1952-1954 CFR numbers on them and maybe 20 miles on the odometers. Many developed seal leak problems over the next few weeks.
Long story short, you can store these vehicles safely outdoors. They do not need to be indoors. On the other hand they can't just be left unattended for over a decade. Some level of examination and maintenance is needed if they are to be instantly combat capable. My guess is that with more modern engines that becomes even more a necessity than for the old reliable kit we had back then.
Since you need to conduct maintenance on them anyway, it is much easier for everyone to have them in a climate controlled facility - where they can be parked for time, then moved around to diagnostic and maintenance bays, then return to "ready parking"/
The unfortunate inclusion of ethanol in the fuels in North America means that fuel lines will never last as long as they once did, and I am sure other parts as well.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,475
- Points
- 1,160
They definitely need prepping for LTS. I have no idea what the proper maintenance cycle for a given vehicle is; perhaps that should be part of the SOR. While I agree that having them inside a climate controlled facility makes maintenance easier, my gut tells me that the CF won't assign maintainers nor a maintenance cycle to anything but the very limited numbers of vehicles assigned as immediate operational stock so whether a large number of "war stock" vehicles are inside or outside is immaterial. These vehicles are (or should be) built to a standard where they are capable of operating under extreme conditions, outdoor storage, once properly prepared, ought not to be a problem. Have the maintenance cycle(s) take place during April to October, when the weather is clement and vehicles do not need to be moved.
That was even an issue for my gas-powered RV and while draining the fuel tank and gas lines was a recommended practice during storage (especially from the water-based sludge in the tank issue) hardly anyone does it but most still get decades of trouble-free service. That said, exercising the engine and then draining the system should be part of an LTS maintenance cycle.
My preferred way of dealing with war-stocks is to regularly cycle them through units (whether RegF or ResF) so that vehicle wear and tear is balanced across the fleet and vehicles leaving a unit and returning to war stocks can be properly reconditioned. IMHO, this should be part of the maintenance requirement of the manufacturer or a dedicated factory-level maintenance unit. At some appropriate point, vehicles which can no longer be reconditioned in a cost-effective manner need to be removed from the cycle and replaced with an upgraded line of newly manufactured replacement vehicles which can be rotated in over time.
What's the best non-American alternative?
- Reaction score
- 1,884
- Points
- 960
That depends on your definition of best.
The Leopard has the advantage of being just as effective as the Abrams in almost every way (while being a little worse and a little better in some facets) and is Europe's main MBT. The problem with Leopard 2 is its basically at its EoL technologically, hence the announcement of Leo 3 or KF51 Panther to ultimately replace Leo 2. There's also German scalability issue for mass NATO wide orders. Basically, proven, effective and the Leo family already well integrated into the CAF, going all the way back to our Centurion replacement with the Leo 1.
K2 is technologically superior to the Leo, much lighter making them more maneouvreable both tactically and operationally and there's a good chance we could actually build them here, the Koreans are cool with that sort of thing as evidenced by Poland. The downside is that it's pretty limited in usage globally and we would have to integrate a brand new system at a time when both DLR and the RCAC are stretched to the absolute limits. The armour is also a bit less thick but honestly, tank warfare since the 60s has basically been first shot wins anyways unless there is massive tech overwatch like the Gulf War.
Good and bad on both sides.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 36,647
- Points
- 1,160
Which is why Canada will probably choose the Leclerc XLR, right?
Leclerc XLR - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 1,884
- Points
- 960
Knowing the luck of the Armoured Corps, we'll get 8 of these, 12 Leopard 2A7 and 30 LAV MGS to replace the Leo fleet lol.Which is why Canada will probably choose the Leclerc XLR, right?
Leclerc XLR - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,475
- Points
- 1,160
Since the onslaught of the shit show south of the border, I have become, more and more, an advocate for a straight Korea ticket for modernizing the army: K2, K9 and K21 families of tracked vehicles.
It's clear to me that one can't rely on the production facilities of any one foreign country and to rely on several countries for equipment that must be harmonized, is just plain foolish. The fact that S Korea will facilitate the setup of manufacturing in local countries is a big point for me as it's clear we need a solid manufacturing base in-house. Yes, there are pluses and minuses for competing vehicles, but at present, the lighter weight of the K2, the versatility of the K21 (there's even a 105mm DFSV version) and the L52 barrel on the K9 and its K10 ammo limber are enough to win me over.
While the S Korean family of armoured vehicles is a good choice, so is the existing LAV 6/ACSV line from GDLS in London. IMHO, and if I were king, we'd continue to expand the mech side of the army with those. I'd say a hybrid force of 3-4 brigades armoured, 3 brigades mech and every thing else light with appropriate CS/CSS to field and sustain up to one division.
It's clear to me that one can't rely on the production facilities of any one foreign country and to rely on several countries for equipment that must be harmonized, is just plain foolish. The fact that S Korea will facilitate the setup of manufacturing in local countries is a big point for me as it's clear we need a solid manufacturing base in-house. Yes, there are pluses and minuses for competing vehicles, but at present, the lighter weight of the K2, the versatility of the K21 (there's even a 105mm DFSV version) and the L52 barrel on the K9 and its K10 ammo limber are enough to win me over.
While the S Korean family of armoured vehicles is a good choice, so is the existing LAV 6/ACSV line from GDLS in London. IMHO, and if I were king, we'd continue to expand the mech side of the army with those. I'd say a hybrid force of 3-4 brigades armoured, 3 brigades mech and every thing else light with appropriate CS/CSS to field and sustain up to one division.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 24,669
- Points
- 1,260
I think the best two options are the KF-51 and the K2.
Both are lighter weight than the current Gen Western MBT's (which sit around 70t, and often above with now necessitated add on's.)
The KF-51 due to two aspects, the RM-Canada presence setup for the Leo2, and while RM and KNDS have separated ways on the future tanks, making Leo2 Support eventually more and more awkward, the RM-C could convert over to KF-51 and Canada offload the Leo2's to Ukraine. The KF-51 Panther also has a lot of buyers, so there will be European support for a deployed fleet.
The K2 is also attractive for 2 reasons, the fact the South Koreans seem willing to work with purchasing nations on domestic build programs, and the fact that Poland will be fielding a large number of K-2's for the foreseeable future meaning that European theatre support is possible.
Neither however is in a viable configuration to be made into an IFV (no big shock, only the Merkava design works for that, and for an Expeditionary Army it isn't a great design as it needs to be fairly close to a 3rd or 4th Line Facility to do work that a 1st or 2nd would do on a Western MBT)
I'm not concerned about some weight aspects like many other are for movement, the M1A2 Abrams is still a mobility monster even with the TUSK upgrade kit installed - but when you take a 73t tank, and add an APS, ERA, Slat Armor, EO/IO sensors for the APS (and other systems) you are pushing 80t, and more importantly are now wider and longer than ever envisioned. So while it can tool around the desert - it starts getting stuck on buildings, taking out vast swaths of forest etc when it tries to move around the European battlefield.
The key aspect to the new designs is they have additional power planned into them, and open architecture for upgrades - which the older tanks or other vehicles don't have.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,992
- Points
- 1,160
Not to worry, we've got plenty of bridging and gap crossing gear, right?And don't forget European bridges which no one is upgrading from 60T (or even 45T in Eastern Europe) to 80T.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,475
- Points
- 1,160
Only if we're following behind a US Reinforced Armored Division and if they don't tear them down first.
Similar threads
