+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 157

Thread: Canada Goes Tankless

  1. #136
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Country: Canada
    <sarcasm on..>

    What a joke, if they do not purchase these tanks, then things at the top level are even more backwards then i had even imagined.

    In 1998, the Liberals, backed by the Navy. Purchased 4 Upholder class deisel Subs from the Brits. It was said that it was a once in a lifetime deal. At something like 800 million for the 4 subs, at a glance it does seam to be a real deal.
    However, the British had those subs decomissioned partly because they wanted to go all nuclear, but also because of ongoing electrical problems. Basically they were lemons.

    So now today, the Navy still defends the purchase of the subs, even though at least two will be in dry dock for many years to come to be gutted and basically rebuilt. And the Chicoutimi, the flag ship of the Canadian Sub Fleet, caught fire and lost power in the Atlantic on her maiden voyage to Canada..

    Yet the CF is presented with a deal, for Top of the line, possibly the best MBT in service today, for a basement bargain deal and they reject it?!?!?

    My god...

    Sure OOE may have a point, that currently the CF is not structured to have more than 50-60 tanks. But think of the savings!

    I can sum it up like this..

    "I have a vintage 1965 car, it has cost me alot of time and money to keep the vehicle running, i have even gone so far as to stripping it down and rebuilt, so that it would last.
    However, I am presented with a 1998 vehicle, which is gently used and whose performance raiting is renouned.

    But i think ill keep my vintage vehicle, even though it costs me alot of money, it has sentimental value to me"

    <sarcasm off..>
    Last edited by Canmoore; 02 Nov 06, at 19:17.

  2. #137
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD15 View Post
    It would seem from news reports today that the purchase of used Leopard tanks was looked at and rejected during the summer and is only now being reported. It was nice to have the hopes up for a day and than dashed the next. I can only hope the offer is made again and the gov't sees the value and chooses to act.
    Hmm, perhaps they rejected this, because there was a plan to send them (leo's) into A-stan, and they didnt want to media to spin the issue around that we are putting our boys into harms way in vintage tanks, when there are newer ones to be had at a good price.

    Also, this is a Minority Government, so if the Opposition parties got wind that the Conservatives were approving a plan to buy tanks (which are only used in war, not peacekeeping) they would spin this to generate support from all the pro-peackeeping and anti-war people out there.

  3. #138
    Military Professional sappersgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Mar 06
    Location
    Latitude 38 Longitude 112
    Posts
    4,106
    Country: United States

    Cheap at the price

    $350 grand for a Leopard 2? It's a steal!

    One of my more interesting jobs was to tag along on evaluation missions to foreign militaries. WAAAy back then you could buy a NEW Type 59 for about $350k. New British L-7 105mm gun, Italian Ferranti, sights and fire control, french wiring harness, German comms, American diesel engine and air conditioning not quite doubled the price.

    There was at that time a really good market in buying used or derelict T-54s and T-62s (halftracks too) and upgrading them.

  4. #139
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    This is the report


    Defence Department nixes proposal to buy tanks from Germany and Switzerland

    Canadian Press

    Thursday, November 02, 2006

    OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian military recently considered but ultimately rejected buying slightly used tanks from the German and Swiss armies, a spokesman said Wednesday.

    A team of staff officers, who monitor the military surplus-equipment market, did talk to both European countries last June about purchasing little-used A-4 and A-5 versions of the Leopard-2 tank.

    "They were checking prices that were out there, but that staff check did not go any further," said Lieut. Adam Thomson.

    The decision not to proceed was made last summer mostly because military planners had not identified a need for the armoured vehicles, he said.

    "That's why they haven't considered it further," said Thomson.

    A new Leopard-2 tank goes for about US$6 million, but used ones can be had for US$350,000.

    Five of Canada's 42-tonne Leopard tanks have been sent to Afghanistan and another 10 are to arrive over the next month.

    The army is also sending two recovery vehicles used to retrieve disabled tanks, as well as two armoured engineering vehicles.

    They're part of the reinforcements ordered by the chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, in September after Taliban insurgents chose to stand and fight in the Panjwaii district, west of Kandahar.

    Instead of facing hit-and-run guerrilla tactics as they had for months, the Canadian soldiers found themselves in September fighting a deeply entrenched enemy in a conventional-style campaign.

    It was determined at that time to send tanks because of the added level of protection they would provide to infantry.

    Just a few months ago, the Canadian Forces considered going tank-free - retiring its stock of rough 50 Leopards and replacing them with a lighter Mobile Gun System called the Stryker.
    &#169; The Canadian Press 2006
    Chimo

  5. #140
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Country: Canada
    So do you think that they will reconsider this? I mean 350k!!

  6. #141
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Good God, Kid,

    Ease up.

    1) Our current LEO 1C2s will last us until 2015. We have not identified a need for immediate replacement

    2) Those LEO 2s can only get cheaper as time goes by.

    3) We don't know what's available by 2010.
    Chimo

  7. #142
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Good God, Kid,

    Ease up.

    1) Our current LEO 1C2s will last us until 2015. We have not identified a need for immediate replacement

    2) Those LEO 2s can only get cheaper as time goes by.

    3) We don't know what's available by 2010.
    ok...that makes sence..

    I just really hope that I get to drive one is all

  8. #143
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    I can understand his enthusiasm.

    At 350k, im thinking about trying to talk my old man into buying us one.

  9. #144
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    What I suspect is what we did with the LEO 1C1s. We'll send them over to Germany to upgaded to new chasis and a turret with a new gun and just renamed them to LEO C3s ... guess what kind of chasis and what kind of turret with what kind of gun.
    Chimo

  10. #145
    Senior Contributor BenRoethig's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 04
    Location
    Dubuque, Iowa, United States
    Posts
    1,458
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Good God, Kid,

    Ease up.

    1) Our current LEO 1C2s will last us until 2015. We have not identified a need for immediate replacement

    2) Those LEO 2s can only get cheaper as time goes by.

    3) We don't know what's available by 2010.
    No offense Colonel, but the Leo 1's have been obsolete for almost a decade and a half. The liberals could be back in power in four years. Get them now while the window is open.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

  11. #146
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post
    No offense Colonel, but the Leo 1's have been obsolete for almost a decade and a half. The liberals could be back in power in four years. Get them now while the window is open.
    Not for the arm'd recee role and we're in Afghanistan until at least 2009 - more like 2012 ... and as much you would like to think otherwise, we can't fight another war elsewhere.

    However, this being said, there's alot of bureaucrazy that must be got through 1st. The very fact that the tanks have been identified is the final nail in the coffin for the MGS. You need to redirect an entire Project Management Office (meaning you've got to fire the Colonel in charge at the moment) and replace with a whole new direction (ie, at least 15,000 pages of paper work - that's just the business case) and whole staff.

    Yes, I remember those days.

    Now, can you name me how many armies that we're likely to be enemies with that are better equipped than the T-72? I count two - Russia and China and in China's case, the LEO 1C2 can still take them on.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 03 Nov 06, at 04:07.
    Chimo

  12. #147
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post
    No offense Colonel, but the Leo 1's have been obsolete for almost a decade and a half. The liberals could be back in power in four years. Get them now while the window is open.
    The Leo1C2's aren't bad tanks at all simply because Canada will probably never need to engage in a first tier tank battle again. What Canada needs them for is for everything else that a tank does.

    Of course, at 350k a piece, those Leo2's are a total steal...

  13. #148
    Regular BFD15's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Oct 06
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    31
    sorry for another probably stupid question but.


    Looking at the Australian and Canadian militaries is like looking at a couple of twins. It would appear they both share the same kind of size, equipment for the most part and role in coalitions. They have their own strenghths and weakness, but for the most part are very comparible I think.
    My question, Why did Austalia see a need to upgrade to the Abrams MBT from a similar Leo variant than Canada? What need did they forsee that Canada does not have?
    Thanks

  14. #149
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,666
    Country: Canada
    I am a person who likes to be prepared. Because you can never know what may happen.

    Now I know that the colonel once threw the keyboard at me saying "what do you want to do? Prepare ourselves against the Martians? Get your head out of your comic books"

    But I really do believe in preparing for any future threaght to this country. No matter how unrealistic it may seem in todays world.

    Now I think that Canada, needs a MBT force. Sure it may seem laughable today, seeing as we are under the protective umbrealla of the Americans. But isnt relying on another country for the protection of your own, a bit of a bad strategy?

  15. #150
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD15 View Post
    sorry for another probably stupid question but.
    Well, my apologies for the late reply ... and the only stupid question is the unasked question.

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD15 View Post
    Looking at the Australian and Canadian militaries is like looking at a couple of twins. It would appear they both share the same kind of size, equipment for the most part and role in coalitions.
    Well, no. Canada has been historically a bigger force (not much more) because of the dual NATO and NORAD commitments. And we were a nuclear weapons force. Australia was never tasked with nuclear weapons responsibilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD15 View Post
    They have their own strenghths and weakness, but for the most part are very comparible I think.
    Generally yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD15 View Post
    My question, Why did Austalia see a need to upgrade to the Abrams MBT from a similar Leo variant than Canada? What need did they forsee that Canada does not have?
    Thanks
    Both countries decided to upgrade the LEO 1s at around the same time. Canada went for the MGS while Australia went for the M1. The main Canadian concern is to deliver the firepower to a theatre in need. The Australians I think just need to upgrade their tanks with deployment as a 2ndary concern.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Be Proud Canada
    By Amled in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 15 Jul 08,, 07:11
  2. U.S. had secret 1930 plan to invade Canada
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 28 Oct 06,, 22:12
  3. Unarmed and Defenseless in Canada
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 22 Jan 06,, 04:18
  4. MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER
    By Mr_Vaastu in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 20 May 05,, 06:36
  5. E.U. Dependence Theory: Blame Canada
    By Leader in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20 Jan 05,, 03:14

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts