Author Topic: New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?  (Read 313571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Have Computer Problem

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276


I really wish we could have afforded the TED though.  (turret electric drive)  Magic!

Didn't we? I was sure that our tanks had TED.

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 4,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 922
  • Retired WO
Didn't we? I was sure that our tanks had TED.

No, I couldn't convince them....it would have cost less than $200K per tank to install, and we proved (with Norwegian help) that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!

"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
"that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!"

And I found it a VERY unpleasent experience - in the C1 - when the pump block or whatever blows and sprays boiling hot 'Cherry Juice' all over the turret crew.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
No, I couldn't convince them....it would have cost less than $200K per tank to install, and we proved (with Norwegian help) that the cost would have been more than made up in two years.  Our current hydraulic system is very expensive to keep operational!



Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
"Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!"

- Gotta look at the big picture here.  Maybe the TED would have been serviced in Germany, and the Hydraulics in Canada.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
"Typical of the federal government: Spend less now, spend more later fixing the problem plus the various headaches from the problem!"

- Gotta look at the big picture here.  Maybe the TED would have been serviced in Germany, and the Hydraulics in Canada.

Tom

I don't know, electric drives are fundamentally more reliable and easier to fix than hydraulics. I have fixed systems using hydraulics and electric systems in the past (I have some training in engineering and repairs), and have found electric systems to be easier to fix when damaged, and easier to service.

Offline Have Computer Problem

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276


In short, I am seeing that one nation is getting shafted defense wise, and the other is pretty well off, in terms of equipment. Guess which one? And that nation can fix that by spending some money on its forces, especially for a proper tank.

Instead of buying them brand new, we should buy them used and upgrade them. Switzerland is offering for sale 150 leo 2A4s (enough to equip 4 regiments) and upgrading the rest of their fleet like that:
-A state-of-the-art command and control system integrated
-The electrical turret drive
- By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised.
-The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.

I you want to see some pics: http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87532

I think we sould use the Swiss upgrade as a model for our upgrade:
-Fit the L50 light gun (mabie they could make us a small deal)
-Complete up-armor (by the same Canadian company that uparmoured our 5 SFOR Leos)
-Fit the KBCM defensive aid suite (including GALIX)
-Replace the existing commander sight with the LEMUR SW armoured commander sight (includes thermal and day sight and laser range finder) fitted with a 25 mm cannon (to allow the tank to engage enemy targets in a 3D environement)
-Replace the existing engine with the Euro Pwr Pack 1500 hp engine so more fuel can be carried.
-Fit TED, new suspension and new tracks.



 

Offline Have Computer Problem

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276

5. Moving our equipment overseas is a issue that has been identified within the CF and plans are in place to address them. The CF ALSC Project is one of those projects, but there are doubts about the planned ship's ability to do everything it asks for. As the Americans have found, a Roll On, Roll Off platform is more essential than a LPD. Priority should therefore go to a proper RO/RO ship than a LPD. Three ships are more than sufficient in the 20,000 gross ton range. Such ships can be acquired from civilian sources, as these ships do not need to be military spec vessels as they are meant to work behind the front lines. A example of such a ship is the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel.


Need 3 RO/RO vessels? Buy the Pacificats: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Need 3 RO/RO vessels? Buy the Pacificats: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm


Those ships are no longer aviable. The current owners are currently planning to use them for a ferry service out on the West Coast. Also, the ships are highly undesirable due to their design. Design faults in service with BC Ferries are as follows:

- High fuel consumption. The four 8,375 brake horsepower (6.2 MW) engines driving waterjets required an inordinate amount of diesel fuel and to be used at 90% power for cruise speed thus prone to break down. This is largely due to BC Ferries' insistance on using diesel engines rather than the more efficient gas turbines that were originally planned.
- Due to an unusually wet and windy winter, there was a higher than normal amount of flotsam in the waters along the route, some of which was sucked into impellers for the ferries' engines causing breakdowns, and sailing cancellations.
- When operated at full speed, the Pacificat fleet created a wake which was reported to have damaged waterfront wharves and property in coastal areas near the 2 terminals. This required that the ferries reduce speed in certain areas, and alter course in others. Thus the speed advantage was reduced.
- International fast ferry standards do not permit anybody to stay on the car deck. This meant all passengers had to move up to the passenger deck. This was a change for some local residents who were used to sleeping away the 95 minute voyage in their cars.
- The air on vehicle decks became uncomfortably warm, either from the heat of the vessel engines or lack of air circulation. This made some people wary of bringing pets aboard the Fastcats, however, the ferries had kennels at the bow and stern of the vehicle decks which increased air circulation thus providing a cooler environment.
- There was little outside deck space for passengers. The existing ferries had large decks and it was common for passengers to spend the entire sailing circling the decks of the ship, or sunbathing on the lifejacket containers.
- The design of the ferry did not allow trucks or other heavy vehicles to be loaded on the ship. Only two buses were allowed to be on the ferries at a time.
- The ships had a more modern, European style interior which was perceived by the locals as being cramped compared to the existing ferries.
- Loading took longer than the older ferries due to balancing issues. This further negated the ships superior speed.
- The design of the ferries prevent the ship from sailing in extremely rough weather. The ships are too narrow to be stable on the open oceans during rough weather.

Of those issues, fuel consumption, stability and load restrictions are the key thing. The ferries are unsuitable for a military transport.  That is why I recommend ordering the Kyokuyo Shipyards A-5767 RO/RO vessel. It's a bigger, ocean-going ship that can do more than the Fastcats, and do it better. The service speed of 20 knots is plenty fast enough, especially when tanks and other heavy equipment can be carried.
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf


Edit: And can the moderators split the parts regarding sealift into another thread? It is taking over this thread on tanks, and sealift warrants a entirely different thread to debate about.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2006, 18:56:51 by Armymatters »

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Instead of buying them brand new, we should buy them used and upgrade them. Switzerland is offering for sale 150 leo 2A4s (enough to equip 4 regiments) and upgrading the rest of their fleet like that:
-A state-of-the-art command and control system integrated
-The electrical turret drive
- By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised.
-The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.

I you want to see some pics: http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87532

I think we sould use the Swiss upgrade as a model for our upgrade:
-Fit the L50 light gun (mabie they could make us a small deal)
-Complete up-armor (by the same Canadian company that uparmoured our 5 SFOR Leos)
-Fit the KBCM defensive aid suite (including GALIX)
-Replace the existing commander sight with the LEMUR SW armoured commander sight (includes thermal and day sight and laser range finder) fitted with a 25 mm cannon (to allow the tank to engage enemy targets in a 3D environement)
-Replace the existing engine with the Euro Pwr Pack 1500 hp engine so more fuel can be carried.
-Fit TED, new suspension and new tracks.


I suppose we can buy the hulls (most Leopard 2 hulls after batch 4 are the same), and buy new turrets of the A5 or A6 standard. The A5 standard introduced a new turret that had thicker armour, and was more ballistically shaped (from flat slabs to wedge-shaped). Changes also include the vehicle commander's sight was moved to new position behind his hatch, and turret control went all-electric. Future upgradeability provisions were also made to the tank, so it can now take a 140mm gun among other things. The A6 mainly offered an upgraded gun (to L55 gun). But that is a radical change, and perhaps the Germans can sell us some of their A5's instead.
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a5.htm
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/leopard2a4.htm

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 424,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,335
  • Crewman
I imagine the people who are doing the "Cost Accounting" in Supply and Services would have a "Field Day" with you.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
"http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf

Edit:  Got it now.  Thanks.  Interesting.

Tom
« Last Edit: January 26, 2006, 20:30:18 by TCBF »
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
"http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/pdfs/a5767.pdf
Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The file is either corrupt or the Player does not support the format you are trying to play."

Tom

Adobe PDF file...
Or the link that links to the PDF:
http://www.kyokuyoshipyard.com/en/06vsls/roro.html

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
As was noted, the issue of how these things are supposed to get where they are going looms very large in the big picture. Any ship will have the loading and balancing issues the Pacificats did, on a greater or lesser scale. Since the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variations, you need a very well engineered ship to deal with these issues. Each time one trundles aboard or disembarks, you have 70 tonnes mass shifting around in the ship. (since they will come with tank transporters, HEMMET type fuel tankers, MRT's etc., plus the rest of the combat team, you can start to see the scale of the problem).

Simply making the ship REAL LARGE to minimize the ratio between the cargo mass to the ship mass misses the point; the ship becomes a huge logistical burden in its own right, a giant target near enemy shores and will be difficult to dock or whatever, especially in unimproved harbours if we are considering a "robust" PSO, and very much so against an enemy who is actively opposing us. Smaller ships need active measures to deal with weight and balance issues, ballast tanks, pumps and valves, external stabilizers etc., all which add to the cost of the ship.

While nothing is impossible, given the smaller funding and resource envelope we will be working with under almost any imaginable condition it would be wise to carefully consider how these factors interlink. A LAV based combat team or battlegroup is relatively easy to move, has a small logistics tail and can move quickly in theater under its own power. It doesn't have the muscle for direct assaults, but the smart commander tries to avoid this anyway (read your Sun Tsu). A medium combat team/battlegroup based on CV 90 or equivalent vehicles has a bigger logistics train and trades some strategic and operational mobility for enhanced firepower and protection. A heavy force in Generation three tanks and IFVs is the inverse of the LAV based team, heavy, relatively immobile without supplementary transportation but packing incredible firepower and protection.

Finding or building ships and planes to transport the team/battlegroup becomes easier if you are using light vehicles with small logistics slices, and progressively more difficult/expensive as you work your way up the chain. Calculations based on the notional “11Canadian Infantry Brigade” (11 CIB) use a daily consumption figure of 106 kilograms per man . At this rate of consumption, a 1200 man battle group would need 127 tonnes of consumables a day, requiring a fleet of at least 12 heavy cargo trucks to support it.  Bigger and heavier vehicles drive this figure up rapidly (and all those trucks need fuel as well....).

Trading all these factors in my own mind has led to the conclusion that we really need to evolve towards the CV-90120 based combat team or equivalent solution. This provides a reasonable balance between mobility, protection and firepower, give us strategic and operational mobility and provides the commander with a rapier to wield in battle, rather than a stiletto (LAV combat team) or a two handed broadsword (heavy combat team).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
As was noted, the issue of how these things are supposed to get where they are going looms very large in the big picture. Any ship will have the loading and balancing issues the Pacificats did, on a greater or lesser scale. Since the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variations, you need a very well engineered ship to deal with these issues. Each time one trundles aboard or disembarks, you have 70 tonnes mass shifting around in the ship. (since they will come with tank transporters, HEMMET type fuel tankers, MRT's etc., plus the rest of the combat team, you can start to see the scale of the problem).

Simply making the ship REAL LARGE to minimize the ratio between the cargo mass to the ship mass misses the point; the ship becomes a huge logistical burden in its own right, a giant target near enemy shores and will be difficult to dock or whatever, especially in unimproved harbours if we are considering a "robust" PSO, and very much so against an enemy who is actively opposing us. Smaller ships need active measures to deal with weight and balance issues, ballast tanks, pumps and valves, external stabilizers etc., all which add to the cost of the ship.

While nothing is impossible, given the smaller funding and resource envelope we will be working with under almost any imaginable condition it would be wise to carefully consider how these factors interlink. A LAV based combat team or battlegroup is relatively easy to move, has a small logistics tail and can move quickly in theater under its own power. It doesn't have the muscle for direct assaults, but the smart commander tries to avoid this anyway (read your Sun Tsu). A medium combat team/battlegroup based on CV 90 or equivalent vehicles has a bigger logistics train and trades some strategic and operational mobility for enhanced firepower and protection. A heavy force in Generation three tanks and IFVs is the inverse of the LAV based team, heavy, relatively immobile without supplementary transportation but packing incredible firepower and protection.

Finding or building ships and planes to transport the team/battlegroup becomes easier if you are using light vehicles with small logistics slices, and progressively more difficult/expensive as you work your way up the chain. Calculations based on the notional “11Canadian Infantry Brigade” (11 CIB) use a daily consumption figure of 106 kilograms per man . At this rate of consumption, a 1200 man battle group would need 127 tonnes of consumables a day, requiring a fleet of at least 12 heavy cargo trucks to support it.  Bigger and heavier vehicles drive this figure up rapidly (and all those trucks need fuel as well....).

Trading all these factors in my own mind has led to the conclusion that we really need to evolve towards the CV-90120 based combat team or equivalent solution. This provides a reasonable balance between mobility, protection and firepower, give us strategic and operational mobility and provides the commander with a rapier to wield in battle, rather than a stiletto (LAV combat team) or a two handed broadsword (heavy combat team).

Perhaps the Norsky class RO/RO carrier can do the trick?
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/norsky/
Quote
Norsky has been designed to provide flexibility and maximum freight capacity, both for its current operator and any future deployment. Reflecting this, the vessel has exceptionally high deckroom on the main deck level, enabling P&O North Sea Ferries to optimise its double-stack ro-ro container transportation method. Clearance on the main deck is 7m.

Deck scantlings and the vessel’s general sturdiness reflect the provisions made for a lifetime of transporting industrial exports in Northern Europe. The vessel has also been built to Finnish-Swedish 1A ice class requirements, and has received the relevant notation from classification society Lloyd's Register.

Norsky contains the equivalent of 2,630 linear metres on three decks, corresponding to a full load of 210 trailers. Norsky features a split stern ramp and has dispensed with the mezzanine deck sections seen in earlier ships. Cargo access is provided by a MacGregor designed system based on twin, 16m long axial stern ramp/doors at main deck level. The wider starboard ramp caters for traffic to the main and tanktop levels, while the narrower port ramp feeds freight to a fixed ramp leading up to the weather deck. Transfers to the lower hold are by way of a ramp leading down from the aft part of the main deck.

Norsky has a deck load rating for 120t on 40ft mafi-type trailers at main deck level, and has the ability to transport 100t loads in the lower hold, with a headroom of 5m.

Access to the upper deck level via the 7% gradient ramp on the port side imposes a 5m headroom limitation. On the upper deck, maximum load is limited to 55t for trailers, but the design of the area is also conducive to lo-lo working of container stacks up to 60t. Freight stowed on the weatherdeck gains a large measure of protection from the seas by way of the forward superstructure and also the raised bulwarks. The latter meet the height requirements of the chemical industry.

The vessel has a fully Dutch crew of 14 and, in addition to crew quarters, has six two-berth cabins for commercial drivers. Given the shortness of her current trading pattern, these are not likely to be used often under the current charter.

It's a ferry yes, but it is a big North Sea ferry. And the North Sea is known to be one of the roughest seas in the world, besides the Atlantic Ocean. Definetely seaworthy, and big enough to boot.

Offline HDE

  • Member
  • ****
  • 515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 195
I believe the Israeli Merkava has some capability to carry a few at the back, although I'm not sure of the number.

Offline big bad john (John Hill)

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,681
  • I am a poser
The Merkava Mk4 can carry 8 Troops.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
The Merkava Mk4 can carry 8 Troops.

However, that requires that some ammunition racks be removed to make room for them. The rear door of the Merkava is normally used for the crew to escape in a emergency.

Offline Have Computer Problem

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
the Leopard 2 comes in at about 70,000 kg in its latest (2A5 or 2A6) variant

The Leo 2 comes in at about 60 000 kg in its latest variants

A mixed fleet of LAVs and Leo 2 mbt/other variants would not be such a big logistical problem.
The French are doing like that with VAB/VBCI and Leclerc. The USMC is an expeditionary fighting force and they operate 70 T mbts and LAVs.

Offline Steel Horse

  • Member
  • ****
  • 500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 104
I have been reading a bit on here and some people have been saying that Stephen Harper did not have anything direct concerning new tanks.
I found this on CTV's website and thought some of you might be interested by it.

Quote
The larger plan is to recruit another 15,000 soldiers and buy new tanks and helicopter-carrying warships.l

Maybe it is just wishful election talk though!

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
For the short term, Prime Minister Harper needs to concentrate on the structural deficits in government accountability, finances, law enforcement and tax structures. So I will make a confident prediction; no tanks or programs for the next three years. (I could be wrong and hope so, but ....).

Given the long lead times for government to get around to this and then the actual procurement process; we might start thinking along the lines of "Future Armour" http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,28961.0.html. The US Army will be into adopting the FCS by that point in time, and dinosaur like 60-70 tonne tanks will be out of favor to support strategic and operational mobility. (The arguments FOR these tanks will be overbalanced by the arguments for a lighter and mor nimble force IMO).

For my money (and given the discussion in this and other threads) I would look carefully at a CV 90120 derivative, probably with a low profile Wegmann turret, autoloader and the FCS and electronics required to fire both "dumb" and "smart" rounds.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
I just got word that the Brits are continuing to downsizing their Challenger 2 squadrons. They are apparently reducing their number of tanks by 100 or so tanks. Perhaps we can pick up those tanks that the Brits are planning to retire to storage. This may be a good decent opportunity to get tanks on the cheap.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 424,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,335
  • Crewman
Having worked on Centurians, as have a few others on this site, I would not go with a secondhand British Tank.  I wouldn't even entertain the idea of a brand spanking new British Tank.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Having worked on Centurians, as have a few others on this site, I would not go with a secondhand British Tank.  I wouldn't even entertain the idea of a brand spanking new British Tank.

Can you explain why? Thanks.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
There was once a high speed jet interceptor called the Lightning.  It was built by a company called English Electric.  That company is now called BAC.  Why?  Because one should NEVER use the words "English" and "Electric" in the same grid square.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")