Australia tank replacement

[Jungle]

Aussie tank purchase
They are getting 108 (used) M1s for little more than our 66 strykers. No matter how I count the beans, it just doesn‘t add up...

 

[Franko]

It‘s the Liberals...it‘s not SUPPOSED to make sense.

I can hardly wait until the next election

Regards

 

[onecat]

here are some facts that make no sence to me.. maybe some here do the math and tell me how the CF is getting a goood deal with 66 strykers.

"From the Toronto Star
Military planners expect to approach Treasury Board this month with a $600 million purchase proposal as part of a co-ordinated plan to replace Canada‘s tanks.

The army hopes to tag onto a $4 billion American order for 2,100 of the vehicles, completing contract talks by year‘s end and taking first deliveries in 2006."


This the math I did.

The Strykers will cost 9,090,909.09 CDN each of the 66 the government wants to buy. Yet the if your do the simple math on the US side 4 billion divided by the 2100 their Strykers cost 190,476.19 each for 66 its 12,571428.56 US. How is this a good deal for Canada. Now this just simple math and I have no idea if I‘ve done this correctly. The US includes different Stryker types, but why are the one‘s the CF is buying so expenive. Buying M1‘s would be better, buying used Leo 2‘s would be even better.

 

[George Wallace]

Originally posted by radiohead:
[qb] here are some facts that make no sence to me.. maybe some here do the math and tell me how the CF is getting a goood deal with 66 strykers..... [/qb]

Whoa Horsie!

Maybe we‘d better stop calling this vehicle a Stryker before it gets too confusing. The 66 vehicles that the Cdn Gov‘t wants to replace the 128 Leo 1 C 2 tanks with is the MGS. It is one variant of the Stryker Family of vehicles. The US is buying the whole family, concentrating primarily on the APC version. The APC variant doesn‘t have a complicated gunnery system or surveillance suite as such and the costs would be drastically lower. Plus the fact that they are buying "bulk" would factor into costs also.

Unfortunately for us it is being called a replacement for the tank. That is not true. It is not designed to replace a tank. It can never fill the role of a tank. It‘s idea is a Second World War tool that was used to supplement the Combat troops with a heavy calibre direct fire support weapon. It can be used as an Assault Gun to stand off and fire on a target, or as a Tank Destroyer to lay in ambush for the Enemy. It does not have the mobility and armour to close with and destroy the Enemy in an attack. It only carrys 18 rounds, and requires approx 45 min to reload. (Too many other problems to go on and on describing in length in this quick posting.) To even state for simplicity‘s sake that it is a replacement for the tank was a grievious error.


GW

Dedicated to the Corps.

 

[Richie]

How long does the MGS really take to reload???

This brings me to something I‘ve been thinking about recently: i.e. that maybe the reason Canada‘s army is not getting new tanks is because our military is seen by the politicians as an increasingly integrated part of the American military. Our frigates are the only foreign ships that can be a part of an American carrier group, for example. Maybe the army is being groomed for the role of light infantry as part of a larger American military...dunno, just a civilian thinking out loud...

Richie

 

[Pieman]

Radiohead brings up a good point, some funny math happening.

With everything else going on with regards to funding in the government this past week, I am beginging to wonder how much of CF budget is pocketed or sifered into somthing else by our "leaders"?

Wonder if CF budget is availible for public so someone could check and see?

 

[McG]

The math is funny because all of our vehicles will be the mobile gun system while the majority of the US vehicles are infantry section carriers.

 

[onecat]

Hey Goerge. If you look at my post your will see that replacement, is from the Toronto Star. That is what they are calling it. I know its not a tank, its not even close. That‘s why I have problems with deal... it smells of kick backs and wasted cash. But then why would trust the liberals, this past week just proves they don‘t deserve to be in power.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The MGS still should be much cheaper then a used M1 whereas the envidence alludes otherwise.

 

[Franko]

No...the MGS is going for 9 million a pop whereas the Aussies are getting M1s for about 4million a pop.

Can‘t understand how they came up with the numbers anyway.....kickbacks perhapse?

Regards

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Originally posted by Franko:
[qb] No...the MGS is going for 9 million a pop whereas the Aussies are getting M1s for about 4million a pop.

Can‘t understand how they came up with the numbers anyway.....kickbacks perhapse?

Regards [/qb]

Thats what i am saying though...there is no way a wheeled gun systme should be more expensive then a used M1.

 

[Richie]

Instead of counting the beans, we should be asking ourselves if this is a good decision for Australia. The M1 which weighs in at over 60 tons cannot be transported by any aircraft or ships currently in the Australian inventory and would not be much use in Third World countries with crumbling bridges and roads (East Timor anyone?) Maybe the decision to buy the tanks has more to do with the US setting up a forward staging base in Australia.

Click here for an article on the proposed(?) base.

Just from what I read and hear about the War on Terror, it seems to me that light infantry, special operations forces, bankers and diplomats are going to win this war for us. Nation states no longer have a monopoly on warfare and the enemies we are facing will not likely be driving tanks. Time to rethink old strategies...

 

[Infanteer]

Just from what I read and hear about the War on Terror, it seems to me that light infantry, special operations forces, bankers and diplomats are going to win this war for us. Nation states no longer have a monopoly on warfare and the enemies we are facing will not likely be driving tanks. Time to rethink old strategies...

Hmm...we didn‘t win in Iraq with 20 ton LAV‘s. Australia has to find a replacement for its Leo‘s in order to be capable of fighting across the entire range of the spectrum of conflict, from humanitarian intervention to high intensity conventional warfare. Care to re-evaluate that statement?

 

[Jason Jarvis]

I posted a link to an article in an earlier thread --which I can‘t seem to find, sorry -- that mentioned that Australia was leaning towards the M1 so their troops could be flown to a U.S. staging base and hop in their pre-positioned M1s -- like in Kuwait, for example. They wouldn‘t have to transport their own M1s, as they would be kept at home and used primarily for training.

This sounds more than a little too cozy to the Yanks for my liking -- sorry Maj. Baker -- and makes me wonder why the Aussies would want to do this? The possibility of being used as surrogate troops to serve American interests is something I have a hard time believing Australians would support. But then again, they are an awfully long ways away, and all alone. . . .