Canada's purchase of the Leopard 2 MBT

[ironduke57]

Thx.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Lancaster]

Quote
The C2s won't be cascaded to any Canadian units (let alone Reserve units), unless I'm sadly misinformed.  The Leopard 1 ceases to be supported by the spares system and by KMW in 2012 and will rapidly become an orphan fleet

To help “Kirkhill” and “ironduke57” out, another reference, to supplying  parts to the Leopard 1 tank until 2012, see DND website quote:

“Furthermore, by 2012 there will no longer be logistics support and spare parts
for the turrets of Leopard 1s, resulting in complete obsolescence by 2015.”

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2252

 

[ironduke57]

Also Thx to you.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Kirkhill]

Also Thx to you.

Regards,
ironduke57

Same here Lancaster.

Cheers

 

[iceberg.lead]

  Good to see Canada is respectable again on the world stage.  2A6's are a big threat deterrent on the war
against terrorists.  Our soldiers will make them even fiercer!!

 

[McG]

I hope they are getting the AEV 3 Kodiak.

Despite the backgrounder mentioning AEV, bridgelayer and dozer variants, I've heard DLR say that the 100 tanks do not include any Engineer variants.

 

[Infanteer]

2A6's are a big threat deterrent on the war against terrorists.

Huh?

 

[KevinB]

Huh?

X2

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe he is thinking Taliban= terrorist?

 

[KevinB]

Maybe he is thinking Taliban= terrorist?

Well that's fine but it reads like - buying the tank is a deterrent to our actions.


Flip -- dude thats RTFO - rather put a flail on the C2 - and get multi use out of it.
Second it will take one or two hits and the EN know it a RC tank and not to blow it
These guys have a OODA loop too -- and they aint dumb (well some)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well that's fine but it reads like - buying the tank is a deterrent to our actions.

Well the media and the left are experts on all types of warfare, so you should forget everything you learned outside of an approved university course and listen to them. Of course they will be telling their advice by long distance..... ;D

 

[GAP]

Cost of new tanks to be double initial estimate
Updated Thu. May. 17 2007 10:43 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Canada's purchase and long-term support of 100 slightly used Leopard 2A6 battle tanks will be $1.3 billion -- roughly double the Conservative government's initial public estimate last month.

As he detailed a laundry list of military hardware the Conservative government plans to buy over the next few years, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor surprised the Commons by announcing there will be a 20-year, $650-million service contract attached to the tank deal.

"The capital acquistion is $650 million and the support for 20 years is about $650 million; about the same range," he said in reply to an opposition question during debate over Defence Department estimates.

In order to bolster Canada's fighting forces in Afghanistan, O'Connor announced on April 12 that the army was going to borrow 20 modern Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and purchase 100 slightly used tanks of the same variant from the Dutch.

But there was no mention at that time of a support contract, only the purchase of spare parts and cost of modifications.

"The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations," said a National Defence background paper released at the minister's Quebec City announcement.

Details of the proposed long-term maintenance program were not available Thursday night, but a spokeswoman for the minister, Isabelle Bouchard, confirmed the existence of the support contract.

Later, a department official, speaking on background, said the figure released Thursday by O'Connor was only a rough estimate and based on the upkeep costs associated the army's existing Leopard 1 tanks, all of which date from the 1970s.
More on link

 

[geo]

well.... consider that the Aussies purchase of 59 M1A1s is costing them 550million$
VS
Canada's purchase of 100 upgraded Leo2 A4s is costing us 650million$

Seen from this perspective, and getting boged down in details, I would say that we DID get a good deal.

 

[KevinB]

Well I think the Aussie's maint and support fee is inc in that number -- and they are M1A2's -- I think the "deals" are about the same.
  I think we'd have been better off with the M1A2's - which are nth exponentially more combat tested -- but I hear they would not fit in our hangars for them...
anyway I'm not a tanket - and not even in the CF anymore -- so my observations are pretty irrevlant.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well I think the Aussie's maint and support fee is inc in that number -- and they are M1A2's -- I think the "deals" are about the same.
  I think we'd have been better off with the M1A2's - which are nth exponentially more combat tested -- but I hear they would not fit in our hangars for them...
anyway I'm not a tanket - and not even in the CF anymore -- so my observations are pretty irrevlant.

Tanker or not, CF or not, your observations are far from irrelevant. 
The M1A2 SEP (the latest and greatest) is an OUTSTANDING tank, though the Leo 2A6 is superior in one area: firepower.  Its gun is 1.3 meters longer than the earlier leos and M1A1+ tanks (which all have the Rheinmattel L44 gun).  I think in terms of logisitcs as well (fuel, storage, what have you), we get a bit of a better deal, given that there is virtually no competitor for spare parts and the like in terms of combat users out there.
Both all variants of the M1A1+ and Leo 2A4+ are great tanks, and I don't think that we could have gone wrong with either choice.

 

[KevinB]

Well to show you how much I dont know -- I dont know why a longer barrel is good on a tank (I can think of added velocity and in theory accuracy - but I would have thought droop may be a negative -- plus manuverability decreased)

Anyway I'm damn glad the CF bought a real tank.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well to show you how much I dont know -- I dont know why a longer barrel is good on a tank (I can think of added velocity and in theory accuracy - but I would have thought droop may be a negative -- plus manuverability decreased)

Anyway I'm damn glad the CF bought a real tank.

Added velocity which equates into more KE at the target end and accuracy at longer ranges.  Manoeuverability is probably marginally decreased, I suppose, in certain situations.

To put this in a non-sports analogy.  It's like being in a bar.  You are on "the hunt".  There are two women, both BEAUTIFUL.  Both have huge guns, but one has slightly more in terms of "guns".  One is a Euro-Model, the other is a Southern Belle.  I guess it comes down to preference!  >

 

[George Wallace]

Well I think the Aussie's maint and support fee is inc in that number -- and they are M1A2's -- I think the "deals" are about the same.
  I think we'd have been better off with the M1A2's - which are nth exponentially more combat tested -- but I hear they would not fit in our hangars for them...
anyway I'm not a tanket - and not even in the CF anymore -- so my observations are pretty irrevlant.

A couple of quick points......on Barrel length, just think of it as a rifle.  The length of the barrel on a rifle has an affect on the velocity and trajectory of the round.  Same goes for tank barrels.

M1's and hangars.  It may not necessarily be that they don't fit into our hangars, although I have seen shortcuts taken in recent construction, whereby some smart person with no Tank experience has decided to save money by narrowing the Hangar doors to cut costs..... and in the end resulting in a whole new hangar having to be built.  Such is the way the Government conducts business........................but back to the M1's.  With their engines and the exhausts, we can not back them into the hangars that we have, as they would burn the paint off the vehicle behind them.  We would have to stagger them in the hangars, which means we would need twice the number of hangars for the same amount of tanks.

Does that all make sense?

 

[Long in the tooth]

This works out to about $10 Million/tank over the life cycle, not too bad when fighter Aircraft are passing $100 Million.  Will we be keeping all the Leo 1A4s and LAV IIIs?  If so, will 8CH be raised to full strength (good news for the black hatters)?  And if the armour ends up with so many bright and shiny toys, maybe the Infantry could get the TOW back?

 

[KevinB]

George (and Dave) roger.
  I was just curious as to the extra length -- most get into the law of diminishing returns, or requiring a different to get a gain from the added length.

Thx