Canadians to get Leopard 2s?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lonestar
The C-17 is the only plane out there that can meet CF's requirements(which also have to conform to NATO's. Hell, even Sweden is interested in the C-17. If the Russian planes are so ****-hot, why are they not being bought?)

Actually, NATO is using the Russian planes.


In March 2006, Nato made a deal to lease six Russian An-124 with the cost and use shared among NATO members who want in on the deal.

It's a very cost effective way of gaining heavy airlifters.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-nato.htm

As for the rest of the your comments, you seem to essentially argue that DND did ask around. My response is that if DND was looking to buy new tanks, and asking around, then they would have, and should have, told the Canadian public, and other countries would have publicly lobbied for the contract.

And again: Why do object to idea of holding an open tender to try to get the best possible deal?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Ausiies likely have some guys floating around in the Gulf as well.

Yeah they do.

In fact, they are likely to have more sailors in the Gulf because they have more crew-intensive ships(OHP's needing a larger crew than Halifax Frigates). And if they have any amphibs on station (if they have even one amphib on station they will have more sailors than two Canadian frigates)



Tingkai, those Russian airlifters are intended as an interim solution until the NATO-purchased C-17s come online. In fact, I saw an article about it(NATO purchased C-17s) just yesterday...

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
March 1, 2007

Troop Growth Spurs Pentagon To Reconsider C-17 Fleet Size


Pentagon planners will re-examine whether the Defense Department needs more C-17 cargo aircraft, rather than shutting down the production line, due to President Bush's call to grow the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told leading Senate defense appropriators Feb. 28.

"We will take a look at it based on the increased size of the force," England said.

England also said two unidentified NATO allies have stalled negotiations toward a joint purchase of four C-17s. Talks so far have resulted in agreement for just 3.5 airlifters, including one full C-17 to which the United States has committed to funding.

"I do have a level of confidence," England said in response to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. "We believe that we have a way ahead" on the NATO C-17s, he added, citing apparent talks on the issue earlier this week.

The DOD asked for $111 million for the alliance's C-17s. Testifying alongside England, Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said that a couple of non-NATO countries have expressed interest in C-17s. Sweden, for example, wants to "buy [flight] hours" under the purchasing consortium, according to the admiral.

Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the former top Senate defense appropriator and now the subcommittee's ranking Republican, reminded England and Giambastiani that it was he and Inouye who led the congressional reversal last year against the Pentagon's plan to halt C-17 acquisition. Stevens said with the planned end strength increase and another 60,000 overseas-based U.S. forces slated to return to the United States from Cold War positions, the DOD's strategy increasingly seems to depend on airlifters.

"The whole concept of our policy is rapid deployment by air," Stevens said.

England replied that at some point, C-17 acquisition has to be stopped to apply those funds to more modern equipment and competing priorities -- although the deputy secretary acknowledged that officials have no plans for a C-17 successor. With Congress last year calling for 10 more C-17s on top of the Pentagon's stated requirement of 183, as well as a program to upgrade the C-5 transport, the DOD has a "more than adequate" number of transporters, he maintained.

-- Michael Bruno

And again: Why do object to idea of holding an open tender to try to get the best possible deal?

I have never, ever, objected to a public open bid, if this was a for a new equipment buy. But, as stated in the very first article in the OP which I am now going to direct you to for the third ****ing time in the thread:

This lease/purchase surprised Canadian media but deployed Leopards are wearing out fast and it may be simpler/cheaper to replace than repair. In light of the German refusal to send troops to Kandahar, it galls to see Canadian defence dollars building up Angela Merkel’s treasury. Still, needs must and the deal means quick delivery, spares, maintenance software etc.

So, when it seems that the key here is a quick delivery it makes more sense to just ask around then hold an open bid.

Incidentally, you sound like someone who has never made a car purchase before. If I want to buy, say, a 3 year old used Civic for a replacement vehicle(because I have a civic now and a quick reference to Consumer Reports indicates that the 3 year old civic is just as good as my 10+ civic) I'm not going to hold an "open bid"...because, frankly, the potential profit isn't worth it for any car dealer.

What I am going to do is call the dealers and say "I'm interested in a 2004 Civic with these features and I want to buy one paying no more than between $500-1,000 over the Bluebook for it."

Guess what? Because the used car market is a buyers market I'm gonna win. Kinda like how the used MBT is the buyers market.

Granted, the price is always going to be higher because I insist on buying from a dealer, but eh.

I hope what I said makes sense, because it's early, I have a cold something fierce, and I think my head isn't screwed on right at the moment.

[Patroklos]

That also doesn't count the 400 or 500 sailors we've got in the gulf doing interdiction duty...

I have served with four Australian warships in the gulf, have seen only one Canadian warship there in two deployments (though there were other Canuks outside the gulf in the HOA and GOA. The Flag Officer embarked on my vessel and in charge of the NAG was an Australian one star with 30 staff, and most of the P-3s doing marine recon in all of 5th fleet were Australian.

[Kontiki]

Not that hard to look some of this stuff up, people. Australia currently has about 1450 total personnel in Iraq and the Gulf.

http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/default.htm

[Lonestar]

Incidentally, interesting following on article in this week's Defense News

European Firms To Fight Over Canadian Tanks
By DAVID PUGLIESE, VICTORIA, British Columbia

Two European defense consortiums are preparing to spar over modernization and long-term maintenance work under Canada’s plan to acquire as many as 100 Leopard 2 tanks.

The Canadian Forces is looking at leasing 20 Leopard A6Ms for immediate use in Afghanistan as well as purchasing another 80 Leopard 2s over the longer term. The military is considering acquiring the tanks from either the German or Dutch military.

Leopard manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Munich, which has already expressed interest in the potential project, is now facing competition from Oerlikon Contraves Canada, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec.

That company has teamed with parent firm Rheinmetall AG of Germany to present Canada’s Department of National Defence with a series of options to modernize the Leopard 2s. In addition, it is interested in long-term maintenance and support for the tanks if Canada decides to proceed with acquiring the vehicles.

“We have presented a shopping list to DND of what can be done,” said Jean-Claude Rollier, director of land defense systems for Oerlikon Contraves Canada.

“We have been asked by them for data on a variety of issues ranging from variants to ammunition to actual upgrades,” he added. “I cannot speak for DND, but I think from our information, we believe that the project is serious.”

Oerlikon Contraves Canada has worked with the Canadian Forces on engineering variants of the Leopard tank while its parent company, Rheinmetall, builds the fire control system and cannon on the Leopard 2, Rollier said.
He said upgrading the A6Ms for quick shipment to Afghanistan could be done within a few months of a decision being made to lease the vehicles. Modernization of the other Leopard 2s would likely take about two years, he added.

Larry Brownrigg, marketing and sales representative in Canada for Krauss-Maffei, said his company is in the best position to do modernization and service work on the Leopards, since it is the original manufacturer of the tank and has vast experience on similar projects.

“Krauss-Maffei has invested heavily in the upgrades,” Brownrigg said. “For the battle tanks, the company with the greatest expertise and the greatest depth of engineering is Krauss-Maffei.”

The firm has not yet determined its strategy on the potential Canadian contract since the military has yet to make clear what it needs, he said.

Brownrigg pointed out, however, that Krauss-Maffei already has maintenance personnel in Kandahar who are working on Dutch equipment, and those workers would be in a position to support any Canadian deployment of Leopard 2s to Afghanistan.

Canadian military officials have declined to say how much leasing and acquiring the Leopards would cost. Karen Johnstone, a spokesman for the Defence Department, said no decisions have been made on whether to move forward with the tank acquisition.

Last September, Canada sent to Afghanistan a small number of Leopard C2 tanks, an upgraded Canadian version of the Leopard 1. The Canadian Forces has asked the defense industry to come up with solutions to the problem of tank crews overheating in the sweltering heat of Afghanistan this summer. The Canadian Leopards do not have air conditioning or similar systems.

“Crew comfort in extreme temperatures — as well as increased personnel protection — are issues that have prompted the department to explore a number of options to address these challenges,” Johnstone said.

“Personnel protection on deployed operations is an overriding priority and an issue of constant scrutiny and evaluation,” she added. “The issue of cooling systems has significant urgency for the department as we approach the summer season in Afghanistan.”

The potential tank lease and purchase, as well as the heat issue for crews in Afghanistan, came up in the House of Commons Feb. 26 as New Democratic Party defense critic Dawn Black questioned the use of Leopards in Kandahar.

But Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor said both issues will be dealt with soon, although he did not provide details. “I am quite confident that in the next few months, we will have a solution.”

The Conservative government’s Canada First Defence Strategy recommends that Leopard tanks remain in the Canadian Forces’ inventory until at least 2016. The 40-page strategy document argues that tanks are necessary both for training and operations until a more suitable direct-fire platform can be acquired around 2018.

O’Connor said the copy of the strategy obtained by Defense News is a draft and the final version has yet to be released. •

So, it seems that the exact purchase source has not been set in stone and that the maintenance contract has not been awarded either.

Also:

The Canadian Leopards do not have air conditioning or similar systems.

Jesus Christ I bet that's hot.

[Asher]

Canadians are demonstrably tougher than other allied soldiers (see: WW1, WW2). No biggie.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Asher
Canadians are demonstrably tougher than other allied soldiers (see: WW1, WW2). No biggie.

Wonder what the train of thought was in not having AC though.

"We'll never fight in a warm climate."

"What if it's unseasonably warm?"

"Won't happen, we're just doing Northern Europe. No where else."

[Asher]

The train of thought was this:

Liberals in power --> lipservice to military

[Flubber]

Interesting to see some of the biggest complaints about this proposal debunked a bit,

I wonder will the conservative- hater be back to address this??

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Asher
Canadians are demonstrably tougher than other allied soldiers (see: WW1, WW2). No biggie.

[Asher]

With the exception of the boys from Edmonton.

GO OILERS!!!!

Edmonton -- the city where nobody likes to stay, even if you're getting paid $5+ million a year for it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber
Interesting to see some of the biggest complaints about this proposal debunked a bit,

Looking up an actual source would be too much work. Although I was thinking it should be done, laziness won out.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lonestar

So, it seems that the exact purchase source has not been set in stone and that the maintenance contract has not been awarded either.

From the very beginning, it's been said that the contract was just a rumor. If you read the link you initially posted, you would see that DND denied any deal was being made.

What appears to have happened is that the Conservatives sent up a trial ballon about getting tanks from Germany. Then they get flack for it and now they appear to be backtracking and looking around to see what is out there, or at least pretending to shop around.

And now companies are starting to express interest which is great. The more competition the better.

The Conservatives have been forced to do the right thing of searching around to see if they can find a better deal, or at least it seems that way. Although, the article does not provide any proof or attribution about the talks with the Netherlands.

(And didn't you scoff at the idea that the Netherlands might want to sell tanks).

As for your blatherings about open bids and searching for used cars, you seem to have a problem understanding a simple concept: which is don't take the first deal you see. That's all I'm saying. To use your analogy, if you're looking for a used car, it is a good idea to visit more than one dealership. I don't know about you, but when I buys cars, I shop around before making a deal.

The Conservatives are now shopping around, something they should have done in the first place.

What is still worrisome is that they haven't publicly admitted they are planning to spend billions of dollars. The public has a right to know.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Wonder what the train of thought was in not having AC though.

I wonder why Americans think that A/C is a vital necessity for soldiers.

For years, Canadian troops would do training in the states and laugh at how the Americans had to have heated or air con tents and bowling alleys.

[Asher]

The Conservatives are now shopping around, something they should have done in the first place.

What evidence do you have that they never shopped around at all? Another Liberal-fueled political "rumour"?

What is still worrisome is that they haven't publicly admitted they are planning to spend billions of dollars. The public has a right to know.

Why should they publicly discuss something that's still under negotiation?

Tingkai, your complaints are beyond bizarre. They all come back to you having an ax to grind with the conservatives, not arguments in the best interests of the country.