Canadians to get Leopard 2s?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by laurentius
I thought modern leopard2 2A5 mbt were far superior tanks to abrams or merkava....

No way to be sure, as it's never been in combat

[laurentius]

Perhaps the Canadians will be so nice as to do some field tests for us in Afghanistan

[Lonestar]

But they won't have battle other tanks, so still a no-go

[laurentius]

at least his would kick some ass

http://www.panzerbaer.de/workshop/wdieb_mod_87-a.htm

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lonestar
So, in your mind, it's completely insane for the government to go "we know what we want, we know where to get it...let's do it!"?

Tingkai is a big NDPer. If he had his way, as many GePap-esque bureaucrats as possible would have to rubberstamp any and all decisions. Maximal government payroll with minimal societal benefit is key.

[notyoueither]

I move that Lonestar receive honourary status as an Albertan.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't Texas and Alberta already offer reciprocal citizenship?

[Kuciwalker]

Sadly, I don't believe Alberta and Virginia do. Or am I secretly Canadian?

[Drake Tungsten]

Albertans aren't real Canadians.

[Kuciwalker]

[Tingkai]

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

It's a basic concept, one that the Harper and the Conservatives have problems grasping. But Harper is from Alberta ... Five will get you ten that he'll get hosed on this deal just like on the C-17 contract because there's a sucker born every minute, and most of them are Conservatives.

It is simply common sense to ask for bids when spending billions of dollars. While the German deal may be the best one available, we won't know unless there is an open tender.

Maybe the Swiss have decided they really don't need 350 tanks. According to Wiki, the Dutch are trying to sell some of their Leopard 2s.

And let's not forget the Challenger. The Brits are putting 100 Challenger 2s into storage. Maybe they want to sell them.

You claim that the U.S. doesn't have any Abrams to spare, but you have no proof, although you did note that Australia bought M1A1s.

You claim that the Abrams costs more than the Leopard 2, but it is possible the U.S. would give a good deal on some used M1A1s to help its ally fight in Afghanistan. Again, we won't know unless we ask.

You claim that the Abrams is overkill, compared to the Leopard 2, even though they're both MBTs. Yet, the Aussies decided to get the M1A1. Are you saying the Aussies made a mistake?

Again, Canada needs to ask around before spending billions of dollars.

For proof of what happens when we don't shop around just look at the C-17 contract.

Harper's government set tender requirements that ruled out every plane, except the C-17. When the Russians came to Canada to pitch their aircraft, the Conservatives wouldn't even meet with them.

Then the Conservatives tried to negotiate with Boeing, who knew they were the only company in the running. No surprised that the Conservatives got hosed, big time, while Boeing laughed about the chumps all the way to the bank.

We ended up paying $385 million for planes the U.S. bought for $241 million.

We could have bought new Il-76MFs for about $55 million a piece. In other words, about seven Il-76MFs for the price of one C-17.

At the very least, we should have told Boeing we were considering the Il-76s to force Boeing to give a competitive price.

As for certification, it's a red herring. We could have created an military exemption to Transport Canada rules, just as military pilots do not have Transport Canada pilot licences.

It's bad enough that the Conservatives screwed the taxpayer with the C-17 contract. To do it again would simply prove what we already know: the Conservative are fools.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lonestar
But they won't have battle other tanks, so still a no-go

Yes and no-- True uses of tanks in an Afghan mission doesn't tell you how a tank compares head-to-head with other tanks. BUT it is valid to see how tanks do against guerilla forces. There may be tanks that do better against the weaponry and tactics available to that type of opposition

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


It's a basic concept, one that the Harper and the Conservatives have problems grasping. But Harper is from Alberta ... Five will get you ten that he'll get hosed on this deal just like on the C-17 contract because there's a sucker born every minute, and most of them are Conservatives.

Hmmm-- given the events of Adscam, how do you characterize the Liberals ? Criminals? Con Artists? Thieves?

Oh and for the record, I support seeking bids on government procurement. There can be exceptions where sole-sourcing is preferable or even necessary in some situations. here I don't see much reason to sole-source but I really haven't followed this closely enough

[Lord Avalon]

Some differences between the Abrams and Leo2 I noticed while looking at Wiki:

Abrams is tested in tank vs tank combat. It's longer (9.77m vs 7.7m) and a bit shorter (2.44m vs 3.0m).

Abrams uses a gas turbine engine, rather than a diesel. While having a better power to weight ratio, it guzzles fuel (even for a tank). Using jet fuel its range is 391km vs 550 for the Leo2. With the upgraded DU frontal armor package, the M1A2 will have even less range. (This could be a factor in why people choose the Leo2). Also the Abrams' high temp & velocity exhaust is not condusive to having leg infantry follow right behind the tank (urban warfare).

Abrams also has an extra MG (commander's .50 cal).

Same 120mm main gun, although the 2A6 has a longer version (L55 vs L44).

I noticed the 2A4 has vertical turret armor, as opposed to the later versions' angled armor.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Some differences between the Abrams and Leo2 I noticed while looking at Wiki:

Hmmmm

IT sounds as if, even if we assume that the Abrams is a "better" tank if fighting a Leo head to head, there are range and close infantry support issues that might make a Leo "better" for certain purposes.


The real;ity is that Canada probably isn't looking for a tank that can kill the best tanks out there. What we most need is a versatile weapon that is useful in both urban and rural settings against lightly to moderately armed opposition