Canadians to get Leopard 2s?

[Arrian]

Yes, based on that info, the Lep2 seems like the better choice (cheaper, more fuel efficient, better for use w/close infantry support).

-Arrian

[Thorgal]

Well googling a bit here you have some direct comparission from somebody who may know something about the topic:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp

What he is saying is that the Leo 2 A6 is better than M1A2 in all aspects: Cannon (obviously), armor and engine.

Of course being from USA the guy says also that while speaking about hardware only the Leo 2A6 is clearly the best, the Abrams "as a whole system" would be better because USA crews are better trained, have better tactics, that the M1A2 have been tested in combat and blah, blah, blah....

So what tank would any country prefer?

[Nostromo]

Canada didn't buy 2A6's.

[Asher]

I thought they bought 20.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Asher
I thought they bought 20.

Leased, I think.

[Thorgal]

According to the link in the OP Canada did lease 20 2A6M for the important work, so supporting his men in Afghanistan, and then 80 cheaper 2A4 (worse but not a piece of junk either) for street parades at home. I find it very reasonable if you dont want spend lots of money in stupid toys. OTOH most initially leased material is finally bought.

[Tingkai]

No final decision yet.

Question: if you assume that the Forces are not going to be engage in tank vs tank combat, what is the best way to provide fire support for the troops, such as the fire support needed in Afghanistan? Tanks, SP guns, helicopters, ground attack aircraft?

[Asher]

The obvious answer is you need 'em all.

[Lord Avalon]

Horse-portable artillery.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
The obvious answer is you need 'em all.

The question was: What is the best way.

In other words, which of the following is the best capable of providing fire support for infantry.

Understand?

[Asher]

Yes, and the best way is diverse support.

I answered your question, but you don't understand the full situation so don't even know the right answer to your question.

[Drake Tungsten]

The reality 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

Exactly, which is why you don't need tanks. Tanks are designed for one purpose and that's to kill other tanks...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai
No final decision yet.

Question: if you assume that the Forces are not going to be engage in tank vs tank combat, what is the best way to provide fire support for the troops, such as the fire support needed in Afghanistan? Tanks, SP guns, helicopters, ground attack aircraft?

But is "fire support" the only role?? How about these elements

1. was their ability to crash through the mud walls and huts that can resist wheeled LAVS and machine gun fire. Ditto with certain barriers fields and trees

2. - the heavier armour was an attraction when dealing with an enemy armed with RPGs

3. The ability to concentrate an attack in an urban/town environment in ways that are difficult for long guns and aircraft

4. The intimidation element of being able to roll through a town and the local Taliban know that you were impervious to the arms they had available

[Lonestar]

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

I'll get to this in a minute

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.

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?)

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.

First off, it's a buyer's market. If this was a huge whizebang buy-new program, then yes, you'd have a point for an open bid.

But if there are multiple tanks(mostly Leo2s) lying around in depots, and you need a MBT fast...wouldn't it make more sense to just ask around?

The Chally may be in the process of being put into storage, alas, we don't know if they are on the market. And again, does the CF need a Whizbang MBT...or just a new(er) one with better armor guns and fire control?

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.

In my defense, I did cite that washington post article. But whatever, it wouldn't be the first time you've ignored a article in this thread.

Incidentally, I think we sold the Australians M1-nulls, but don't quote me on that.

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.

...and the working assumption here is that...the CF didn't ask? Or they saw the per-unit cost that the Aussies got out of the deal(who, incidentally, have deployed a Hell of a lot more troops in support of our international interests than Canada has) and decided it wasn't worth it?

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?

The Aussies send their MBTs off on military adventures to fight other tanks, just like us. Canada doesn't. So...nope.

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

That's probably what they did. Why does it stick in your craw so much that it's possible that the CF knew what they wanted, knew what all the (used)tanks on the market were being offered as, and they went with the deal that suited them?

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.

See following quote.

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?)

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

That has nothing to do with economy of scale! No Sir!

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.

Except Boeing knew that those planes wouldn't have met NATO Standards so it was a joke.

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 licenses.

The only way, the only way that would have occurred was if you could have guaranteed quality control. Unless you got the Russians to open a line in Canada, that wasn't going to happen.

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.

Yeah, God forbid they expedite getting he tools out to the folks who need them in a time of increased OP-tempo..

[Asher]

(who, incidentally, have deployed a Hell of a lot more troops in support of our international interests than Canada has)

Last time I checked, Australia had all of 500 soldiers in Afghanistan...