For those of you who were hoping for a repreive for the MBT in the Cdn Army, forget it. The new Defence Policy paper clearly identifies the MGS and MMEV as replcements for the tank. Lets hope we never have to use them in earnest.

Stephen Harper has gone on record saying the Army needs tanks. Lets hope the Canadian public wakes up and gives us a new gov't.

All it takes is one new minister to put the kibosh on MGS. I can still hope at least

I just finished researching a paper on defence policy. Notwithstanding the machinations of the Conservatives, they have not done all that well for us in the past. about the only thing we got out of them during the Mulroney years was new uniforms and the ADATS. they were as quick to cut the dfence budget as the liberals and even cut it mare than Trudeau did. Note that in Trudeaus l;ast years in office, defence spending and the strength of the CF actually went up.
Maybe we could do a Canadian what if campaign in the future to give some ideas.

Paul,

A "what if" Canadian build would be excellent.

I have always wanted to do a desert tan Leopard C1 as it would have been deployed to Iraq in 1991...

or the LAV 25s I was told we would deploy to Bosnia in in 1994...

or the M113 based vehicle with a 25 mm turret that I was told would replace the Lynx...

or the Challenger based Goliath tank destroyer...

or the M1A1s that were available for Canadian use in the 1991 Gulf War...

or the hundreds of M-60A3s that the U.S. was going to give to Canada for free.

The potential is there for alot of "what ifs"...a UN white M1A1 with a mine plow in Canadian markings would look very unique.

Just food for thought.

I believe, as an ex-Armour Corps Senior NCO, that the days of tanks in the Canadian Armour Corps are done. The pressure for Canada to deploy Battle Group level combat troops overseas is being felt by the Government.
In order to step up to the plate with deployments in the future similar to Kosovo(a Troop of five Leopard C1A1s were deployed to support the Canadian Battle Group), or requests for troops to combat operations like OIF, Canada will need to have a deployable, mechanized, sustainable force.

The concept of the Direct Fire Regiment is a good one. This is not a new concept. It was proposed in the LdSH(RC) back in about 1996. The U.S. Cavalry Units were examined and compared as far as similarities to Canadian Combat Teams and where they and we would go in the future. It met heavy resistance then because the upper brass would not budge from the tactics of fighting the Soviet horde even though the Cold War was over and deployments to Bosnia and Somalia had already occurred.

I give it no more than 10 years and Canada will have had Combat Team level troops in combat.

The biggest problem, well one of the biggest problems is, no matter whether we have MBTs or LAV based vehicles, we have no way to get them anywhere.

We have neither the ships or the aircraft to transport them to the hotspots of the world.

The idea of buying or leasing a few C17s is pretty much all but thrown out the window. But at those prices, I can understand.

I read a report that for the price of 4 C-17s, we could go to Russia, and buy 30 brand new IL-76s, fly them here, and have them overhauled with new engines, and modern avionics. And we would have something about the size of a C141, but brand new.

It worked out to something like $15million per aircraft with the upgrades, but 4 C-17s was going to run in the neighborhood of $400 million???? That doesn't sound right mind you...didn't think the C-17 was a $100 million aircraft, but I suppose its possible
so 4 C-17s for $400 million, or 30 upgraded IL-76s for $450 million.

Seems pretty simple to me!!

While the conept of operating more rather than fewer heavy lifters is a good one, the math is wrong somewhere.

Replacing the IL 76 engines will cost about US$4-5 milion a piece for modern 35,000 lb thrust class turbofans, so that's $20 mil per aircraft already. Add another $10 mil per aircraft for military & NATO grade avionics and you're looking at $30 mil per plus the cost of the airframe, which may come in at the $15 mil per quoted. You then need infrastructure, like simulators & ground handling equipment, which ain't cheap plus a reliable source of spares (although using western engines & avionics helps that an awful lot).

All told you are looking at $45 -$50 mil per aircraft all in, better than the C-17, for sure, but nowhere near a flyaway cost of $15 mil each.

We would operate 8-12 aircraft for the price of 4 C-17s. Still a very good deal with more reasonable numbers.

Yeah I had my numbers screwed up...LOL....

the $15million was actually what they figured would be the cost of replacing the PS-90 engines with Rolls Royce engines and upgrading the avionics to something more modern and more in line with today's standards.

The IL-76s would run about $40 million, and another $15million to upgrade...where as the price of one C-17 would be about $250 million. Granted, the IL-76 is not a C-17, nor would it carry as much, but we could buy 4 IL-76's and upgrade them, for the price of one C-17 and still have money left over for training, simulators and little bits that go along with a new AC.

Here is a link for a good read on the whole situation.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm

At least we wouldn't have to put 1 LAVIII on a C-130, and then the interior add on armor on another C-130...LOL

Let's face it, the Canadian Armed Forces have been poorly equipped since the late 1950's when John Diefenbaker did his cuts, and it's been the government's job to keep it going no matter who has formed the federal government.
Acquistion of armaments has been pitiful for the last 50 years at least, and has always been a political decision, not by the men who use the stuff.
It's not just one party that has failed the forces, but ALL of them with we the voting public going along with it.
SHAME ON ALL OF US!

I like the idea of a "what if" campaign. Like the rumour that Germany was willing to give us a whack of armour in exchange for the trg area out west (instead of the small rental fee) or the old article outlining us having a couple of assault carriers with Harrier/Cobra type aircraft or......on & on. The people making the decisionsjust do not/ want to know. If our troops bump into someone who does not want to play by the "rules" all the fancy LIGHT stuff will not standup to some elses HEAVY stuff. And what if it did happen and we called on our Allies to help and all we got back was "Sorry, we are kind of busy right now, take a number!". Will we be able to pay the cost?? You roll the dice and takes your chances. One of these days lady luck will not be there!

I'd like to do a what if as well , but hope you guys can wait until after roto 4.

Make that Roto 5. :-)

The way things are going, I'll be lucky to see model sometime in AUG '06!!

What-If all the way dudes!

Thanks for the http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm site Scott, it's really interesting.

Lots of potential in there.

I'll vote for the first PM candidate to promise us new carriers.

:-)

I usually don't like to rehash old threads but I thought this one was quite interesting to bring back from the dead.

Its amazing what can happen in 2-3 years.

Cheers

Jeff

Seriously!?!? When did this happen? And why was it turned down? Hundreds of tanks for free, that's a great deal.

Hold on..... were the liberals in power when this happened?

This offer was made back in the 1980s. It was a completely legit offer and would have come with all the support equipment and tanks to have all the Armoured Regiments....Reg Force and Reserve equipped with Squadrons of M60A3s. There were plenty of surplus M60A3s in the US as the transition to the Abrams was taking place.

It didn't occur due to political issues and the fact that there was a tank procurement project initiated in the Defence White Paper of 1986 (If I recall correctly) that would have replaced the Leopard C1 with a more modern MBT....the choices were narrowed to the Leopard 2, M1A1 Abrams, Challenger, and Leclerc. This of course only took 20 years to finally come true.