# Canadian Forces Order new tanks



## 102first_hussars (Apr 30, 2007)

After we heard that our boys had to park their leapord C2's because of heat exhuastion

We were in the market for new tanks, cheap tanks, but when Stephen Harper realised that his price range of 600.000 a tank was sorely unrealistic.

he ordered 100 Leapard A2's and is leasing 25-50 for immeadiate deployment to Afghanistan

Leapord A2's man, gives me a hard on

Now we have, or going to have a modern tank forces


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

Thats a really good tank. I got to ride in one over here in Germany one time. It was blast.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 30, 2007)

Yeah i got to sit inside of one, when we had Nato training


----------



## amrit (Apr 30, 2007)

Err, leasing? Are there mileage restrictions?

And is it the Leopard I A2 or the newer Leopard 2 A5 or A6?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

The Leopard C2 that the Canadians use now are Leopard Is that first originated in 1965. The Canadians got the C1 in 1978/1979 and upgraded them to C2s.

The Leopard IIs come in these varients:

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A6M
2 Hel
2E
2 (S)
Pz87
2 140mm

The thing that I think is funny is the Canadians are getting the older A2 varients when there are newer better varients out there.


----------



## amrit (Apr 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The thing that I think is funny is the Canadians are getting the older A2 varients when there are newer better varients out there.



That's why I asked - I thought there may have been a typo in the original post. In light of BBC NEWS | UK | Iraq bombing damages British tank - buying 30 year old tanks?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The thing that I think is funny is the Canadians are getting the older A2 varients when there are newer better varients out there.



It's b/c we don't even try to pretend we have a tough military, so why buy top of the lines tanks for top dollar. When we can ride the coat tails of the most powerful nation on the planet.  And buy second rate tanks and save big bucks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)

I would not call the A2 a second rate tank. The A2 is very good tank and ranks up there with the best but there are just better varients out there now.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not call the A2 a second rate tank. The A2 is very good tank and ranks up there with the best but there are just better varients out there now.



Ok I should of said B+ rated tank instead of a A+ tank. 

We have to pay for our health care some how.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2007)




----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 30, 2007)

Our Government is in a 30 billion dollar surplus, im sure we could afford the better varients, that Adler has stated


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2007)

I would be worried if you are getting versions of the Leopard 1 as it was never designed to be a well protected tank hence the later versions.
The Leopard 2 is a whole different ball game.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 30, 2007)

They were able to pick them up really cheap, it was better for the German Army to sell them cheap then have to store and maintain them I'm sure some upgrading wiil be done. Lets hope its a better deal then those Brit subs we bought


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2007)

Oh dear, now I am really worried. Ever thought that you may have got them cheap because no one else wanted them?

If you wanted second hand tanks, I am afraid you missed the bargin of the decade when Jordon were first in the queue and bought all the Challanger I tanks we had spare.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 30, 2007)

Glider said:


> Oh dear, now I am really worried. Ever thought that you may have got them cheap because no one else wanted them?
> 
> If you wanted second hand tanks, I am afraid you missed the bargin of the decade when Jordon were first in the queue and bought all the Challanger I tanks we had spare.


Your not trying to trick me now are you


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Your not trying to trick me now are you



Nope far from it. The British used the Challanger I in the first Gulf War where it performed well, in many peoples eye's better than anything including the M1 version at the time. Before the second Gulf war we developed the Challanger II and sold all the Mk I's to the Jordanian army.

The Jordanians have always tended to do this. They replaced Their Centurians with Chieftains that we had built to sell to Iran in the days of the Shah but didn't deliver and called these the Khalid. During the Iran / Iraq war they bought Russian tanks and gave those to Iraq for captured Iranian Chieftains.

And then they bought the Challanger I's to replace their reamaining Centurians.

Smart bunch the Jordanians and the one Arab army the Israeli army treat with respect. If you could take out the air element the Jordanians would be a good match for the IDF.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 30, 2007)

I don't think we've had much Brit equipment saving subs since we got rid of the Centurions


----------



## mkloby (May 1, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Our Government is in a 30 billion dollar surplus, im sure we could afford the better varients, that Adler has stated



If you have a 30bil surplus - why don't you crazy socialists lower the damn taxes


----------



## pbfoot (May 1, 2007)

mkloby said:


> If you have a 30bil surplus - why don't you crazy socialists lower the damn taxes


because it was only 6 billion and most of of it went to the military C17s ,heavy lift helos etc and paying down the national debt


----------



## Maestro (May 1, 2007)

Great ! So we bought British submarines that were outdated (in fact, so outdated that one of them caught fire _before_ it could make it to Canada, killing one sailor and wounding an other) and now we are buying used tanks ?

I'm taking bets... Who thinks that we're gonna spend a few _more_ billions only to restore them ? And that's if they don't blow up before !

Canadian tank 1 : "Ennemy in sight ! Everyone, open fire !"

*BANG ! BOOM! BANG !*

Mohamed : "Yussef, look at them. Their tanks are burning !"
Yussef : "And we didn't even shoot a single round !"


----------



## pbfoot (May 1, 2007)

Maestro said:


> Great ! So we bought British submarines that were outdated (in fact, so outdated that one of them caught fire _before_ it could make it to Canada, killing one sailor and wounding an other) and now we are buying used tanks ?
> 
> I'm taking bets... Who thinks that we're gonna spend a few _more_ billions only to restore them ? And that's if they don't blow up before !
> 
> ...


 I don't think the subs were outdated


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> because it was only 6 billion and most of of it went to the military C17s ,heavy lift helos etc and paying down the national debt





If youre saying the surplus is 6 billion, youre incorrect, Im a follower, of CPAC, i watch house of commons and question period,

basically, our surpluss was at more like 10 billion(roughly), then Stephen harper cut close to 15 billion off Social Programs, blus some of the national debt has been paid off, so if you want to be technical it might be around 25-28billion, but yeah


----------



## ndicki (May 2, 2007)

It rather depends what the tanks are to be used for, I'd have thought. In afghanistan, for example, they are not going to be engaging in long-range tank-to-tank combat with modern, up-to-date tanks. They are going to be used for SP pillboxes with the potential for infantry support. It isn't entirely necessary therefore to fit the latest state-of-the-art stuff you'd need on the North German Plain...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2007)

Yeah but you never know what the future will bring.


----------



## Glider (May 2, 2007)

I would have thought that what you want in Afghanistan and Iraq are tanks well armoured as to protect against RPG and other infantry AT weapons. I am afraid that a Leopard 1 isn't that tank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2007)

Yes but the Leopard II is and that is what the Canadians are getting.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 2, 2007)

But are the Leapord II's really suitable fore Desert Terrain, because the Leapords I's as our guys have proven are not


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2007)

Not sure. The Leopard II was designed to fight in Europe against the Russians but I am sure that the Leopard II later varients have been built to fight in the desert environment as well.

You guys are getting a varient of the Leopard II that was in use in the late 80s and early 90s. There are better varients out now.


----------



## Maestro (May 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I don't think the subs were outdated



Well, how do you call a sub that spend several months in Liverpool (or in an other English port) to be repaired and then sent to the Davis Ship Building at Lévi to "receive newer equipment" ?

That was the treatment of all of the submarines we bought... Except may be for the one that caught fire.

Man, think about it : the Royal Navy was about to dump all of those four submarines. And the gouvernment, acting like the jerks they are, bought them for several billions!

If _that_ is _not_ outdated for you, then I wonder what would be !


----------



## pbfoot (May 2, 2007)

I think they cost much less than that we traded use of Suffield and Goose Bay i believe and about 800million . I suggest maybe the news your reading might be a tad senationalist . Do you know what the problem was with the subs


----------



## Maestro (May 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Do you know what the problem was with the subs



No... All I know is that they spent several months in Liverpool (or any other English port) to be repaired (don't forget that the RN first wanted to dump them because they were too old, so may be it was some deserved "maintenance work") and then were supposed to be sent to the Davis Ship Building to receive newer equipment.

All I know is that they could *not* take the sea to Canada without being repaired first.


----------



## pbfoot (May 2, 2007)

They are pretty good subs not old at all its just the Brits mothballed them as they pursued a different path for their sub forces , I believe they were brought out of hibernation in Scotland somewhere.. From what I understand they had a short circuit due to sailing with open hatches and some intake of water via the hatch 
Board of Inquiry - HMCS Chicoutimi | National Defence and the Canadian Forces
sorry its in English but there must be French version on the site but it has the results of the inquiry its pretty detailed


----------



## Maestro (May 2, 2007)

If my sources are sensationalist, yours are propaganda ! Come on, you took your info from the same guys who said the day of the HMCS Chicoutimi's incident that there were no victims of the fire before saying the following day that there was two victims : one dead and one wounded.

Day 1 : Fire onborad. No victims reported.
Day 2 : No fire. Two victims reported.

Don't believe everything that is written on the Army's website. Most of it was created by brainwashed officers... The same kind of blokes who thinks that we've got some of the best equipment on Earth. No kidding ! I heard a Canadian officer saying that on the news after the "rocket malfunction on YouTube" incident.

You got to see the truth in face. Those subs were outdated.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 2, 2007)

Well NS could dlear this up for us, but hes not around


----------



## Maestro (May 2, 2007)

Yeah... That's too bad.

By the way, anyone heard about him ? I haven't seen him since... since... let's say November.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 2, 2007)

Probably on another deployment


----------



## pbfoot (May 3, 2007)

Maestro said:


> If my sources are sensationalist, yours are propaganda ! Come on, you took your info from the same guys who said the day of the HMCS Chicoutimi's incident that there were no victims of the fire before saying the following day that there was two victims : one dead and one wounded.
> 
> Day 1 : Fire onborad. No victims reported.
> Day 2 : No fire. Two victims reported.
> ...


If I wnat to know about Batons your the man if I want to know about military equipment well your not. Can't wait for your next news update from Allo Police


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2007)

Allô Police ? Man, stop being an ass !

First of all, Allô Police is a weekly paper about crime and justice... That paper doesn't talk about politics and national defence.

Secondly, I got contacts within the army... And I think my contacts can be more trusted than a website built up by a couples of brainwashed high-ranking officers of the Canadian army with the complicity of a few members of the gouvernment.

You know, the Canadian army kinda reminds me of the ex-USSR army... They had sh*tty equipment, the troops knew the equipment was sh*tty, the officers were saying it was not that bad, the high-ranking officers were saying that their equipment was the best on Earth and the politicians were doing the public-relation job by saying : "Our army is good. There was no incident onboard the K-19..." Next thing we know is that a bunch of sailors on the K-19 died due to radiations.

Now, my sources can be wrong, I can be wrong... And may be I see plots everywhere. But unless you (or someone else) can prove me wrong, I'll stick to my opinion.

Have a nice day.


----------



## pbfoot (May 3, 2007)

Did you even read the article . Noooo. the Brits changed over from conventional boats to nuclear thats why they were in storage . We don't have the infrastructure to keep nuke subs. Ask any submariner the newer conventional subs are very good . Maybe your contacts in the army aren't familiar with the Navy . My military training taught me to asess before jumping to conclusions . An example being every air crash has those that jump to the incorrect conclusion before the facts are known all that does is make you look foolish . Read the article it tells all in a chronological manner with testimony from all involved . And if you believe that the investigation is a lie prove it with the input of your Army informants . Sometimes the truth is extemely dull . Now tell me how are you going to keep all the people involved quiet . Even your Army buddies can't keep their yaps shut


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2007)

Yeah, yeah, you already said that the Brits changed their conventional subs for nuke ones. And I perfectly know that the Canadian army doesn't have the money to build/take care of nuke ships.

Now, the _Victoria_ Class submarine is the Canadian version of the UK's Upholder Class (Type 2400) submarine built in late 1980s early 1990s and were withdrew from service in the Royal Navy in 1994. Before they entered service with the Canadian Navy, they were sent to BAE Systems (formerly Vickers Shipbuilding) at Barrow, UK to be refitted.

Source : Naval Technology - SSK Victoria Class Long Range Patrol Submarines

You're right, they're not old at all... They're only 17 years old. They're brand new...  

If you haven't noticed, I was trying to be sarcastic.

Oh, and I said it was the Davis Shipbuilding that was supposed to receive the ships to upgrade them, but I was wrong. In fact it was three companies...

- Lockheed Martin Canada
- Lockheed Martin Undersea Systems
- Northstar Technical Inc

I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure it would have been less expansive to build brand new diesel-electric submarines than buy used 17 years old ships, pay for repairs in the UK, and pay again for refitting them in Canada. But I guess some politicians had buddies within the industry who wanted to make money on taxpayers' backs.


----------



## pbfoot (May 3, 2007)

thanks for pointing out you were being sarcastic and in particular into the life span of capital pieces of equipment and how archaic the hull design was.
I am now full of new respect for your knowledge of marine engineering perhaps you should investigate a career in such a field perhaps they have a spot for you in Groton . I am quite willing to admit I know little of submarines so I must cede to your superior knowledge .


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2007)

Ah ! Go jump off the Niagara Falls.


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2007)

Maestro said:


> Yeah, yeah, you already said that the Brits changed their conventional subs for nuke ones. And I perfectly know that the Canadian army doesn't have the money to build/take care of nuke ships.
> 
> Now, the _Victoria_ Class submarine is the Canadian version of the UK's Upholder Class (Type 2400) submarine built in late 1980s early 1990s and were withdrew from service in the Royal Navy in 1994. Before they entered service with the Canadian Navy, they were sent to BAE Systems (formerly Vickers Shipbuilding) at Barrow, UK to be refitted.
> 
> ...




If it helps I know that the RN were furious that they were sold as they were and are excellent submarines that set the standards for quiet running. They were only commisioned in 1990 not 1980 and were only four years old when sold.
They had built into them all the lessons that had been learnt from the development of the latest nuclear subs.

A quote
But nobody, including Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, could understand why the brand new Upholder submarine squadron was withdrawn from service and listed for sale in what must surely be the most 'questionable' Government decision in respect of equipment procurement for the Royal Navy in the past 50 years.

The boats were ordered after the Falklands War with a detailed study to find a new generation of conventional class submarine, with an enhanced capability to detect and classify subsurface contacts, as well as being available to mount inshore operations in shallow water, in support of the Navy's special forces.

Vickers, won the contract and were able to integrate construction features of their Trafalgar class SSNs into the Upholder design and in 1986 the first of the new class was launched at Barrow in Furness. Fitted with sensors and all the computer power of a nuclear submarine she was described at the time as a technology leap forward for the Royal Navy'.

You got a bargin


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 11, 2007)

All I'll say is this: The majority of responsibility related to any screw-ups concerning these boats, be they technically related or otherwise, ultimately must rest with Canada, not the UK. We willingly purchased them without the willingness to properly support them. 

As submarines go, they're actually decent enough pieces of equipment. _Nothing_ would operate smoothly without adequate support or supply. That responsibility rests squarley with Canada, not the UK. We went into the deal quite willingly, I can assure you, and any problems that continue to plague us are of entirely our own doing. Our own failure to loosen the purse strings doesn't make these things the problem of anyone else.

The same line of thought could be applied to tanks, aircraft, or anything else you can think of. We're hardly a third-world country. Yet we maintain the military capability of one.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 17, 2007)

Nonskimmer said:


> We're hardly a third-world country. Yet we maintain the military capability of one.



You are absolutely right.


----------

