No more MBT�s for Canada

Thermodyne · #1 October 30th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Well, it looks like our friends to the north are going to eliminate their heavy armored units. And then spend some of their petro bucks in the US for a few Strykers.

Is this the beginning of the end for the MBT?

Quote:

Canada said on Wednesday it would replace its aging Leopard main battle tanks with lighter armoured vehicles more suitable for the kind of armed combat that Canadian soldiers are likely to face. Ottawa will spend around US $460 million on 66 U.S.-built Stryker vehicles, which have eight wheels and carry a 105 mm gun, as part of an overall strategy designed to make the armed forces more mobile. The first of the vehicles are due to arrive by 2006. (Reuters 292119 GMT Oct 03)

narf poit chez BOOM · #2 October 30th, 2003, 09:59 PM

maybe the government can replace the sea king helicopter's while there at it. i understand there kinda old. some new warships and transport's would be nice, so we can actually have a navy.

Captain Kwok · #3 October 30th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
maybe the government can replace the sea king helicopter's while there at it. i understand there kinda old. some new warships and transport's would be nice, so we can actually have a navy.

The Sea King helicopters do need replacing for sure, and we could use some new transport planes and a few new fighters. But you'll be suprised to know that most of Canada's warships are less than 10-15 years old and are state of the art frigates. Our submarines we purchased from the British Navy (aside from that leak, of course) and are quite nice diesel subs.

It's really the land/air forces that are suffering the most, but as I understand more money is heading their way and with some infrastructure changes should help out alot.

TerranC · #4 October 30th, 2003, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Well, it looks like our friends to the north are going to eliminate their heavy armored units. And then spend some of their petro bucks in the US for a few Strykers.

Is this the beginning of the end for the MBT?

quote:

Canada said on Wednesday it would replace its aging Leopard main battle tanks with lighter armoured vehicles more suitable for the kind of armed combat that Canadian soldiers are likely to face. Ottawa will spend around US $460 million on 66 U.S.-built Stryker vehicles, which have eight wheels and carry a 105 mm gun, as part of an overall strategy designed to make the armed forces more mobile. The first of the vehicles are due to arrive by 2006. (Reuters 292119 GMT Oct 03)

Nothing is going to happen until after febuary, after PM-soon-to-be Paul Martin looks over it.

Narrew · #5 October 30th, 2003, 11:56 PM

I really try and not sound like an arrogant american most of the time, but WTH does Canada need Diesel Subs for?

Not for sure why I got a good chuckle over that, but I did. I can see Infintry, some armor, and Air Force with some Navy support ships, but subs? hehe, guess I better stop laughing before I offend my northern brothers.

Cyrien · #6 October 31st, 2003, 12:09 AM

Actually many nations today have Diesel sub fleets. They are more cost effective than nuclear ones can run almost as long underwater using modern snorkel systems and are excellent for close in shore defense. So it has most of the strengths of the Nuke sub but less cost and size. No wonder they are so popular with nations that don't have the deep pockets of the US.

narf poit chez BOOM · #7 October 31st, 2003, 12:24 AM

Quote:

state of the art frigates

ok, so our navy is new. i wasn't to sure what we had, but i was sure it wasn't much. and it isn't. i'm not sure what you'd find on a frigate, but i'm pretty sure we should have a few destroyer's and a cruiser or two to.

TerranC · #8 October 31st, 2003, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

quote:

state of the art frigates

ok, so our navy is new. i wasn't to sure what we had, but i was sure it wasn't much. and it isn't. i'm not sure what you'd find on a frigate, but i'm pretty sure we should have a few destroyer's and a cruiser or two to.

We do have destroyers. DND Site

TerranC · #9 October 31st, 2003, 12:32 AM

For Narrew: Canadian subs are most usually used for patrolling Canadian waters, supporting Canadian surface combattants, and "bLasting" the "heck" out of American ships in War Games

Edit: Pressed Quote instead of Edit. =|

[ October 30, 2003, 22:33: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Thermodyne · #10 October 31st, 2003, 01:00 AM

Diesel subs are built for costal defense, and tend to be limited on fuel stowage. But they can pack a big punch. They are much quieter then nukes when submerged, but also very slow, high speed drains the batteries too fast. The snorkels are not all that much good, airborne radar can find them in any sea state where they can be deployed. I would think that snorkels would be a good place to deploy stealth technology. The best way to deal with them is air power; active sonar negates the advantage of silent running. And once found, the lack of speed makes them sitting ducks.

The Soviets probably built the most state of the art stink boats, some were even boomers.