Interesting Note on Canadian Future Armor.

[thatguy96]

Serious downgrade only in terms of mobility most likely. The M777 definitly isn't any less effective than the M285 155mm howitzer of the late M109 series.

[Cameronius]

Yes, the loss is only in mobility and protection. It indicates that concern about taking counter-battery fire in future engagements is small. The Canadian Army's unique stratigic position may make these changes logical, however in game terms it lowers the playablity of the Canadian OOB after 2005, IMO.

[PlasmaKrab]

What about the M777 on a LAV-III body?

I think BAe was considering something like that some years ago. I don't know how far it went, but there are chances that they dumped the marketing on that one in favor of the new NLOS cannon for the FCS program.

That sort of systems would make sense for a force like what the CF are trying to shape up.

[1Hussar]

If war were to break out on the ground in Iran or North Korea and a multinational contingent was needed to address it, it's a fairly sure bet Canada will be asked to participate.

Going with a light, all-wheeled force (as Canada has now) definitely does the ability to function within such an environment.

Such a force composition would relegate Canadian forces to a rear-echelon security role or going on mop-up operations against weak or bypassed enemy units. Without the presence of allied/coalition heavy weapons systems (like tanks and attack helos), even missions like these could be fraught with danger if an enemy counterattack is launched to save those weak/bypassed units.

Canada had an opportunity to send combat troops to Iraq in the first Gulf War. The plan was to have Canadian troops deal with bypassed Iraqi units.

In the end, Canada was unable to participate. It was not operationally ready to do so, because its obsolescent Leopard 1 tanks, M113 and Grizzly wheeled APC's were deemed incapable of doing the job without undue risk. Long-standing resupply and transport problems originating in Canada also prevented Canadian forces from being ready in a timely manner. Finally, the politicians did not like the casualty estimates (an election was pending) and drastically down-scaled Canada's role.

The greatest irony was that the Canadian troops to be deployed to Iraq were stationed in Germany, and were at least nominally trained to deal with a large-scale enemy force (whose general ORBAT and T&OE then was what Iraqi forces were based on).

None of us can predict what the future will bring. What is certain is that Canada's military, in its current state, is only marginally ready for that uncertainty.

Simply saying that Canada will never participate again in a major conflict is a pretty weak excuse to explain away the fact that Canada has the wealth and the potential to do more.

As an aside, it is worth noting that the transition to a wheeled force was driven by three things. 1. The desire to maintain a small army on the cheap; 2. The belief that Canada could continue to get away with letting others do the heavy lifting; 3. The desire of politicians to continue catering to the Canadian public's desire to to cast Canada's military into a constabulary/peacekeeping role, even when the real world showed that peacekeeping was essentially a dead horse.

I'll switch off now since this is turning into a political rant.

[VDS]

Sewter said:
"Today the Canadian Armed Forces Leopard 1 fleet consists of 114 Leopard C1 MBTs, six AVLBs, eight ARVs and nine Badger AEVs. Subsequently, the whole fleet of Leopard C1 MBTs was fitted with the more recent Leopard 1A5 turret and the vehicle was designated Leopard C2.

The Leopard C2 will now be replaced by the 105 mm Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of the Stryker (8 � 8) vehicle now in service with the US Army. It is expected that a total of 66 MGSs will be ordered to replace the current fleet of 114 Leopard C2 MBTs."

The quote is from an article on Janes Armor and Artillery (website). This seems to bring up the seemingly ageless (modern) debate over heavy tracked armor versus the lighter wheeled armor. This may have more to do with Canada's role in NATO 'peacekeeping', and the mobility of heavy firepower to remote locations IE: Afghanistan. There is a low threat of any invasion into Canada, I would imagine as well.

The Belgian army seems to be going the same way, but even worse. It may also be replacing all (or almost all) of its Leopard 1 Tanks with a modified Piranha III with a 90mm(!) turret.
All the heavy tracked APCs will be replaced by Dingo IIs and Piranha IIIs. And they also recently bought the Iveco Panther MLVs.

[pdoktar]

Maybe war isn�t going to roam in Europe anymore. So this might be a wise choice, money spent on heavy military vehicles in a country like Belgium is better spent on something else. Besides, considering the limited capability of Leo 1, the phasing out of such heavy vehicles of limited use is wise.

[MarkSheppard]

Canada is sending their Leopards to Afghanistan to kill the taliban now; also the Dutch are deploying their J�gerkorpset (JGK) commandos to A-Stan to kill the taliban bothering the Dutch base(s) there.

The dutch have also deployed 5~ 155mm SP Howitzers to help support the Canadians in A-Stan.

[thatguy96]

Has that been confirmed? The last I heard Canadian Ministry of Defense (or whatever the relevant orgnization is actually called) had claimed that those rumors were false, and that the Canadian Leopards were being readied for exercises within Canada.

[MarkSheppard]

Linka

Saturday, September 09, 2006

OTTAWA -- Less than three weeks after denying it was sending Leopard tanks to Afghanistan, the Canadian military is set to ship as many as 20 of the heavy tracked armoured vehicles to Kandahar.

Although the tanks have been used once overseas on a peace support mission in Kosovo in the 1990s, this is the first time they will be sent into an actual combat situation.

A warning order was issued earlier this week to the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in Edmonton to prepare for the deployment. Twenty tanks are being readied for the operation and about 300 personnel will be heading to Afghanistan.

The Leopards will be used for escort duty for Canadian convoys, which have continually come under attack by the Taliban, government sources said. In addition, some soldiers have suggested the presence of tanks would make insurgents think twice about attacking Canadian convoys.

The decision to ratchet up Canada's force in Afghanistan comes as military officers acknowledge they underestimated the resilience of the Taliban. NATO has been asking for more equipment and soldiers from its allies to deal with the increasing threat in southern Afghanistan.

But government sources said the decision behind sending the tanks to Afghanistan is to provide Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Teams more protection rather than to use the armoured vehicles directly in combat against the Taliban.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has said he plans to put more emphasis on the teams, which provide medical and humanitarian help to Afghan civilians. Part of that is increasing the protection for those teams, which use light armored vehicles and armored trucks called G-Wagons.

"The protection levels aren't adequate over there," said one source. Besides convoy escort, the tanks would be used to rush to the aid of light armored vehicles that have been ambushed by the Taliban.

Canada currently has more than 2,000 military personnel in Afghanistan.

It will take at least a month to get the Leopards over to Afghanistan but that deployment could speed up if the U.S. military ships the vehicles using its large transport aircraft. Otherwise the tanks will be sent by ship.

In the late 1990s, the Canadian Forces spent $145 million to upgrade its 114 Leopards with new computers and heat-sensing equipment to improve their fighting capability.

On Aug. 24 the Ottawa Citizen reported military maintenance crews were working overtime to prepare the service's Leopard tanks for deployment and several soldiers told the newspaper the vehicles were headed to Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces, however, said the tanks were destined for an exercise at Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, Alta.

The tank has made a comeback in the army, which had been switching over to an entirely wheeled fleet of armored vehicles.

Army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie has made it clear he wants troops to retain their skills in working with tanks.

The Leopards were in the process of being mothballed or sold off but with the Afghan war heating up army commanders put a halt to that process in May.

Canadian and NATO troops, along with the Afghan army, are currently in battle with an estimated 700 Taliban near Kandahar city.

According to NATO officials, the force taking part in Operation Medusa is closing the circle around the besieged insurgents. There, have, however, been reports that fresh reinforcements of Taliban are moving into the area to fight the Canadians.

Five Canadian soldiers were killed over the Labour Day long weekend during the operation. One died when U.S. warplanes mistakenly opened fire. Four others were killed in battles with the Taliban.

Ottawa Citizen
� CanWest News Service 2006

Copyright � 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[Randy]

I just read an article in this months Jane's International Review regarding the Canadian LAV MGS. While the Canadian government had a requirement for 66 MGSs "after evaluating the performance of the US version (the Stryker) in Iraq, the Canadian Army is concerned that the lightly armoured vehicle may not be the right choice for urban operations against asymmetric forces. It is now looking at retaining the tank in service until 2015."

In the same article General Dynamics Land Systems (makers of the Stryker/LAV) have indicated that the Marine Corps has placed an order for 130 LAV A-2s.

I think using the LAV/Styker for a recon vehicle/APC is one thing, but using it as a surrogate tank is something else. At least this is continued food for thought.