While I hope it's true, Im not so sure about this

[Jefffar]

Could Canada be buying new tanks?

Personally, I would like the Canadian Land Forces to field modern tanks instead of the 40 year old Leopard 1s we use now. I also don't think there's a tank out there much finer than the Leopard 2A5 so the thought of picking some of those up for a better than 70% off the sticker has me really excited.

But the problem is, how will we use them?

Other than sitting in Germany waiting for the Red Onslaught, Canada's tank forces haven't been abroad in strength since WW2 and Korea. We have no ability to move them to another theatre ourselves either. For example it is taking more than a month for us to get our much lighter Leopard 1s to the 'stan.

So, if we pay for these tanks, even at a major discount, we might never actually use them, thus wasting the money on other improvments that we should be geting for the troops. Besides, anytime we are in an operation that would need tanks, the Americans or the British are there in strength with their tanks.

Then again, when and if we do need to deploy armoured forces again, I'd like somehting more capable than the Stryker MGS and the Leopard 1 at our disposal.

So what do you guys think? Is it about bloody time that Canada's armoured forces joined the 21st century . . . or is this a waste of money?

[Devari]

I spoke with a Canadian tank gunner a few weeks ago who is going to Afghanistan and it sounds like there is certainly a use for tanks in certain situations. Our tanks were sent to Afghanistan to spearhead assaults where lighter armored vehicles would be vulnerable to RPG fire. They're probably adequate for that particular job but against modern main battle tanks they wouldn't do so well. We might not need tanks often, but when we do need them they should be able to hold their own against a modern opponent. We really wouldn't need many tanks so it shouldn't be that difficult to maintain a small but capable tank force. If we can get what we need cheaper by purchasing them second-hand that would be a bonus but we'd have to make sure that they're in good condition. I'm still annoyed about the problems we got with the Upholder subs we purchased from Britian a few years ago so we should definately take a close look before purchasing anything that isn't new.

The bigger problem however is our lack of heavy airlift capability. Considering the fact that the vast majority of our deployments are overseas we really need heavy transport jets. Since we currently rely on borrowing allied jets or leasing ones from Russia we don't have the ability to deploy our own tanks rapidly by ourselves. So even if we had modern tanks we'd still be faced with the problem of how to deploy them without relying on other countries. We were planning on purchasing some C-17s but that's apparently run into some problems (primarily due to the fact that the politicians involved don't have any understanding of the type of aircraft we need). I think that if we're going to buy modern tanks we should also be making our transport fleet a priority because those tanks will only help us if we can get them to where our troops are.

[GhostKnight]

It seems that most current and foreseen needs are for anti-infantry vehicles that are thick skinned enough to withstand RPG and IEDs, yet light and nimble enough to get around streets and rough terrain.

[Jefffar]

The bigger problem however is our lack of heavy airlift capability. Considering the fact that the vast majority of our deployments are overseas we really need heavy transport jets. Since we currently rely on borrowing allied jets or leasing ones from Russia we don't have the ability to deploy our own tanks rapidly by ourselves. So even if we had modern tanks we'd still be faced with the problem of how to deploy them without relying on other countries. We were planning on purchasing some C-17s but that's apparently run into some problems (primarily due to the fact that the politicians involved don't have any understanding of the type of aircraft we need). I think that if we're going to buy modern tanks we should also be making our transport fleet a priority because those tanks will only help us if we can get them to where our troops are.

Yeah, it seems our latest attempt at a heavy lift aircraft competition, the requirments were phrased such that only one aircraft in the world could meet them . . . a version of the Hercules thus far rejected by all who trialled it.

[Devari]

The bigger problem however is our lack of heavy airlift capability. Considering the fact that the vast majority of our deployments are overseas we really need heavy transport jets. Since we currently rely on borrowing allied jets or leasing ones from Russia we don't have the ability to deploy our own tanks rapidly by ourselves. So even if we had modern tanks we'd still be faced with the problem of how to deploy them without relying on other countries. We were planning on purchasing some C-17s but that's apparently run into some problems (primarily due to the fact that the politicians involved don't have any understanding of the type of aircraft we need). I think that if we're going to buy modern tanks we should also be making our transport fleet a priority because those tanks will only help us if we can get them to where our troops are.

Yeah, it seems our latest attempt at a heavy lift aircraft competition, the requirments were phrased such that only one aircraft in the world could meet them . . . a version of the Hercules thus far rejected by all who trialled it.

That's interesting because the planned C-17 purchase was criticized because the requirements excluded other aircraft. What the politicians don't understand is that there are very few aircraft that can lift the required payloads and provide short/unprepared airfield performance. Most transport jets simply aren't suitable unless you only plan on flying between major cities. The only real choices are the C-17 Globemaster and Il-76 Candid, but unfortuantely Russian aircraft aren't being considered because they don't meet certain certification requirements (even though they have been leased and used temporarily many times). So that only really leaves the C-17 as a viable choice. The C-17 is an expensive aircraft but it does have a higher payload then the Il-76 (over 75 tons for the C-17 vs. around 50 tons for the stretched version of the Il-76). Considering that our Leopard 1 tanks are already close to 50 tons with the additional armor they're carrying and a Leopard 2 is around 60 tons we'll probably need the C-17 if we want to move our tanks ourselves. Hopefully the C-17 purchase will go through as planned but considering how inept our government is at supporting our armed forces I wouldn't be surprized if there were delays or other problems.

[Jefffar]

Heavy tanks aren't exactly what I would consider Air Deployable under any but the most urgent of circumstances.

Though I suppose we should invest in a sea lift capability if we do invest in the tanks.

Our air lift needs to be able to deploy our forces to the trouble zones quickly. In that circumstances I think our heaviest components will be the LAVs and any artillery or engineering support.

[Devari]

Heavy tanks aren't exactly what I would consider Air Deployable under any but the most urgent of circumstances.

Though I suppose we should invest in a sea lift capability if we do invest in the tanks.

Our air lift needs to be able to deploy our forces to the trouble zones quickly. In that circumstances I think our heaviest components will be the LAVs and any artillery or engineering support.

I agree that airlifting heavy tanks isn't a task that we would need to do very often, but it's always nice to have the option available (particularly if we're deploying our troops to a land-locked country). The C-17 was built with the goal of transporting an M-1 Abrams to an unprepared airstrip so the designers wanted the aircraft to be capable of performing this mission when necessary. Even though we wouldn't be using the C-17 to move tanks very often it's certainly useful to have the ability to move heavy payloads to a short/unprepared runway. It would also be a major advantage for rescue and relief missions where there might not be a major airport nearby. For most of these tasks the Il-76 is probably more economical than the C-17 since it costs considerably less, but as I mentioned above there are certification issues that need to be addressed before we could purchase the Russian planes.

[Jefffar]

I wonder if, even after we got them properly certified, the Candids would still cost less than a Globemaster?

For that mater, if we got them to certify some of those Ruslans and Miryias I wonder how much thye would run . . . Though if we did that I'm sure we could make up the cost renting them out to NATO.

[Devari]

I wonder if, even after we got them properly certified, the Candids would still cost less than a Globemaster?

For that mater, if we got them to certify some of those Ruslans and Miryias I wonder how much thye would run . . . Though if we did that I'm sure we could make up the cost renting them out to NATO.

In terms of purchase price, the Il-76 would cost around $50 million each while the C-17 would cost around $200 million each. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to get the Il-76 certified, but it certainly has a much lower cost per aircraft.

The An-124 is apparently already certified, but unfortunately it doesn't have the short runway performance of the C-17 or Il-76. The An-124 does have a very large cargo capacity of 150 tons, but the lack of short runway performance could be a limitation. It would be useful to have a few An-124s for moving very large payloads, however.

The An-225 isn't really available for purchase since there is currently only one of them in service, although the potential to lift over 250 tons is certainly very impressive. I'm also not sure how many airports can accomidate the An-225.

Canada has actually leased all three of these Russian aircraft in the past despite the fact that they are not all certified (Il-76 has been granted temporary certification in the past to accomidate this). If the Il-76 was permanently certified then I think that 6 Il-76s and 2 An-124s would be a better purchase than 4 C-17s. The Il-76s could perform the short/unprepared airfield missions and the An-124s could provide transport for heavy or oversized payloads. This would give us twice as many aircraft and provide far more airlift capability and flexibility at a lower cost.

[Jefffar]

I'm in agreement with your assessment of htis.

Too bad I didn't manage to get that job in the policy department of the DND.