Canada orders replacement for its Leopard tanks

[Pointblank]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/12/leopard-tanks-070412.html


Canadian Forces to refresh aging fleet of tanks
Last Updated: Thursday, April 12, 2007 | 6:21 AM ET
CBC News

The Canadian Forces will refresh its fleet of aging tanks with newer Leopard 2 tanks purchased from NATO allies, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Thursday.

As many as 100 of the more modern machines will be purchased second-hand from the Netherlands.

“This government will not hesitate to provide the Canadian Forces whatever equipment it requires to carry out the difficult tasks we ask them to perform," he said.

In the short term, the Canadian military will lease 20 combat-ready Leopard 2A6Ms from Germany to be deployed in Afghanistan by the next rotation this summer, O'Connor said.

"They are state-of-the-art," he said of the German tanks, which have stronger armour, go twice as fast and provide superior close-fire capabilities to the tanks they are replacing.

The tanks are from a newer generation than the 30-year-old Leopard C2s currently being used by the Canadians in Afghanistan and will offer increased protection against roadside bombs and mines, O'Connor said.
Continue Article

The announcement comes in a week in which eight Canadian soldiers have died in bomb attacks.

"They are willing use any means … to harm our soldiers," O'Connor said of Taliban insurgents NATO forces are fighting in the embattled country.
Minimum mileage

O'Connor joined Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier at a NATO meeting in Quebec City Thursday to announce the plans to update Canada's battered armoured corps.

The 100 surplus tanks, which have been sealed in heated buildings for 10 years, will begin to arrive from the Netherlands in the fall for refitting, O'Connor said.

The announcement will likely be welcome news to soldiers who have had to endure searing heat driving their current Leopard C2s in the Afghan desert during the summer months.

Heat-related health risks have threatened before to cause the tanks to be pulled from service. O'Connor said the newer tanks will be equipped with a cooling system for the crews before they reach Afghan soil.
Reverses Liberal decision to scrap tanks

Although head of the army Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie has praised Canada's C2s for doing valuable work, he has said they were reaching the end of the line and need to be retired soon.

Canada currently has 17 Leopard C2 tanks in Afghanistan. By updating its fleet, the military has reversed the former Liberal government's decision to do away with the tanks altogether.

The Liberals announced in 2003 that they would scrap the tanks and spend $600 million to replace them with the Mobile Gun System, an eight-wheeled light armoured vehicle with a cannon mounted on top.

The tanks were originally developed in Germany in the 1960s. Canada bought 127 Leopard tanks in 1978-79 and upgraded them. According to the Department of National Defence, the Forces have 114 of the tanks, and they can remain in service until 2010.


Breakdown of the order:


Canada will BORROW, not lease 20 Leopard 2 A6M tanks from Germany to be sent directly to Afghanistan.

A total of 100 used Leos from the Netherlands, for delivery sometime this fall. These tanks have apparently been properly stored and maintained to keep them in top shape.

Of those 100 tanks, 40 will be 2A4's for two training squadrons in Canada (one in Gagetown, one in Wainwright), 40 will be two squadrons of 2A6's that after some Canadianization and upgrades (especially to the armour) will be deployable anywhere we need them, and 20 will be specialist tanks (bridge-layers, ARV's, dozers, etc).

The money to pay for this purchase (including an initial purchase of spare parts) comes from the cancellation of the Mobile Gun System project - $650 million bucks already allocated.

[FuManChu]

I don't understand why Canada spends so little of its GDP on defence, especially considering the economy is doing quite well. It's barely over 1% of GDP - even countries like Belgium spend more in comparison!

[tphuang]

I don't understand why Canada spends so little of its GDP on defence, especially considering the economy is doing quite well. It's barely over 1% of GDP - even countries like Belgium spend more in comparison!
why should we spend more? We have other things that we need. Back in the Liberal days, having a budget surplus and paying off debt was a far more important task. But then again, with the new conservative government in power, defence seems to be more of a priority.

[szbd]

I don't understand why Canada spends so little of its GDP on defence, especially considering the economy is doing quite well. It's barely over 1% of GDP - even countries like Belgium spend more in comparison!

Why they need to spend on defence? If they don't want to interfere outside events, then they even do not need an armed force.

[Scratch]

Why they need to spend on defence? If they don't want to interfere outside events, then they even do not need an armed force.

Then why does any country in the world need a military since everyone pretends only to defend oneselfe's legal interstes...

Anyway, nice to see Leo2s in another countries service. Having "outclassed" the Stryker gun system as the C2 replacement.
Besides, a sign that heavy tank forces still have a place in the modern kind of warfare.

[Skorzeny]

Well Canada is in a different position than most countries. The outside threats are rather few :D They do need an armed force to fulfill their NATO obligations, but thats about it. A high defence spending seems out of place

[adeptitus]

I don't understand why Canada spends so little of its GDP on defence, especially considering the economy is doing quite well. It's barely over 1% of GDP - even countries like Belgium spend more in comparison!

Canada isn't sandwiched between France and Germany. :rofl:

Heck if I were sandwiched between France and Germany, I'd spend a lot on defense too. But in the post cold-war environment, the Canadians only need to maintain its alliance obligations.

[FuManChu]

Why they need to spend on defence? If they don't want to interfere outside events, then they even do not need an armed force.

Then why does China need a fast-growing armed force? We always hear that China's rise is peaceful - is it going to interfere in outside events? :p

why should we spend more? We have other things that we need.

EVERYONE has "other things" they need. But the richer countries of the world have a responsibility to provide minimum defence spending so they can contribute to global security. There seems to be an expectation amongst a lot of states that someone else will take on that burden. Canada has helped out a lot in Afghanistan, but there's no reason it can't spend a little more on defence.

Or is the US expected to do that? There seems to be a constant bounce in global opinion that the US either needs to "stop interfering in the affairs of other countries" or "stop sitting on its hands because it has ties with that region/whatever and stop the killing". What happens if the US gives two fingers to the world and tells it to sort itself out? It's all very well sending a few blue-hats to some poor African state, but could the UN fight a major conflict without the US? I don't know that it could, given the current reluctance of many countries to contribute to dangerous peacekeeping.

If the world wants to be able to conduct "global security" without the need for the US, it needs to be willing to spend more and put its people in the firing line more often. Canada has done well on the second point - as I said, I don't see why it cannot spend a little more.

[ahho]

with the current way we spend and the debt that we have, i don't think the government are reluctant to spend anymore without costing their popularity. At the current point, people in canada are not really happy with the tax that they have to pay and increasing tax would just kill the party that are in office right now.

There are a lot of ineeficiencies at spending right now, and if they are able that, then i think we could spend a little more.

[tphuang]

Then why does China need a fast-growing armed force? We always hear that China's rise is peaceful - is it going to interfere in outside events? :p

Fu, if you bring China into this conversation again when this has absolutely nothing to do with China, I'm going to delete it. I don't need another flaming thread.

EVERYONE has "other things" they need. But the richer countries of the world have a responsibility to provide minimum defence spending so they can contribute to global security. There seems to be an expectation amongst a lot of states that someone else will take on that burden. Canada has helped out a lot in Afghanistan, but there's no reason it can't spend a little more on defence.

Or is the US expected to do that? There seems to be a constant bounce in global opinion that the US either needs to "stop interfering in the affairs of other countries" or "stop sitting on its hands because it has ties with that region/whatever and stop the killing". What happens if the US gives two fingers to the world and tells it to sort itself out? It's all very well sending a few blue-hats to some poor African state, but could the UN fight a major conflict without the US? I don't know that it could, given the current reluctance of many countries to contribute to dangerous peacekeeping.

If the world wants to be able to conduct "global security" without the need for the US, it needs to be willing to spend more and put its people in the firing line more often. Canada has done well on the second point - as I said, I don't see why it cannot spend a little more.
We've helped a lot on this GWOT and Nato missions. If our government + generals decide a certain amount is enough to do the tasks they need to do, then it is enough. And we've done a great job in all of these different missions. If you don't understand Canadian politics or how Canadians think, then you lecture us on it.

[szbd]

It's simple. The only country capable in attacking Canada is US. There is very rare case in the world. So unless other countries that may have problem with their neighbors that cause militarry conflicts, Canada don't need to worry about it.

[FuManChu]

We've helped a lot on this GWOT and Nato missions. If our government + generals decide a certain amount is enough to do the tasks they need to do, then it is enough.

Yes, Canada has done a good job - I did say that.

However, you completely ignored by point about the UN's reliance on the US for large-scale conflicts. If all the richer countries spent a mere 1% of GDP on defence and the US decided it wasn't going to help when it was most needed, what would we do? Answer is we probably couldn't do anything.

If we don't want the US to be the world's policeman, we need to stump up the resources to take on that role ourselves. If we don't want to then I'm not sure we can easily criticise it for taking on that role without being hypocritical.

[Spike]

Canada is ranked 14th in the world in GDP-PPP (by the CIA factbook) and ranked 14th in terms of military expenditures. Recently the government has pledged to increase military spending to improve the size and quality of the forces, including $15 billion over 5 years to purchase new equipment. Canada has recently bought new submarines and plans to buy new helicopters, transport planes, ships, trucks, and tanks; it is also a member of the JSF program.

Canada will fund its military in accordance with Canadian requirements and the realities of Canadian politics.

[ahho]

Canada is ranked 14th in the world in GDP-PPP (by the CIA factbook) and ranked 14th in terms of military expenditures. Recently the government has pledged to increase military spending to improve the size and quality of the forces, including $15 billion over 5 years to purchase new equipment. Canada has recently bought new submarines and plans to buy new helicopters, transport planes, ships, trucks, and tanks; it is also a member of the JSF program.

Canada will fund its military in accordance with Canadian requirements and the realities of Canadian politics.

i heard that helicopters were a priority because the shape of the current fleet are in. We bought submarines?? Don't tell me those are the one that UK gave us.

[Spike]

i heard that helicopters were a priority because the shape of the current fleet are in. We bought submarines?? Don't tell me those are the one that UK gave us.

Lol they still count as military spending, we just didn't know the Brits would sell us some leaky boats. :)

[tphuang]

Yes, Canada has done a good job - I did say that.

However, you completely ignored by point about the UN's reliance on the US for large-scale conflicts. If all the richer countries spent a mere 1% of GDP on defence and the US decided it wasn't going to help when it was most needed, what would we do? Answer is we probably couldn't do anything.

If we don't want the US to be the world's policeman, we need to stump up the resources to take on that role ourselves. If we don't want to then I'm not sure we can easily criticise it for taking on that role without being hypocritical.

We've done more than our share. If you look at the amount of troops we've committed to UN and NATO missions, it's far greater per capita than US. We just don't have the desire to be a superpower, so we don't have to maintain 300 fleet navy with 12 carriers. If we can do our job with 1% of our GDP, why do we want to spend more? I don't want to get this into a whether US should spend as much as they do, so I won't go there.

[alwaysfresh]

Even through Canada does not spend that much on their military I would rather fight with the Canadians any other military in the world... Plus people say their are really professional now. Except back in the 1990's the Canadian Navy had a bunch of crazies with nothing to do (I remember this crazy initiation issue).

[rommel]

Well,I have to say that this is a great decision for replace the current Leo C2 with some Leopard 2. It's been a big upgrade over our Leo 1 which served for years...

I've been told that it's not 40 Leo 2A6 but 20 Leo 2A6NL we bought and 80 2A4NL (but they were all upgraded by the Dutch to 2A5 level few years ago). And 40 of those tanks will be possibly upgraded to 2A6 Peace Support Operation Standard or just to 2A6M level (for operational purpose ) 40 of them will only be "canadianized" (since the 2A5 and the 2A6 are the same internally) or also upgraded to 2A6M or PSO standards for training purpose and 20 of them which will be converted in support and engineering vehicles.

I think that we do need to spend a little more on the defense's budget but mainly to upgrade older equipment. We don't really need a larger force, but more new equipments. Yes indeed, there's lot's of flaw on for the CF, the Army have airlifting et outdated equipement problem, the Navy and the Air Force are small and cannot support very large scale operation, but our foreign policies leans toward peaceful relation and diplomatic talks. And you have to know that at least 1/5 of our population are against war and military action (the Province of Quebec, which has 7 millions people, tends to isolate themself and react negatively against military action.)