Canada's tanks

[suffolkowner]

Quo Vadis, Leo?

Finland has started looking at what happens if and when the Leopard 2A4 goes, either to Ukraine or somewhere else. But are they looking at all options?

corporalfrisk.com

covers a lot of the same issues we have with respect to what to do with updating and replacing the leos

 

[KevinB]

Quo Vadis, Leo?

Finland has started looking at what happens if and when the Leopard 2A4 goes, either to Ukraine or somewhere else. But are they looking at all options?

corporalfrisk.com

covers a lot of the same issues we have with respect to what to do with updating and replacing the leos

Also most of the arguments for the Leo for Finland would/could/should be used for the Abrams for Canada…

 

[GR66]

Also most of the arguments for the Leo for Finland would/could/should be used for the Abrams for Canada…

What...that it's the heavier, more expensive option?



J/K. I'm definitely a fan of equipment commonality with the US but TBH I do wish the Abrams X was in production as the diesel hybrid-electric engine, lighter weight, APS, etc. I think make it the more attractive option for Canada.

 

[suffolkowner]

Also most of the arguments for the Leo for Finland would/could/should be used for the Abrams for Canada…

Yes I agree

What...that it's the heavier, more expensive option?



J/K. I'm definitely a fan of equipment commonality with the US but TBH I do wish the Abrams X was in production as the diesel hybrid-electric engine, lighter weight, APS, etc. I think make it the more attractive option for Canada.

If you want a diesel Abrams look no further. All roads lead to SK

K1 88-Tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

What...that it's the heavier, more expensive option?



J/K. I'm definitely a fan of equipment commonality with the US but TBH I do wish the Abrams X was in production as the diesel hybrid-electric engine, lighter weight, APS, etc. I think make it the more attractive option for Canada.

I suspect Abrams X is going to enter production sooner than later, most likely as the M1A3

 

[suffolkowner]

I suspect Abrams X is going to enter production sooner than later, most likely as the M1A3

Is the idea of the Abrams X to be all new builds or to reuse old hulls?

 

[GR66]

Is the idea of the Abrams X to be all new builds or to reuse old hulls?

If they're 10-tons lighter and using a completely different fuel and drive system (hybrid-electric diesel vs turbine) I'm assuming they'll all be new builds.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Yes I agree

If you want a diesel Abrams look no further. All roads lead to SK

K1 88-Tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Upgraded to the K1A2 variant with many benefits from the K2 Black Panther MBT. ARV, AVLB and CEV variants also being produced.

 

[KevinB]

If they're 10-tons lighter and using a completely different fuel and drive system (hybrid-electric diesel vs turbine) I'm assuming they'll all be new builds.

Correct. The hull is slightly different due to the way the turret sits as well - as I understand it they aren’t interchangeable with the previous generations of Abrams in hull or turret.

 

[dapaterson]

Of course not. Compatibility means reuse of prior investment instead of completely new revenue streams.

I have heard of a certain company in London that had some parts for various light armored vehicle fleets which were identical, but tagged with different NSNs, to prevent buyers from rationalizing their holdings...

 

[ueo]

Of course not. Compatibility means reuse of prior investment instead of completely new revenue streams.

I have heard of a certain company in London that had some parts for various light armored vehicle fleets which were identical, but tagged with different NSNs, to prevent buyers from rationalizing their holdings...

Say it aint so....

 

[KevinB]

Of course not. Compatibility means reuse of prior investment instead of completely new revenue streams.

I have heard of a certain company in London that had some parts for various light armored vehicle fleets which were identical, but tagged with different NSNs, to prevent buyers from rationalizing their holdings...

TBH, the company doesn’t assign the NSN’s, that’s the various Military’s logistics entities.
I’ve seen that occur numerous times. Even when you tell the an entity like DLA down here that there is already an NSN for an item it may be a SOCOM NSN and the Army or USMC will assign there own.
Furthermore, some will also insist that there not be multiple NSN’s assigned to a part, so the same part can be catalogued 5-6 different times, or more.
I suspect if you look at the NSN for a M4, M16, C7, C8 firing pin, while the same item, it will have 11 or so different NSN’s due to the various nations that use it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

TBH, the company doesn’t assign the NSN’s, that’s the various Military’s logistics entities.
I’ve seen that occur numerous times. Even when you tell the an entity like DLA down here that there is already an NSN for an item it may be a SOCOM NSN and the Army or USMC will assign there own.
Furthermore, some will also insist that there not be multiple NSN’s assigned to a part, so the same part can be catalogued 5-6 different times, or more.
I suspect if you look at the NSN for a M4, M16, C7, C8 firing pin, while the same item, it will have 11 or so different NSN’s due to the various nations that use it.

Stop telling people our secrets.

 

[KevinB]

Stop telling people our secrets.

If only there was a NATO organization that could sort that all out…
Oh wait.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If only there was a NATO organization that could sort that all out…
Oh wait.

NATO STANNAG means different things to different people

Do you see what I did there ? lol

 

[Navy_Pete]

TBH, the company doesn’t assign the NSN’s, that’s the various Military’s logistics entities.
I’ve seen that occur numerous times. Even when you tell the an entity like DLA down here that there is already an NSN for an item it may be a SOCOM NSN and the Army or USMC will assign there own.
Furthermore, some will also insist that there not be multiple NSN’s assigned to a part, so the same part can be catalogued 5-6 different times, or more.
I suspect if you look at the NSN for a M4, M16, C7, C8 firing pin, while the same item, it will have 11 or so different NSN’s due to the various nations that use it.

I found out we have at least 3 different NSNs for the same part; one is the USN one for the milspec part, and for some reason we have 2 different Canada only ones.

Each one is called up in different references, so can't really cancel them, and to be helpful someone at DSCO stripped off the useful amplyfing information so it's just now listed as 'nozzle, fire fighting' or similar.

For the marine versions of that Rheinmetal cannon, would highly not recommend not having an internal reloading option. The external loading process may make sense on land, less so when you are on a platform on the ocean and that part of the ship gets routinely swamped by waves. Not great to be unable to reload because of the weather.

 

[MJP]

TBH, the company doesn’t assign the NSN’s, that’s the various Military’s logistics entities.
I’ve seen that occur numerous times. Even when you tell the an entity like DLA down here that there is already an NSN for an item it may be a SOCOM NSN and the Army or USMC will assign there own.
Furthermore, some will also insist that there not be multiple NSN’s assigned to a part, so the same part can be catalogued 5-6 different times, or more.
I suspect if you look at the NSN for a M4, M16, C7, C8 firing pin, while the same item, it will have 11 or so different NSN’s due to the various nations that use it.

That is a weird way of doing business. The usual way to track the same part made by different manufacturers is list the parts numbers. In Canada, the C7/M16 firing pin has one NSN (1005-00-017-9547) that is common across the entire C7/C8 family which is the NSN created by the USA. Attached to that record are a number of manufacturer part numbers but there is only one NSN. You would have to have a fundamentally different item to warrant using a different NSN.

Not to say we don't make our own NSNs (usually through lack of knowledge) but we generally utilize the ones created already. The Leo2s are a great example, so many of the parts are German NSNs that we use, even the part name is in German (which makes for fun times)

I found out we have at least 3 different NSNs for the same part; one is the USN one for the milspec part, and for some reason we have 2 different Canada only ones.

Each one is called up in different references, so can't really cancel them, and to be helpful someone at DSCO stripped off the useful amplyfing information so it's just now listed as 'nozzle, fire fighting' or similar.

For the marine versions of that Rheinmetal cannon, would highly not recommend not having an internal reloading option. The external loading process may make sense on land, less so when you are on a platform on the ocean and that part of the ship gets routinely swamped by waves. Not great to be unable to reload because of the weather.

We had/have poor data control processes something MI is supposed to address going forward but doesn't help clean up the mess already existing. In the past pretty much anyone could and did make NSNs in the system. There was a huge clean up of crap NSNs in 2017-19ish and more ongoing but in many cases it means that an EMT needs to go through their NSNs on top of their current workload. That is just for centrally controlled NSNs, so many locally controlled ones often with many many duplicates.

At least in your case you can have your RCO cancel the other two NSNs and put the correct NSN in the cross refer data.

 

[Navy_Pete]

We had/have poor data control processes something MI is supposed to address going forward but doesn't help clean up the mess already existing. In the past pretty much anyone could and did make NSNs in the system. There was a huge clean up of crap NSNs in 2017-19ish and more ongoing but in many cases it means that an EMT needs to go through their NSNs on top of their current workload. That is just for centrally controlled NSNs, so many locally controlled ones often with many many duplicates.

At least in your case you can have your RCO cancel the other two NSNs and put the correct NSN in the cross refer data.

I was starting when the rules were looser; it ended up with some bad data, but was also way easier to fix. Now it's so incredibly restrictive it can take 6+ months to get things catalogued or update errors.

I think there was probably a valid reason in this particular case, as the milspec is general and the ones we catalogued initially were specific to the different flow rates (one 95 gpm the other 60 gpm), but then the amplifying info was all stripped from the description so the part numbers now include both versions on each NSN. It's a SWAG though, as everyone involved is long gone.

Trying to fix it but after the RCO it goes to DSCO and dies. Canceling them also screws up all the drawings and references that use them, and even with other obsolete parts we can't get DSCO to add 'replaced by NSN xxx' to the description.

All we want to do is add specific info to the description so you know what flow rate it is, and also cross reference another specific NSN for the other widget it's supposed to be used with (the eductor) because they are a matched set based on flow rate. So frustrating.

I think a lot of it has to do with high turnover on the LCMM/SM side as well; someone who does the job for 30 years will have a lot better understanding compared to a position that has 4 people over 10 years with multiple gaps covered off by others. The downside of having a single person for an extended period though is if they half ass it or do something wrong you have an enormous mess to clean up, where it's pretty hard to screw something up to being unrecoverable if you are just double hatting a job for 6 months.

 

[KevinB]

That is a weird way of doing business. The usual way to track the same part made by different manufacturers is list the parts numbers. In Canada, the C7/M16 firing pin has one NSN (1005-00-017-9547) that is common across the entire C7/C8 family which is the NSN created by the USA. Attached to that record are a number of manufacturer part numbers but there is only one NSN. You would have to have a fundamentally different item to warrant using a different NSN.

Honestly I wasn’t sure on that part, but I know of a few others that are the same part with different NSN’s. Or two totally different parts with the same NSN (corrected since the issuance)
I’m currently trying to ensure SOCOM doesn’t issue a second NSN to our folding stock adapter as when it was approved for the M110A2 6.5mm Creedmore there was a push to attempt to get it a NSN for that when the same part already has an NSN for the M4 and Mk18.
Now it’s a USSOCOM NSN which often confounds the Army and USMC, as while it has joint safety certification, well some don’t accept a non service NSN.

Not to say we don't make our own NSNs (usually through lack of knowledge) but we generally utilize the ones created already. The Leo2s are a great example, so many of the parts are German NSNs that we use, even the part name is in German (which makes for fun times)

We had/have poor data control processes something MI is supposed to address going forward but doesn't help clean up the mess already existing. In the past pretty much anyone could and did make NSNs in the system. There was a huge clean up of crap NSNs in 2017-19ish and more ongoing but in many cases it means that an EMT needs to go through their NSNs on top of their current workload. That is just for centrally controlled NSNs, so many locally controlled ones often with many many duplicates.

At least in your case you can have your RCO cancel the other two NSNs and put the correct NSN in the cross refer data.

The CAF is actually pretty good on NSN’s from what I’ve seen compared to others.
*scary huh?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I might be wrong, but I thought there was an export model of the Abrams that could take a diesel powerplant already.