Russian, what do think?

[onecat]

I was just reading some of the old posts here. And I started thinking about the Russian stuff. Okay it‘s not built to the same degree that say an american tank would be, but its cheaper and can be up graded here. The T-90 is awesome tank, and would work well here and we could mostly buy double the amount of any western tank. Or even their attack helicopters. I know the Germans are using the Mig-29 and SU-27. both out standing aircraft, and something we could use.

What do people think? Is it wrong to buy Russian?

 

[Zoomie]

The German Airforce or Luftwaffe DO have a few ****ty ex-Commie Migs, but they are exactly that, pieces of junk. The only use that they are getting right now are as aggressor aircraft for the Allies to pounce all over.

As to the issue of MBTs, cost is not the issue when it comes to our "fleet" of tanks. Once again politics rears its ugly head and sinks its teeth into the CF. Quite frankly, the CF can only have so many combat-ready MBTs in its possession. For example, when we upgraded the Leos to the C2 turret we actually bought relatively brand-new Leo turrets and hulls. We removed the new turrets and put them on our old German hulls (they were better than the Hungarian POS hulls that came with the turrets) and TA-DA we now have the Leo C2. So in fact, for some time there, our fleet of Leos had doubled. The old turrets and newer hulls were most probably sold back to some European country/corporation and here we sit.
The CF was offered well over 700 MBTs from the US for $1 a piece (mind you they weren‘t M1‘s), but they were political connections with that too, so we denied the offered.

 

[Harry]

Hmm, where did you get that about the tanks.

Try one for one M1A1 for C1 and then enough to compliment a heavy recce element. MLRS, and Bradleys were on the table as well as HumVees.

I am interested to know where you got 700?

 

[onecat]

So your telling that Mig-29‘s and SU-27‘s at s*** well I would like where you get this info. Because from what I‘ve read they at pretty good. But that old commie feeling if hard to get over for some people.

But was interested to know when we bought these US tanks, and what type are they?

 

[toms3]

We never bought any US tanks...that was just an offer. I heard they were M1A1‘s. It was for some crazy crazy small amount of money. The sticking point I heard was that the trap was in the parts supply...that is where the money is. "Here is you $1 tank....and here is your $100,000 of parts per tank.

I can see it. When I was at Ft Knox this year, we visited a National Guard unit. They had more M1‘s rusting in their compound then we have. I asked one of the guys how many tanks he thought they had in the US alone...he said upward of10,000....if that‘s true...I could see them sparing a few.

:tank:

 

[Sharpey]

In regards to the $1 per tank thingy (plus pay for transport). I heard it was M60‘s, and I would assume the A3 model. I remeber once a compund or two in Fort Knox just jammed with them sitting there with no place to go.

If Politics didn‘t have to get in the way, it could have been a great Reserve training tool. Eh, I‘m just dreaming...

 

[toms3]

I wonder if its just a military version of a urban legend.

 

[Sharpey]

I wouldn‘t doubt it. Sounds to easy. But hey, I‘ll take one!

 

[Zoomie]

Yeh, from what I heard they were M-60s. Didn‘t hear about the M1A1 deal, but I wouldn‘t be surprised.
On the issue of Migs and Sukhoi‘s, my opinion of those aircraft have nothing to do with any ex-communist sentiments, it has to do directly with the quality of workmanship. Like all ex-Soviet made equipment, those particular versions of fighter/bomber aircraft were mass produced. Have you seen the cockpit of the aircraft that you are talking about. Our Tutor aircraft have more sophisticated systems, **** I bet the Voodoo had more up-to-date system than Migs.

 

[onecat]

Zoomie

You bring up good points on ex-soviet aircraft. I know they have quatily problems and that would need be addressed. But I was thinking of new one‘s, not old production surplus. Canada has more than enough skilled people to bring a new Mig-29 up to standard. My point was that we need new equipment and don‘t have the budget to get to afford top of line US products. And that we should be looking to other countries and just the American to fulfill our needs.

 

[Sharpey]

Radiohead has a good point, but... wouldn‘t you think purchasing a spanky new MiG-29 and then upgrading it here in Canada would end up costing the same as this new American F-22.

 

[Zoomie]

Too true Radiohead, I concur that the newer aircraft do have merit. Sharpey has a point too, trying to put new avionics in an aircraft that is made for another type of avionics could end up being more costly in the end.
Notwithstanding, even if we got more fighter aircraft, our training environment would not be able pump out enough qualified fighter pilots. As it is, the CF-18 OTU (Occupational Training Unit) can only handle 12 new pilots from Moose Jaw a year. On average it takes 7 years from start to finish to produce an operational fighter jock, so we‘re in no real hurry to buy more jets.

 

[Recce41]

The C2 turret is older than the C1. This is what I mean, people with no clue. Shooting their mouth off. The Turret had the old spot light and sight holes welded up and the TI, Laser and C/C TRP installed. Russian tanks are massed produced cans. Janes rated the tanks as follows:
1. Leo2 A6
2. M1A3
3. Jap M90
4. Leclare
5. Challanger.

So too all so called know alls, Stay in the Res world with the Ilitis, and LS. I know its hard but do!
Sgt J. CD, CDS com

 

[Spanky]

Regarding the offer of tanks from the yanks; the M60‘s from Fort Knox were available for $1.00 each plus transportation cost. I believe the transportation costs were $10.00 a mile. The idea was for them be be used as monuments or museums. Any not sold were to be dumped in the ocean to form a base for artificial reefs.
There was also a story floating about the yanks giving us M1A1s during Gulf War I. The problem was the spare parts rider.

 

[Zoomie]

Wow.. Recce41, it really doesn‘t take too much for you to get all riled up and obnoxious. I was not "shooting my mouth off" about stuff I didn‘t know. I got my info from a SGT (yes, Reg force too) that worked at CTC Gagetown during the trials. I trust his information and therefore stand by my convictions. I really don‘t know why you are all hung about the Reservist bashing. It seems that lately only the crusty ol‘ reg guys are seeing red. Being a REG force guy my self, some of the most switched on soldiers I have had the pleasure of meeting were Reservists.
Therefore I say it again, the C2 turret is a completely different turret from the original Leo 1‘s. I believe it is a cast-turret vice the welded one.

 

[Recce41]

Ye The new turret is cast not welded. But is the older design. Most of my fellow Snr NCOs in Gagetown have never been to the Regt in yrs, Damn I was down there for a visit and most have a CD and thats all. Before you take any trust in a Gagetown NCO look at his chest first. Most are scared to go to the Regt. The Recce Cell is the only guts that have more than a CD.
As for Res bashing, I‘m seeing more and more Res with all the weekend OOOO cool answers.

 

[armd_recce]

Despite maintaining his usual obnoxious standard, recce41 is correct, the C2 turret pre dates the C1 turret. Leo 1 - Leo 1A2A3 (no typo, there is an A2A3) used cast rounded turrets, and Leo 1A3 - Leo 1A4 used the C1 type welded turret. Leo 1A5 goes back to the cast round turret, most commonly used by the Germans for recce. The add on turret armour makes its first appearance with the Leo 1 A2A2, and continues throughout. Basically it‘s the same stuff as the skirts, spaced about 6" from the turret. Cdn mods to the turret are most obviously the addition of bins to replace the bustle racks at turret rear, plus radios of course. The 1A5 FCS and optics are preferred by the German tankers to the early Leo 2 variants, or so goes the rumour I heard.
But what do I know, I‘m just a "Mo" plug...

 

[Harry]

Schwerpunkt,

Thanks for pointing it out. I posted this some time ago, and in true fashion no one bit the bait.

The C-2‘s look nice, but in fact pre-date the 1A4 the replaced. Our 1A4 turrets are in Australia being retrofitted and will be entering Ossie service. Huh?

Someone got rich off of this deal, before I gave up my ties in Ottawa I was paper chasing it and at each turn discovered strange anomalies. I guess I just don‘t care anymore. Maybe someone else can take up the cause.

The price paid and the cost for refurb, if you spread sheet it, just don‘t make sense. And too really throw a spin on it, get the info from Tenix , you just might be shocked and want to call a media mogul. In my opinion, something smells and it makes me question who in high places is potentially retiring well.

Why were they no good to us, yet the Ossies are in love with them??? Many sides and I can hear some of the responses. But please do your homework first.

I think it is great that young adults participate here, but in this one, don‘t dabble if you don‘t want to get smeared. :rage:

:tank:

Annex: Now that I see the drivle on page 1, it makes me realize that we have an info/research prob here.

The skinny is this. As the Gulf War build up was happening, CFE (Canadian Forces Europe, for those ill informed), had been show casing various pieces of armour in Lahr. I must add I liked the Leclerc.

The US offered to Cascade (research that one) equipment pre-staged in Europe. One of the stipulations was we field a battle group in the Gulf...

A buck a tank, don‘t recall any price tag involved (period). (Again check what Cascade means in a military context). These where M1A1, not 60A3‘s (stop hypothesizing and get out and do some leg work). The US wanted us to field front line, albeit second gen battle stock to meat our NATO committments. The Bradleys were in response too our M-113A1 being upgraded at the time to 113A3‘s. And back then their was talk of replacing the 5/4 and Iltis, hence the HumVee solution. It was a known short fall in our Arty cap‘s and the offer was there for MLRS, 1 Horse was good at what they did, they had to be, in a Counter Battery scenario, they knew they were stale dated upon first round down.

One of the comments I read on a brief indicated consortiums (Bombardier/IVECO) were upset that they would not be able to facilitate maintenance as the profitability margin was too low. I.E. purchasing spares from an established supply line, they could not justify over inflating their contract submissions when competitive firms in the US could easily out bid them. So instead of focusing on how to deliver quality service at a realistic price, they complained about not being able to do business as usual in the true Canadian (inflated) Defence Industry standard.

So instead of arm chair quarter backing, get off it and do some research before you put your name to it. Every now and then I get a little miffed at this board, this is one of them.

:fifty:

 

[Zoomie]

Excellent research Harry, you go to the head of the forum! Please tell me that, unlike myself, you actually took the time to research out all of that UFI that you just posted. It wasn‘t just sitting on the tip of your tongue just waiting to come out, was it?
I am humbled by your knowledge of what truly was going on back in the earl 90‘s (not being facetious here). My "arm-chair quaterbacking" as you called it was exactly that, me just shooting from the hip and adding rumour and innuendo to this forum. If everyone here posted the exact fact, what reason would there be for members to add in their comments, or in your case, the correct facts.
The only problem with such devastating truths, is that it can effectively "kill" the topic thread and thus effectively negate any further diatribe.
I therefore will make an attempt to further this thread by reverting to the original topic.

The issue of buying Russian war toys. I must agree with Recce41 in that Russian MBTs are steel cans of no real worth. Is the T-90 still a 3 man crew concept, or did they get rid of that pesky auto-loader? Anyone?

 

[Spanky]

Harry, there are two different "free tank" situations being discussed. The M60A3‘s from Ft Knox mentioned earlier was a different deal than the Gulf War I one.