I think it would make more sense for the Australians to purchase the Prince of Wales than for Canada. We have a bunch of land-based aircraft carriers throught the arctic that would be cheaper.
As for a Type 212 CDE, I assume it's just a regular CD with a hull extention. Soooooo, could Canada be subcontracted to build CDE hull segments, then ship them to TKMS to be incorporated into any CD hulls contracted by others to be CDEs?
Brad…I’m still hoping for later batches to incorporate the CDE hull extension for our boats. It’s probably best to let the design mature anyways before getting into new variants. Also, I don’t think “it’s just a regular CD with a hull extension” fully captures the extent of work that would be required. Still…I ain’t letting go just yet…. the CDE version would be totally awesome.
Q3 - switching AOPV to 30mm will be increasingly pertinent as the Army moves away from 25mm. Commonality was a big draw for 25mm in the 1st place, but if the Army moves away, it isn't a big enough fleet to be reasonable to keep 25mm just for it. It would require some other user somewhere.
TAPV 30mm... Ugh. Also, this would be the lower pressure 30x113mm, not the higher pressure/more capable 30x173mm that we'd be looking at for ACV-W. Kinda like with AOPV & 25mm, if TAPV Light CAV is the only user of 30x113mm... I don't see it being viable.
HDFM/MCAV... A great way to buy into a great & sustainable ecosystem is to buy a CV90-120 Medium tank for HDFM & CV90-40mm for MCAV... (ideally with the 40mm CTA turret). Just sayin'. Leo has a large & mature ecosystem... But have you seen their delivery timelines? Ability to provide spare parts? Overhaul tanks? I remain sceptical about their ability to do anything in a timely manner... & Timely sustainment is now more critical than ever.
Mark…what about Canada placing an order for the Norwegian version of the Leo and Germany standing up a manufacturing hub here. Maybe we can help with some of those bottlenecks and get some of that strategic manufacturing relocated to a trusted partner outside of Europe. Hey we did just do them a solid by anchoring their new 212cd program. As to CV90 while not in the same category as the Leo it is, as you say, an excellent platform with matching ecosystem. Interesting idea.
Canada getting into Leo 2 hull assembly/ production could help... But it would take years to get to the point of making a difference, & there are other bottlenecks. On our side, we don't have any manufacturing experience of the type of heavy armour & hulls we'd need for Leo 2 - that'll take years to build. (Same is true for modern tracked IFVs... but that is more of just a small increment from our existing capabilities, rather than something completely new). If you look at the production quantities for our Euro partners, vs the timelines... We are talking slow timelines, where we could expect to maybe get our 200ish tank chassis (gun tanks, ARVs & AEVs), maybe 10+ years down the road. If we order now. It took KNDS years to refresh/upgrade the 20 Leo2s we gave back to Germany after Afghanistan. If you compare to Leo2 prouction rates to CV90... it is almost an order of magnitude different. I have little confidence of their capacity. Even buying spare parts & major assemblies have been subject to huge lead times & delays (& costs!). I'll posit that a good chunk of the current CAF sustainment challenge with Leo2... Isn't actually because of the CAF. Those engines, transmissions, final drives, suspension components are all super complex, difficult to build, & manufactured at an order of magnitude (or 2) less volume than a CV90/IFV equivalent system. That adds cost & lead time/bottlenecks... & Isn't something we'll be able to help with.
Then you can also talk about the infrastructure & support equipment for 70+t MBTs vs a CV90-120. More specialised/rare/expensive heavy equipment transporters, bigger/more expensive cranes & workshop infrastructure... Bigger/more expensive assault bridges etc. That is even before looking at restrictions in where we can train & field Leo2s in the 1st place. Valcartier used to have Leo1s. They couldn't have Leo2s, because the main bridges in the training area max out at 50t (ish). You can bet there will be many such bridges in operational theaters - big enough for an IFV, but not able to take a (NATO) MBT. & Etc & etc. I think we want domestic production of whatever we get for HDFM... But I think it will make most sense if it is an IFV-based Medium Tank. Think Sherman 76, not King Tigers.
Thank/you for outlining the challenges such an undertaking would present assuming that the Leo were even the right choice. The bigger question you seem to be asking and answering is whether the Leo or heavy armour even has place in the CAF or whether a more flexible medium tank platform is the way to go. Perhaps the nimbleness of both the manufacturing and logistical flexibility of an IFV based medium tank outweighs the need for heavy armour.
If it were on the table I had assumed that the politics would say it’s worth it both for the shared capability with our allies that advanced heavy armour brings and the economic benefits that domestic manufacturing would provide regardless of the timelines involved with getting production up and running.
I guess it comes down to what doctrine the CAF wants to adopt moving forward. Fast and nimble without the burden and complexity that heavy armour demands is a potential path forward with the cv90 certainly fitting the bill. Maybe increased numbers combined with flexible manufacturing that can scale as needed can compensate for the absence of heavy armour entirely. Honestly I’m not really sure but you might be onto something as your conviction indicates that you have some background on this topic. Appreciate your point of view. Thanks
Mark…I revisited the cv90 family last night and somehow had lost sight of the breadth and commonality of the platform. The cv90-120 really packs a punch relative to its size. Taken the healthy user base, incremental upgrade paths, huge logistical advantages, commonality among variants (HDFM/MCAV), this idea makes its own case. Throw in domestic manufacturing and a compelling case can be made to go all in on the cv90 family. Placing large orders should allow the CAF to influence upgrade paths too. Keeping things simple and scalable may be the way to go.
Get well soon Noah!
I think it would make more sense for the Australians to purchase the Prince of Wales than for Canada. We have a bunch of land-based aircraft carriers throught the arctic that would be cheaper.
As for a Type 212 CDE, I assume it's just a regular CD with a hull extention. Soooooo, could Canada be subcontracted to build CDE hull segments, then ship them to TKMS to be incorporated into any CD hulls contracted by others to be CDEs?
Brad…I’m still hoping for later batches to incorporate the CDE hull extension for our boats. It’s probably best to let the design mature anyways before getting into new variants. Also, I don’t think “it’s just a regular CD with a hull extension” fully captures the extent of work that would be required. Still…I ain’t letting go just yet…. the CDE version would be totally awesome.
Q3 - switching AOPV to 30mm will be increasingly pertinent as the Army moves away from 25mm. Commonality was a big draw for 25mm in the 1st place, but if the Army moves away, it isn't a big enough fleet to be reasonable to keep 25mm just for it. It would require some other user somewhere.
TAPV 30mm... Ugh. Also, this would be the lower pressure 30x113mm, not the higher pressure/more capable 30x173mm that we'd be looking at for ACV-W. Kinda like with AOPV & 25mm, if TAPV Light CAV is the only user of 30x113mm... I don't see it being viable.
HDFM/MCAV... A great way to buy into a great & sustainable ecosystem is to buy a CV90-120 Medium tank for HDFM & CV90-40mm for MCAV... (ideally with the 40mm CTA turret). Just sayin'. Leo has a large & mature ecosystem... But have you seen their delivery timelines? Ability to provide spare parts? Overhaul tanks? I remain sceptical about their ability to do anything in a timely manner... & Timely sustainment is now more critical than ever.
Mark…what about Canada placing an order for the Norwegian version of the Leo and Germany standing up a manufacturing hub here. Maybe we can help with some of those bottlenecks and get some of that strategic manufacturing relocated to a trusted partner outside of Europe. Hey we did just do them a solid by anchoring their new 212cd program. As to CV90 while not in the same category as the Leo it is, as you say, an excellent platform with matching ecosystem. Interesting idea.
Canada getting into Leo 2 hull assembly/ production could help... But it would take years to get to the point of making a difference, & there are other bottlenecks. On our side, we don't have any manufacturing experience of the type of heavy armour & hulls we'd need for Leo 2 - that'll take years to build. (Same is true for modern tracked IFVs... but that is more of just a small increment from our existing capabilities, rather than something completely new). If you look at the production quantities for our Euro partners, vs the timelines... We are talking slow timelines, where we could expect to maybe get our 200ish tank chassis (gun tanks, ARVs & AEVs), maybe 10+ years down the road. If we order now. It took KNDS years to refresh/upgrade the 20 Leo2s we gave back to Germany after Afghanistan. If you compare to Leo2 prouction rates to CV90... it is almost an order of magnitude different. I have little confidence of their capacity. Even buying spare parts & major assemblies have been subject to huge lead times & delays (& costs!). I'll posit that a good chunk of the current CAF sustainment challenge with Leo2... Isn't actually because of the CAF. Those engines, transmissions, final drives, suspension components are all super complex, difficult to build, & manufactured at an order of magnitude (or 2) less volume than a CV90/IFV equivalent system. That adds cost & lead time/bottlenecks... & Isn't something we'll be able to help with.
Then you can also talk about the infrastructure & support equipment for 70+t MBTs vs a CV90-120. More specialised/rare/expensive heavy equipment transporters, bigger/more expensive cranes & workshop infrastructure... Bigger/more expensive assault bridges etc. That is even before looking at restrictions in where we can train & field Leo2s in the 1st place. Valcartier used to have Leo1s. They couldn't have Leo2s, because the main bridges in the training area max out at 50t (ish). You can bet there will be many such bridges in operational theaters - big enough for an IFV, but not able to take a (NATO) MBT. & Etc & etc. I think we want domestic production of whatever we get for HDFM... But I think it will make most sense if it is an IFV-based Medium Tank. Think Sherman 76, not King Tigers.
CV90
That i
Thank/you for outlining the challenges such an undertaking would present assuming that the Leo were even the right choice. The bigger question you seem to be asking and answering is whether the Leo or heavy armour even has place in the CAF or whether a more flexible medium tank platform is the way to go. Perhaps the nimbleness of both the manufacturing and logistical flexibility of an IFV based medium tank outweighs the need for heavy armour.
If it were on the table I had assumed that the politics would say it’s worth it both for the shared capability with our allies that advanced heavy armour brings and the economic benefits that domestic manufacturing would provide regardless of the timelines involved with getting production up and running.
I guess it comes down to what doctrine the CAF wants to adopt moving forward. Fast and nimble without the burden and complexity that heavy armour demands is a potential path forward with the cv90 certainly fitting the bill. Maybe increased numbers combined with flexible manufacturing that can scale as needed can compensate for the absence of heavy armour entirely. Honestly I’m not really sure but you might be onto something as your conviction indicates that you have some background on this topic. Appreciate your point of view. Thanks
Mark…I revisited the cv90 family last night and somehow had lost sight of the breadth and commonality of the platform. The cv90-120 really packs a punch relative to its size. Taken the healthy user base, incremental upgrade paths, huge logistical advantages, commonality among variants (HDFM/MCAV), this idea makes its own case. Throw in domestic manufacturing and a compelling case can be made to go all in on the cv90 family. Placing large orders should allow the CAF to influence upgrade paths too. Keeping things simple and scalable may be the way to go.
Q9 was a hoot, had me laughing out loud. Keep the funny ones coming, people!