New Combat Army Trucks for Canada?

Hi All,

I know how into army trucks and such you folks are ... these aren't about WW2 though ... but thought you'd be interested anyways, in case you haven't heard this news. By the way ... I ws going to copy and paste the story but the dammed mouse will NOT work properly to high-light the whole story, to do that ... so you get the link to the story instead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050922...y_050922210312

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Canada will spend up to 750 million dollars (641 million US) to design, develop and build 33 new army vehicles for use by its forces in battle, Defence Minister Bill Graham said.

The armoured "Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles" or MMEVs will provide Canadian soldiers "with the latest in combined ground and air defence technology," Graham said.

"We are also achieving an increasingly capable, modern combat force, one of our commitments in the new defence policy," he said.

The armoured vehicles will be deployed across the country, replacing existing anti-tank systems and aging Leopard tanks.

They will be capable of engaging both air and ground units, including armoured vehicles and bunkers, helicopters, unmanned surveillance planes and even cruise missiles, with long-range precision-guided munitions and non-line-of-sight weapons systems, making it possible to engage targets hidden behind hills or buildings.

Canada is negotiating with Zurich, Switzerland-based Oerlikon Contraves to design and develop the vehicle.

They forgot "...and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound"...

It'll be another fatcat contract let out to some Quebec firm and royally screwed up. :

Hey, thanks for posting the story Sunray ... bummer though, I was hoping that this would mean something really good for the military ... hmmmm ...

[Gunner]

One of our gang works on the subject and is constrained by regulations and ethical considerations from commenting on this forum.

Should you have any questions send me a PM and I'll get the best answers for you.

Cheers! Mike

[Jon Skagfeld]

$227,000.00 per vehicle??? Huh???

FYI, Oerlikon Contraves Inc is Quebec based and is also bidding on the MLVW replacement contract.

You can bet your ass which way this pile of shit is flowing.

The Canadian Forces procurement system is totally dysfunctional and politically oriented to la belle province of frog whiners.

So, Mike, what's your PM address?

[rob love]

Originally posted by Jon Skagfeld
$227,000.00 per vehicle??? Huh???

I think you missed a decimal point Jon; should be over 2 milliion. 227 thousand doesn't even buy a M113 these days.

Military vehicles, by their design and small contract quantities, are usually expensive. Examples are:
M381aCdn2 in 1967 $= $2200
M151A2 in 1974 $ $14,000
Iltis in 1984 $24,000
Wolf in 2005$ $160,000
MLVW in 1982 $ $64,000
LSVW in 1990 $ $64,000
HLVW wrecker 1992 $ $300,000

M113A1 in 1966 $ 29,000
M113A2 in 1986 $220,000

These figures are by memory, but should be pretty close.

[alleramilitaria]

sorry thats more like $19.000,000 USD per vehicle. thats not counting inflation, cost over runs, etc..

at $3.000.000 per vehicle the M3 bradley has a hard time getting funding.

it sounds like another ADATS program, great weapon but way too expensive to use and deploy

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by Jon Skagfeld
So, Mike, what's your PM address?

Errr.... just click on the PM button at the bottom of his post. Otherwise, anyone's PM address is their username...

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally posted by rob love
I think you missed a decimal point Jon; should be over 2 milliion. 227 thousand doesn't even buy a M113 these days.

Military vehicles, by their design and small contract quantities, are usually expensive. Examples are:
M381aCdn2 in 1967 $= $2200
M151A2 in 1974 $ $14,000
Iltis in 1984 $24,000
Wolf in 2005$ $160,000
MLVW in 1982 $ $64,000
LSVW in 1990 $ $64,000
HLVW wrecker 1992 $ $300,000

M113A1 in 1966 $ 29,000
M113A2 in 1986 $220,000

These figures are by memory, but should be pretty close.

IIRC, Iltis in 1984 was $80,000.00 a copy...$24,000.00 off the shelf ex Deutschland. Of course we had to "Canadianize" it and get Bombardier to build it...Ooops, up goes cost per unit.

Yeah, I did mis -place a decimal point...my display overflowed and I got baffled with all the big numbers.

Hey..."What's a million?"

Trivia question: What Canadian cabinet minister said that?

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally posted by Vets Dottir
Hi All,

I know how into army trucks and such you folks are ... these aren't about WW2 though ... but thought you'd be interested anyways, in case you haven't heard this news. By the way ... I ws going to copy and paste the story but the dammed mouse will NOT work properly to high-light the whole story, to do that ... so you get the link to the story instead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050922...y_050922210312

BTW, Yappy:

These trux ain't "combat vehicles".

They're B Ech Support vehicles, soft skinned, driven by Log Wogs, Bin Rats and other REMFs.

Yer welcome.

[Bill Murray]

Far be it from me to criticize the Canadian Defense Departments purchasing policies, but.........

I have a problem with decimals also but it looks to me like you are contemplating spending $CDN22 million per vehicle which will get you exactly 33 vehicles.

Given the nature of today's conflcts, I cannot understand what they are thinking about. How does an army deploy 33 tanks, which I guess these are even if on wheels.?

You could not invade nor even protect a city of a couple of hundred thousand with that size force, let alone mount any kind of armoured offensive against an enemy force.

As well, as we and the Brits are finding out every day, that type of vehicle can be destroyed by a $500 RPG or an even cheaper IED made out of a stolen aircraft bomb or some plastique.

Going back to someone's comment about the price of an M38A1CDN, those little beggars with either a .50 cal. or a recoilless 105 numbering in the hundreds could wreak a lot more havoc on infantry or armoured formations.

They were very fast, very nimble, very hideable and very cheap for what they did. In today's money, maybe a hundred thousand US.

Again, I have a problem with decimals but I think it works out to 6.400 such vehicles for the same money.

Can you imagine the firepower effect, the shock effect of 6,400 little Jeeps descending on your forces???

It's like the SAS and the LRDG all over again.

Cheers
Bill
:dh:

[alleramilitaria]

bill you are 100% dead on. but in todays battlefield people are willing to spend "what ever it takes" to keep the soldiers safe. no matter if it works or not. just look at the SAPI vest the army is issueing right now. vest and plates ($2,200.00), new helmets ($400.00ea), gauntlets and knee protectors ($1,000.00). so right now for a cook that would never leave the green zone in baghdad you will pay $3,600.00. this is political corectness gone amuck. 3,600 x 160,000 = 576 million just for body armor.

the same thing is happening to new AFVs coming to the front. shooting, moving, and communicating is taking a back seat to cred survivability. im not saying thats a bad thing, but as you can see it sometimes pushes the price up so high you dont get enugh vehicles to do the job in the first place.

[cletrac (RIP)]

Here's a quote from another article. What makes it worse is they're going to use stuff we've already got so why so much development costs?
"They're part of a project worth up to $750 million to make and deliver 33 so-called Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles (MMEVs) for the army.
Essentially, the government wants to take ADATS, an anti-aircraft missile system it's already using, improve it to fire at longer ranges, and mount it to another type of armoured vehicle it's already using - the LAV-3"

[alleramilitaria]

makes sence ADATS is surplus and canada has been trying to get rid of the system for over 10 years.

[Steve Guthrie]

Hello Jon

That would have been the 'Minister of Everything' Clarence Decatur Howe.

I wonder if he was any relation to Gordie?

Steve

[cletrac (RIP)]

I did a little more browsing on the net and came up with a few figures. The US bought 105 LAV-3s for $700 million. Canada's ADATS with the M113 cost $372000 each. The ADATS by itself is worth $186000. It looks like somebody in Quebec's going to get around $450 million to combine the two systems.

[alleramilitaria]

cletrac

i think your prices may be a little off. the reason the US army could not purchas the ADATS was due to the fact that the price could not be reduced to under $5 million USD per fire unit. in todays world the FM data radio needed to link ADA systems for taddle A and taddle B ranges is over $35,000.00 USD ea. and the command vehicle needs 2 of that type of radio. there is NO way you could field a modern tracked combat vehicle system for under $500,000.00 ea and that would be just for a empty tin can with maybe a M-240 (FN-MAG) MG for defence. its just the way the world is today.

its all about jobs, kickbacks, contractors, upgrades, retireing generals, and future sales.

[alleramilitaria]

ow yea i forgot.
canada bought the 33 ADATS from the US Army ADA command from FT Bliss TX. they were used and got them at disposal prices, thats why they got them so cheap. the same thing happened with the ROLAND system. the US, france, and germany went in on the system and some years latter the US sold off the rolands from the 200th ADA BN (McCgreggor range new mexico) for the price of scrap to france. they were good systems with little wear and tear mounted on 5 ton trucks. New german ADA rolands are purchased for $22 million per system and they bought the US systems for under $100,000 per copy.

[RHClarke]

The Cdn Army did not buy their ADATS from the US Army. The US version, Linebacker (the first) was mounted on the Bradley and called LOS Heavy. They were produced in the hopes of making a major sale to the US Army. Cdn production was held up so that the company could integrate the turret onto the Bradley. Thanks to Sgt York's balls up, the US decision makers were somewhat gun shy, and for whatever reason, chose not to go with the LOS H and the concept died. Samples of the US version still exist today.

Canada's ADATS were the fruits of the labour of the Low Level Air Defence Project, and its platform bore little semblance to our American cousin's LOS Heavy, being mounted on a M113A3 platform.

It is interesting to note that once we put ADATS into operations, Ivan packed up his tent, knocked down the Berlin Wall, and become our friends. Ronny Reagan helped a little bit here and there...but the timing was impeccable...

For the detractors of ADATS, I ask you one simple question, do you want to fly against it?? If you do, yer nuts. If you don't then you are showing some common dog. There are few systems out there with the ADATS dual capabilities...image what you could do if you improved on its abilities and gave it additional roles...

Gunner, you will have to step in here...

[alleramilitaria]

the M-6 linebacker is a big POS that i was on for more than 7 years. it will be phased out by this time next year. the ADATS system that was tested in its final phase and is still on display at FT Bliss was on a M2. thats the same with the SGT York, improved duster, roland I and II, fast forward heavy, non-line of sight weapon, FOG-M, improved svinger vehicle, wheeled shap, avenger, STUNAR, excalabur, sentunal, I-vulcan, PIVADS, shapfire, and other systems tested in the 1980s. all in all more than 6 billion was wasted by the ADA branch on just SHORAD systems in about 10 years with NOTHING to show for it. but the early and mid versions were on the M-113. I was at ft bliss and in ADA at the time of testing. it was the price that killed the system and part of the way to get some of the money back was to dump it on the canadian service. since then it has been for sale and offered to the greek army, the saudi arabian military and others. but once someone sees how much the price tag is for the support and ammo everyone says no thanks (check out the proposed sale to the greek army on the net). the current canadian army ADATS are in storage and will probably only see the light of day again if sold as scrap or moved to a museum.

[RHClarke]

Well, Dave,

We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I note with interest that your POS beat all other contenders in the competition... and note with pride that there still isn't a more capable equivalent available today.

As for the disposition of Cdn ADATS, some were last used in the recent past during a field training ex with the Direct Fire Support Regiment, and Ex Potent Knight before that.

The remaining ADATS are kept in class S condition at the OEM and are part of a number of upgrade projects - of which I am associated.

The Army website lists ADATS in its equipment page - see http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/Eng...=29&uSection=1 - they are part of the Cdn Army's transformation plan and will eventually be replaced by the MMEV starting in 2009, at which time ADATS may be sold as scrap or put into museums.

I have fond memories of Ft Blitz, the home of the US "Verein fur Raumschiffahrt" and Operation Paperclip. Good to hear from a Ozzlefinch wrangler.

Cheers!