As a side note, the issue of a replacement for the old Leo 1s has been kicking around since the 1980s. The army was divided between those who favoured what became the LAV with a great big gun and those who wanted a tank. (I have letters from the CDS at the time and the army commander in the early 1990s taking two contrary positions.)
I have it as well on excellent authority that in 1990, the Americans offered an M1A1 Abrams M2A2 Bradleys to fit out a mech brigade at no purchase cost. Basically, their surplus equipment would be loaded on trains and shipped north.
Treasury Board turned it down on the grounds that the lifecycle costs (maint, spares etc) were too great and were not justified by current and anticipated requirements.
This lease doesn't address the tank replacement disagreement, but it does give enough modern equipment to get the job done.
2 comments:
It's a great idea to give them equipment that's able to function in that environment. We're getting there finally.
Please, please and please again. Don't let there be any suspect commissions paid to third party consultants on this deal!!
Mike:
I agree wholeheartedly.
As a side note, the issue of a replacement for the old Leo 1s has been kicking around since the 1980s. The army was divided between those who favoured what became the LAV with a great big gun and those who wanted a tank. (I have letters from the CDS at the time and the army commander in the early 1990s taking two contrary positions.)
I have it as well on excellent authority that in 1990, the Americans offered an M1A1 Abrams M2A2 Bradleys to fit out a mech brigade at no purchase cost. Basically, their surplus equipment would be loaded on trains and shipped north.
Treasury Board turned it down on the grounds that the lifecycle costs (maint, spares etc) were too great and were not justified by current and anticipated requirements.
This lease doesn't address the tank replacement disagreement, but it does give enough modern equipment to get the job done.
Post a Comment