11 years infantry. The Leopard is old but it's what Canada has. The Mobile Gun System was floated as an interim replacement for the old warhorse as a cheap alternative but the project was turned down by the top brass because it is too lightly armored and it is sucking up money that could be more effectively spent on equipment that is direly needed right now. How much money will a brand new MBT program take away from DND coffers? The Taliban is not a modern standing army, they do not field MBT's of their own so the fact that the Leopard is not state of the art is moot. What the troops have now are LAV III's, UAV's and towed Howitzers adding the Leopards to the mix only makes sense considering the level of resistance we are currently facing. We should be making our forces self sufficient as possible and not dependent on the aid of other nations good will.

Budget figures for government programs are often just statements of 'goals,' and not hard facts. Sometimes because all the facts are not yet known, and sometimes because a management decision has been made to not face the facts - or to not 'share' the facts. For whatever reason, the unit cost of Stryker vehicles is, according to the latest budget figures, now at the astronomical cost of $2.67 million per vehicle. You can bet that it will increase with time.

The original bid by GD/GM was $3,980 million for 2,131 vehicles at a per vehicle cost of $1.87 million.

Comparing that with the present 01, 02 and 03 budget figures, the latest estimate is $2,879 million for 1082 vehicles at a per vehicle cost of $2.67 million.

One final comment about costs: Since the Stryker program is allegedly an off-the-shelf program, how come the RDT&E costs are almost a half billion dollars?

And people think Sydney Steel was a huge government white elephant. They have no idea...

[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf]here is a pdf report on the ongoing problems of the Stryker program[/url

When Canada last upgraded the Leopard Tank KMW (makers of the Leopard 1 and 2 ) offered to sell us Leopard 2 for only a slighly higher price. I have been to the factory were all Leopards are assembled and seen Leo 2 up close and seen Abrams up close and to these Tech eyes the Leopard is far superior and Canada would be better suited if we had 3 Squdrons of those to rotate in and out of operational theatre

Why are the contractors trying to use the wrong cannon, on the
wrong chassis – at the taxpayers’ expense ?
The short answer to this question is that the Army has a large number of
surplus M68A1 cannons which are being made available to the contractor
virtually for free (The M68 105mm cannon was the standard weapon for the M60
tank and the early Abrams).
Accordingly, it is very tempting indeed to try and use that free cannon in
the Stryker Mobile Gun system because it increases profit per vehicle by about
$250,000.
The only problem is that fundamental engineering issues stand in the way.
Unfortunately, fundamental engineering problems re the Stryker MGS are not
confined to the attempt to use the wrong cannon. They are pervasive.

The significance of the Canadian dollar. Stryker’s primary
production base is in Canada.
Finally, at the time of this review (Nov 2002), the exchange rate for the
Canadian dollar was approximately $.60 US dollar. As of July 1, 2003, that same
Canadian dollar has appreciated to be worth approximately $.75 US dollar.
Correspondingly, General Dynamics’ production and material costs for its
primary production and vendor base in Canada, where as much as three quarters
of the Stryker content is produced, may have increased 25% based upon the
Canadian dollar alone.
Further, the Army program office’s estimated costs to complete the
project were over 20% higher than the original budget before the appreciation of
the Canadian dollar.
Therefore since the Stryker contract between the US Army and General
Dynamics is a Firm Fixed Price contract in US dollars, General Dynamics should
be losing money on this contract. Yet, on July 16, 2003, GD announced its
quarterly results, March-June 2003, which reflected Combat System revenue of
over $1B, with $120 million in operating earnings – a highly profitable business.
GD is absolutely entitled to make a profit, but how can this be unless the
US Army is providing funding for the Stryker program far beyond the levels
contracted for in the Stryker Firm Fixed Price contract?

The Leopard II is reputed to be better than the Abrams, but have any Leopard II's seen actual combat?

Neither had the troops until this and they are spanking the Terorrists!!

Well that's a given. We're Canadian, we always kick ass!