F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm sure LockMart has a glossy brochure.

[Derek 2.0]

what current operators and what praise?

The various current users of the aircraft.

[waldo]

The various current users of the aircraft.

nice dodge! What praise?

now, if your next comeback is, "the various current praise of the various current users of the aircraft"... please, hold your reponse!

[Derek 2.0]

nice dodge! What praise?

now, if your next comeback is, "the various current praise of the various current users of the aircraft"... please, hold your reponse!

The flight characteristics and advanced technology when contrasted with legacy types….

[On Guard for Thee]

what about the laco fo speed, lack of maneuverability, lack or stealth, or the fact you can't currently fly it more than 3 hours without inspecting that cantankerous fireball in the back end they call an engine

[waldo]

The flight characteristics and advanced technology when contrasted with legacy types….

that's quite, uhhh... non-specific! Let's try again, from a different angle... one I'm inspired to present based on a couple of articles I've read in the last week. Now, of course, we're all aware of the significant U.S. government control/regulations on exporting military kit/technology. In hindsight, the point seems quite obvious; however, it's not one I've given prior consideration to; specifically, the technology/features/capability in the F-35s that JSF partner countries will receive. Can you advise, can you confirm, whether the F-35As that you so trumpet will be coming Canada's way, will be the full equivalent to U.S. F-35As? Simple question - requesting a simple answer... as you're aware, YES or NO.

[Derek 2.0]

Can you advise, can you confirm, whether the F-35As that you so trumpet will be coming Canada's way, will be the full equivalent to U.S. F-35As? Simple question - requesting a simple answer... as you're aware, YES or NO.

Overall yes, but several members (including Canada) could have minor specific technical differences (“Plumbed” to accept hose and drogue refuelling, the strengthened naval tail hook and larger drogue chute)……And of course, all members aircraft, sans the Americans, British and Israelis, no provisions (equipped) to allow the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

[waldo]

Overall yes, but several members (including Canada) could have minor specific technical differences (“Plumbed” to accept hose and drogue refuelling, the strengthened naval tail hook and larger drogue chute)……And of course, all members aircraft, sans the Americans, British and Israelis, no provisions (equipped) to allow the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

not what I was asking... but I accept I wasn't completely clear. I'm not talking about customizations; I'm talking about the inherent technology. Is there a distinctly separate U.S. F-35 version for the A and B variants... of course, no other country outside the U.S. has (currently) intentions toward the C variant. That is to say, is there a different F-35 (A and B variants) that countries other than the U.S. will be receiving... different from the U.S. versions? So, again - YES or NO?

Edited July 18, 2014 by waldo

[Derek 2.0]

not what I was asking... but I accept I wasn't completely clear. I'm not talking about customizations; I'm talking about the inherent technology. Is there a distinctly separate U.S. F-35 version for the A and B variants... of course, no other country outside the U.S. has (currently) intentions toward the C variant. That is to say, is there a different F-35 (A and B variants) that countries other than the U.S. will be receiving... different from the U.S. versions? So, again - YES or NO?

No difference in the root inherent technology, but differences or as you term, customizations, for individual users.

[Moonbox]

Then explain the praise by the current operators………is that also a conspiracy?

What operators? The first operational delivery isn't scheduled until 2015. Are you talking about the test pilots, who are under gag?

Exactly that.........All American led operations since 1991 have relied heavily upon stealth aircraft, coupled with cruise missiles, to neutralize key strategic and tactical targets.

No, they've used them, they haven't relied on them heavily. There were too few of them to rely heavily on them. With or without the F-117, the air campaign against Saddam would have been equally successful. Coalition anti-radar weapons were so effective that Iraqi air defense was neutered from the start, and most of what the F-117 did could have been done by cruise missiles.

That’s predicated on the F-35 becoming a wasted opportunity……….Clearly the current and future operators don’t feel that.

The current and future operators don't have a choice at this point. The F-35 is the only plane in the pipeline. That doesn't somehow mean that it was a successfully conceived and managed program. That just means once the project derailed, went way over budget and behind schedule, there was no Plan B.

Sure it does…….inherent flaws are found and resolved with both a long service records and especially trial by fire.

Trial by fire for the Abrams has gone no further than fighting old Soviet garbage. Yeah, incremental improvements can be made, but a good design is a good design. Not having combat experience doesn't take that away. The Soviet T-34 was a way better tank than anything the Germans had in 1941, despite the fact that it had no combat experience, and the Germans had years of heavy fighting experience to draw upon.

Also, it's interesting that you ignored my point of the F-22. You and I would agree that it's the king of the skies, right? It has no combat record.

I’m not saying the Leopard II is a bad tank, but it’s not all sunshine and gumdrops as you make it out to be, especially when compared to an Abrams……..The acceleration and gear ratio afforded to the Abrams is a great many better then what’s on the Leopard II and Challenger II……acceleration, both forward and reverse are both very important factors in armoured warfare.

Acceleration is one important factor among many. Protection and Firepower are even more important. The Leopard 2 is better protected (particularly when in the favored hull-down position) and has a more powerful and longer range gun. The M1's acceleration advantage owes to the fact that it runs off a jet engine, which brings its own host of problems with it, namely limiting its range and requiring a fleet of fuel trucks to keep it running. Oh yeah, it's also way more expensive. Did I mention that?

How many Abrams tanks were knocked out by a vintage RPG via a frontal armour hit?

Red herring much? How many Challenger 1-2's or Leopard 2's have been? None as far as I know!

Huh? There were nearly three times as many Abrams tanks built then Leopard II……as to their “Export success”, the Germans and Dutch gave them away once the wall came down.

Three times the production scale, and still far more expensive yet not more effective. As for their exports, they still sold them. You brought up exports as a measure of success, not me.

A rifled barrel will certainly be longer ranged and more accurate, but of course will wear out far faster

Yes, but not having a jet engine also means that you don't have to refuel nearly as much and your engine is far more serviceable.

Political interference is a common theme with all defence and Government procurement programs.

Sure, but nobody has the clout that the US does. Any competitor is operating at a distinct disadvantage outside of Europe. Considering all of the aid they get, was there ever any question where Egypt would get its tanks from?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

What operators? The first operational delivery isn't scheduled until 2015. Are you talking about the test pilots, who are under gag?

Flying officers, not test pilots, of the USAF, USN, USMC, RN, RAF etc…….

No, they've used them, they haven't relied on them heavily. There were too few of them to rely heavily on them. With or without the F-117, the air campaign against Saddam would have been equally successful. Coalition anti-radar weapons were so effective that Iraqi air defense was neutered from the start, and most of what the F-117 did could have been done by cruise missiles.

Wrong……During both air campaigns strategic points, critical to the early intial successes in wiping out the C&C of Saddam’s military, were attacked with a continual accuracy that couldn’t be accomplished with cruise missiles or legacy aircraft (with acceptable losses).

The current and future operators don't have a choice at this point. The F-35 is the only plane in the pipeline. That doesn't somehow mean that it was a successfully conceived and managed program. That just means once the project derailed, went way over budget and behind schedule, there was no Plan B.

They could leave anytime and develop their own aircraft or purchase legacy types…..

Trial by fire for the Abrams has gone no further than fighting old Soviet garbage. Yeah, incremental improvements can be made, but a good design is a good design. Not having combat experience doesn't take that away. The Soviet T-34 was a way better tank than anything the Germans had in 1941, despite the fact that it had no combat experience, and the Germans had years of heavy fighting experience to draw upon.

What do you think it’s opposition would have fielded in the Fulda Gap?

Also, it's interesting that you ignored my point of the F-22. You and I would agree that it's the king of the skies, right? It has no combat record.

King of the skies by default....

Acceleration is one important factor among many. Protection and Firepower are even more important. The Leopard 2 is better protected (particularly when in the favored hull-down position) and has a more powerful and longer range gun. The M1's acceleration advantage owes to the fact that it runs off a jet engine, which brings its own host of problems with it, namely limiting its range and requiring a fleet of fuel trucks to keep it running. Oh yeah, it's also way more expensive. Did I mention that?

Now you’re talking out of your ass……..The Abrams and Leopard II share the exact same gun.

How do you determine the Leopard II has better protection? It’s never faced an adversary that had tanks……..As to logistics, all tanks require fleets of fuel trucks, that’s a common theme since armoured warfare was invented.

Three times the production scale, and still far more expensive yet not more effective. As for their exports, they still sold them. You brought up exports as a measure of success, not me.

How do you determine the Leopard II is just as effected? It’s never faced enemy tanks on a battlefield…….

Yes, but not having a jet engine also means that you don't have to refuel nearly as much and your engine is far more serviceable.

How many Leopard II tanks had their engines serviced (and replaced) during a mobility campaign?

Sure, but nobody has the clout that the US does. Any competitor is operating at a distinct disadvantage outside of Europe. Considering all of the aid they get, was there ever any question where Egypt would get its tanks from?

Or maybe, Egypt selected the Abrams because it had a proven service record in both desert and armoured warfare……..something the Challenger II and Leopard II didn’t have, and with the Leo, still doesn’t have.

[Moonbox]

Flying officers, not test pilots, of the USAF, USN, USMC, RN, RAF etc…….

All still flight testing the F-35, which isn't yet operational. None of those folk are able to speak freely about the plane.

Wrong……During both air campaigns strategic points, critical to the early intial successes in wiping out the C&C of Saddam’s military, were attacked with a continual accuracy that couldn’t be accomplished with cruise missiles or legacy aircraft (with acceptable losses).

Well only 40% of "strategic" targets were hit by F-117's. Are you saying none of those could have been hit by cruise missiles? They were plenty accurate enough to hit missile launchers, presidential palaces, hydro stations and bridges etc...

They could leave anytime and develop their own aircraft or purchase legacy types…..

A trite remark with no bearing on the conversation, or in reality for that matter. Good work.

What do you think it’s opposition would have fielded in the Fulda Gap?

Not tanks designed in the 1940's, like the Iraqis did. About 55% of Iraqi tanks were T-54's and Type 59/69's, Soviet and Chinese versions of the same tank, designed in 1945. Another 27% of them were T-62's, which were a late 1950's design. The only thing that was even remotely useful in a tank v tank engagement was the T-72, which comprised about 18% of Iraq's armour. Even that, however, was at least 10 years less modern than the Abrams, and its gun had only 60% of the range of the Abrams. Add to this the fact that the Iraqi tank crews had terrible aim, little/no night vision equipment, and were unable to maneuver due to allied air superiority. The Abrams' service record is only impressive if you consider it impressive that a $9 million tank entering service in the 80's was able to slap around 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's Soviet tanks costing at most 1/8th as much.

King of the skies by default....

but wait...how do we know that? "It's never seen combat"

Now you’re talking out of your ass……..The Abrams and Leopard II share the exact same gun.

Except they don't. The Leopard 2A6 has an upgraded, longer barrel gun, with greater range and muzzle velocity than the Abrams. Combine crap logic with crap facts now. Good work.

How do you determine the Leopard II has better protection? It’s never faced an adversary that had tanks……..As to logistics, all tanks require fleets of fuel trucks, that’s a common theme since armoured warfare was invented.

You don't need helpless Iraqi's to fire crap weapons at your tank to judge its protection. That can be done by simple physics. When a tank is designed, engineers can pretty much tell you what it will take, from which angles, to penetrate a tank's armor. Maybe you're suggesting that tank designers don't test these things? That they just sort of slap a bunch of armor on and hope for the best??

Even so, I probably go too far saying the Leopard 2 is better protected. Overall the Abrams might slightly edge it out, as the newer Leopard 2's focused on better turret armor for hull-down, and the Abrams is more well-rounded. If one is better than the other that way, however, it's marginal.

How do you determine the Leopard II is just as effected? It’s never faced enemy tanks on a battlefield…….

and the Abrams has never met anything but muppet tanks. You can judge a tank by what it's capable of, and those capabilities are extensively tested. From that, numerous third party (and even American defense consultants at that), have since 1990 rated the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 as superior to the M1A2. The edge was slight, but should be magnified by how much cheaper it is to buy and operate.

How many Leopard II tanks had their engines serviced (and replaced) during a mobility campaign?

Where would you suggest I get this information, and what does it prove?

Or maybe, Egypt selected the Abrams because it had a proven service record in both desert and armoured warfare……..something the Challenger II and Leopard II didn’t have, and with the Leo, still doesn’t have.

You might say that, but only if you're incredibly biased and/or naive. Considering the USA subsidies nearly 30% of Egypt's military budget, and thus are essentially paying 30% of the cost of each tank purchased, buying non-US tanks was an option! I did get a bit of a chuckle from that statement. Thanks.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

All still flight testing the F-35, which isn't yet operational. None of those folk are able to speak freely about the plane.

Ahh......no....There are several operational squadrons conducting conversion training currently……….And there are numerous video/print interviews with various pilots phrasing it’s attributes……..You suggest some forced silence, have you considered that the manufacturer and the various operators actually value the aircraft?

Well only 40% of "strategic" targets were hit by F-117's. Are you saying none of those could have been hit by cruise missiles? They were plenty accurate enough to hit missile launchers, presidential palaces, hydro stations and bridges etc...

No conventional warhead carried by any current cruise missile has the kinetic energy required to destroy deeply buried command and control bunkers………And yes, only ~40% of targets were hit be a handful of F-117s, but ~75% of targets actually destroyed during the conflict were done so by the F-117s with LGBs.

A trite remark with no bearing on the conversation, or in reality for that matter. Good work.

If the F-35 was such a waste as you suggest, one would think partner nations would have actually left the program…….nobody is being forced to stay.

Not tanks designed in the 1940's, like the Iraqis did. About 55% of Iraqi tanks were T-54's and Type 59/69's, Soviet and Chinese versions of the same tank, designed in 1945. Another 27% of them were T-62's, which were a late 1950's design. The only thing that was even remotely useful in a tank v tank engagement was the T-72, which comprised about 18% of Iraq's armour. Even that, however, was at least 10 years less modern than the Abrams, and its gun had only 60% of the range of the Abrams. Add to this the fact that the Iraqi tank crews had terrible aim, little/no night vision equipment, and were unable to maneuver due to allied air superiority. The Abrams' service record is only impressive if you consider it impressive that a $9 million tank entering service in the 80's was able to slap around 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's Soviet tanks costing at most 1/8th as much.

The bulk of Soviet and Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle divisions, Class A, B and C were made up of T-55s, T-62s and T-64s…….T-72s and T-80s, during the early 80s, made up the bulk of the Soviet Shock armies, or only 1/5th of the Soviet tank strength……equivalent to the make-up of the Iraqi (and other Arab nations mechanized forces) regular army and Republican Guard, which was specifically tailored after the Soviet army….

No argument that the Abrams is a far better tank, but of course, that was the whole point of it’s development.

but wait...how do we know that? "It's never seen combat"

It has no current peers to compare against……Of course once the Russians and Chinese deploy something in the 2020s, King of the skies will be a subjective title.

Except they don't. The Leopard 2A6 has an upgraded, longer barrel gun, with greater range and muzzle velocity than the Abrams. Combine crap logic with crap facts now. Good work.

You never specified the A6.………How many tanks has the Leo A6 engaged in actual combat? As to it’s “uber” gun, I’m sure we’ll actually see real world performance data once it’s deployed in the M1A3 later this year, fore we know the Americans will actually use their tanks.....

You don't need helpless Iraqi's to fire crap weapons at your tank to judge its protection. That can be done by simple physics. When a tank is designed, engineers can pretty much tell you what it will take, from which angles, to penetrate a tank's armor. Maybe you're suggesting that tank designers don't test these things? That they just sort of slap a bunch of armor on and hope for the best??

How do engineers determine actual shock damage to the multitude of systems found within a modern tank, then address any design flaws found in real world service, to retro fit to existing fleets?

Even so, I probably go too far saying the Leopard 2 is better protected. Overall the Abrams might slightly edge it out, as the newer Leopard 2's focused on better turret armor for hull-down, and the Abrams is more well-rounded. If one is better than the other that way, however, it's marginal.

It’s marginal in theory, fore we don’t actually know how a Leopard II outfitted for combat (not a laboratory) will react to hit from a 125mm shell………Of course this data was reflected in the M1A2.……

and the Abrams has never met anything but muppet tanks. You can judge a tank by what it's capable of, and those capabilities are extensively tested. From that, numerous third party (and even American defense consultants at that), have since 1990 rated the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 as superior to the M1A2. The edge was slight, but should be magnified by how much cheaper it is to buy and operate.

The Abrams has met and bested the very tanks that it was designed to counter………the Leopard II…..zilch.

Where would you suggest I get this information, and what does it prove?

It was a rhetorical question…….you won’t, since the Leopard II has never served in such a campaign.

You might say that, but only if you're incredibly biased and/or naive. Considering the USA subsidies nearly 30% of Egypt's military budget, and thus are essentially paying 30% of the cost of each tank purchased, buying non-US tanks was an option! I did get a bit of a chuckle from that statement. Thanks.

Biased or naïve? The Americans and Egyptians have far more recent experience in actual armoured warfare then the Germans…..

[On Guard for Thee]

The vstol version of the F 35 tends to burn up the very spot it's landing on. Once again that single engine burns way too hot to provide that 42,000 lbs/thrust it needs to hover. Which is also why it tends to blow up from time to time.

[Derek 2.0]

The vstol version of the F 35 tends to burn up the very spot it's landing on. Once again that single engine burns way too hot to provide that 42,000 lbs/thrust it needs to hover. Which is also why it tends to blow up from time to time.

Not to any great extent, and less so then the V-22, as made evident several years ago during sea trials aboard the USS Wasp.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not to any great extent, and less so then the V-22, as made evident several years ago during sea trials aboard the USS Wasp.

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-continue-plague-big-deck-amphibs

[Derek 2.0]

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-continue-plague-big-deck-amphibs

read your link:

USS Tripoli (LHA-7) and the yet-unnamed LHA-8, “will be able to carry out “complete unrestricted operations” with the F-35 and MV-22, Mercer said.

[Moonbox]

You suggest some forced silence, have you considered that the manufacturer and the various operators actually value the aircraft?

I've no doubt it's a good, perhaps even great, aircraft. I simply don't believe that it's heavenly perfection like it's being advertised, as you clearly do.

No conventional warhead carried by any current cruise missile has the kinetic energy required to destroy deeply buried command and control bunkers………

Okay, sure, but considering how both coalition land and air forces in Iraq operated with virtual impunity, underground bunkers were hardly the critical targets they were made out to be.

but ~75% of targets actually destroyed during the conflict were done so by the F-117s with LGBs.

75% of what targets, specifically? It wasn't 75% of all targets in the Gulf War.

If the F-35 was such a waste as you suggest, one would think partner nations would have actually left the program…….nobody is being forced to stay.

We're going in circles now. We've already discussed this. The partner nations aren't on the hook for the 60% over-budget development program. Whether the plane ends up being $98M, or $130M, it's still the best option available, and starting a new 15+ year fighter program isn't going to do anything to address current and near term needs. You knew that, however, so it was a pointless remark.

The bulk of Soviet and Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle divisions, Class A, B and C were made up of T-55s, T-62s and T-64s…….T-72s and T-80s, during the early 80s, made up the bulk of the Soviet Shock armies, or only 1/5th of the Soviet tank strength……equivalent to the make-up of the Iraqi (and other Arab nations mechanized forces) regular army and Republican Guard, which was specifically tailored after the Soviet army….

What does the early 80's East Germany have to do with this discussion? The Gulf War happened in 1990-1991. Regardless, Soviet tank regiments in 1987 had over 2250 T-80 tanks operating there, and even the T-80 wasn't a match its German and American contemporaries in the Leopard 2 and Abrams, nor was it ever designed to be. Soviet doctrine at the time was to attack in overwhelming numbers, with the shock regiments in the front, and the cheaper, older models swarming in through breakthroughs and flanks. Iraq didn't have numerical superiority like the Soviets did, they were pinned down by airstrikes, and they weren't even running the newer versions of Soviet tanks. Essentially, they were helpless.

No argument that the Abrams is a far better tank, but of course, that was the whole point of it’s development.

It's no surprise that a $9M modern AFV would best a $1.2M, especially when the $9M model has numerical superiority and complete operational freedom, while the $1.2M faced certain death from above if it tried moving anywhere. What an amazing achievement!

It has no current peers to compare against……Of course once the Russians and Chinese deploy something in the 2020s, King of the skies will be a subjective title.

Silly, selective logic. The M1A2 has peers to compare it against, but you've excluded them for lack of combat experience.

You never specified the A6.………How many tanks has the Leo A6 engaged in actual combat?

I didn't need to specify it. The 2A6 is the most recent production model, and you clearly knew nothing about it.

How do engineers determine actual shock damage to the multitude of systems found within a modern tank, then address any design flaws found in real world service, to retro fit to existing fleets?

Are you trying to say the small handful of T-72's that were even given the chance to fire on the M1 offered some sort of huge technical insight? As far as I know, only 1 M1 was ever taken out of action by enemy fire in the Gulf War, and that was to fix external damage. It was never actually knocked out. Stop acting like having a couple of rounds plink off your armor somehow gave engineers the data they needed to make the M1 into a vastly better tank. It didn't.

It’s marginal in theory, fore we don’t actually know how a Leopard II outfitted for combat (not a laboratory) will react to hit from a 125mm shell………Of course this data was reflected in the M1A2.……

So you're saying that the M1A2 was able to deflect/absorb crappy 125mm T-72 shells, as it was laboratory-designed to do? Seems a pretty strong case for the reliability of laboratory data. Those sorts of things can, and do, get tested prior to service.

The Abrams has met and bested the very tanks that it was designed to counter………the Leopard II…..zilch.

The Challenger I and II both bested those same tanks, and the Leopard II would have certainly done so as well. This is a really lame argument to be making Derek.

It was a rhetorical question…….you won’t, since the Leopard II has never served in such a campaign.

Yes, that's why I asked what your question was meant to prove. Could you please explain? Does the fact that the M1A2 slapped around a bunch of helplessly inferior legacy Soviet models somehow prove that the Leopard II couldn't have done the same thing?

Biased or naïve? The Americans and Egyptians have far more recent experience in actual armoured warfare then the Germans.

Nice deflection! I'll ask you straight then, so you can't slither around this time. Do you actually believe that shopping around for foreign tanks was an option for the Egyptians when the Americans were subsidizing 1/4 of their military budget, thus 1/4 of the price of said tanks? It wasn't, but I'd like to see if you actually have so little integrity that you'd suggest otherwise.

As for recent experience in armored warfare, the Egyptians don't have anything to draw on but incompetence.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

I've no doubt it's a good, perhaps even great, aircraft. I simply don't believe that it's heavenly perfection like it's being advertised, as you clearly do.

Contrasted with legacy types, it will most certainly transmit the sound of angels….

Okay, sure, but considering how both coalition land and air forces in Iraq operated with virtual impunity, underground bunkers were hardly the critical targets they were made out to be.

What allowed them to operate with impunity in one of the most heavily defended airspaces that the World has ever seen?

75% of what targets, specifically? It wasn't 75% of all targets in the Gulf War.

The targets that it attacked, namely ones of inherent strategic value.

We're going in circles now. We've already discussed this. The partner nations aren't on the hook for the 60% over-budget development program. Whether the plane ends up being $98M, or $130M, it's still the best option available, and starting a new 15+ year fighter program isn't going to do anything to address current and near term needs. You knew that, however, so it was a pointless remark.

So in effect, the F-35 is also the best deal for Canada………

What does the early 80's East Germany have to do with this discussion? The Gulf War happened in 1990-1991. Regardless, Soviet tank regiments in 1987 had over 2250 T-80 tanks operating there, and even the T-80 wasn't a match its German and American contemporaries in the Leopard 2 and Abrams, nor was it ever designed to be. Soviet doctrine at the time was to attack in overwhelming numbers, with the shock regiments in the front, and the cheaper, older models swarming in through breakthroughs and flanks. Iraq didn't have numerical superiority like the Soviets did, they were pinned down by airstrikes, and they weren't even running the newer versions of Soviet tanks. Essentially, they were helpless.

That was the intended battleground of the three Western tanks we’re discussing……And though the Soviet Tank regiments were predominantly armed with T-80 and T-72 tanks, the far more numerous Soviet and Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle Divisions were centered around older types.

It's no surprise that a $9M modern AFV would best a $1.2M, especially when the $9M model has numerical superiority and complete operational freedom, while the $1.2M faced certain death from above if it tried moving anywhere. What an amazing achievement!

But of course that is the intent and reason why the Americans and West invested in rapidly growing (and expensive) technology, for they knew that they would never compete against the Soviets in terms of numbers……

Silly, selective logic. The M1A2 has peers to compare it against, but you've excluded them for lack of combat experience.

How are they peers then if they haven't faced the ultimate test and used in their intended way?

I didn't need to specify it. The 2A6 is the most recent production model, and you clearly knew nothing about it.

As I said, my brother is currently a crew commander and was trained in Munster on the A6 by the Heer and deployed on the first Roto of both Leopard Is and IIs…….My second hand knowledge is more extensive on the subject then your second hand knowledge garned through Google

Are you trying to say the small handful of T-72's that were even given the chance to fire on the M1 offered some sort of huge technical insight? As far as I know, only 1 M1 was ever taken out of action by enemy fire in the Gulf War, and that was to fix external damage. It was never actually knocked out. Stop acting like having a couple of rounds plink off your armor somehow gave engineers the data they needed to make the M1 into a vastly better tank. It didn't.

This is very true, but numerous Abrams were hit by Iraqi tanks.........And engineers did use lessons in shock damage to the tanks computer/fire control system/comms and apply them to the more robust M1A2 program that followed after the Gulf war.

So you're saying that the M1A2 was able to deflect/absorb crappy 125mm T-72 shells, as it was laboratory-designed to do? Seems a pretty strong case for the reliability of laboratory data. Those sorts of things can, and do, get tested prior to service.

The M1A2 didn't serve during the First Gulf war, and applied lesson learned from that very campaign into it’s design.

The Challenger I and II both bested those same tanks, and the Leopard II would have certainly done so as well. This is a really lame argument to be making Derek.

You base that on what exactly?

Yes, that's why I asked what your question was meant to prove. Could you please explain? Does the fact that the M1A2 slapped around a bunch of helplessly inferior legacy Soviet models somehow prove that the Leopard II couldn't have done the same thing?

Not at all........Yet we still don’t know how the Leopard II would fair in actual armoured combat in a desert…….

Nice deflection! I'll ask you straight then, so you can't slither around this time. Do you actually believe that shopping around for foreign tanks was an option for the Egyptians when the Americans were subsidizing 1/4 of their military budget, thus 1/4 of the price of said tanks? It wasn't, but I'd like to see if you actually have so little integrity that you'd suggest otherwise.

Perhaps you'd better step back if you're incapable of conversing sans personal attacks.....But to answer your question, certainly, the Egyptians acquired all sorts of non-American equipment post Camp David.

As for recent experience in armored warfare, the Egyptians don't have anything to draw on but incompetence.

Like the Germans?

Edited July 20, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Moonbox]

What allowed them to operate with impunity in one of the most heavily defended airspaces that the World has ever seen?

Anti-radar missiles.

The targets that it attacked, namely ones of inherent strategic value.

So hidey-holes in Baghdad. Got it.

So in effect, the F-35 is also the best deal for Canada

Yes, good job. I've already said that to you, multiple times, in this thread. Too bad it's costing the Americans so much more than it should have.

That was the intended battleground of the three Western tanks were discussingAnd though the Soviet Tank regiments were predominantly armed with T-80 and T-72 tanks, the far more numerous Soviet and Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle Divisions were centered around older types.

Again, so what? What on earth does that add to the discussion Derek?

How are they peers then if they haven't faced the ultimate test and used in their intended way?

This is fast becoming one of the most pointless discussions I've ever had on this board. This question you're asking here is a pathetic logical fallacy that I've debunked numerous times, in numerous ways, yet you continue to parrot it over and over.

As I said, my brother is currently a crew commander and was trained in Munster on the A6 by the Heer and deployed on the first Roto of both Leopard Is and IIs.My second hand knowledge is more extensive on the subject then your second hand knowledge garned through Google

Yes, yes, we've heard about your esteemed relatives before. Your brother is a former tank commander. Your brother-in-law is a defense expert/engineer and knows everything about cruise missiles etc. Your father is Ares, God of War. Good for you. If you knew that 2A6 and later models carried a more powerful gun, you would have said as much rather than tell me I'm talking out of my ass.

This is very true, but numerous Abrams were hit by Iraqi tanks.........And engineers did use lessons in shock damage to the tanks computer/fire control system/comms and apply them to the more robust M1A2 program that followed after the Gulf war.

Numerous as in a handful, and the improvements made directly as a result of those hits were unlikely to be substantial.

You base that on what exactly?

Please, try and tell me that the Leopard 2 wouldn't have torn crappy Soviet tanks apart in Iraq. I'm getting a really good gauge of what sort of person I'm arguing with here.

Not at all........Yet we still dont know how the Leopard II would fair in actual armoured combat in a desert.

Sure we do, just like we knew before the Gulf War how the M1 would fare against them. Was it any surprise that the Abrams, with a 30-50% effective range advantage on its gun, and an armor package designed to withstand hits far greater than the opposing Iraqi tanks could deliver at even short range, proved successful? It was a foregone conclusion then, just as it would have been with the Leopard 2.

Perhaps you'd better step back if you're incapable of conversing sans personal attacks.....But to answer your question, certainly, the Egyptians acquired all sorts of non-American equipment post Camp David.

Yeah, like trainer aircraft and APC's. If you think that Egypt's decision to purchase/build 1100 Abrams had nothing to do with the fact that the US was footing 1/4 of the bill for them, there's nothing else for me to say.

Like the Germans?

Your grasp of history is as impressive as your grasp of logic.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Anti-radar missiles.

That’s a tactical weapon……the impunity was gained by knocking out the command and control facilities…..as often quoted of Powell, cutting the head off the chicken.

So hidey-holes in Baghdad. Got it.

Holes with the leadership of the Iraqi armed forces…….again, the head of the chicken.

Again, so what? What on earth does that add to the discussion Derek?

Everything, this was the threat that lead to the development of the three tanks we’re discussing, and in turn, the threat that the Iraqi army was modelled after.

This is fast becoming one of the most pointless discussions I've ever had on this board. This question you're asking here is a pathetic logical fallacy that I've debunked numerous times, in numerous ways, yet you continue to parrot it over and over.

How many armoured engagements has the Leo II been involved in again?

Yes, yes, we've heard about your esteemed relatives before. Your brother is a former tank commander. Your brother-in-law is a defense expert/engineer and knows everything about cruise missiles etc. Your father is Ares, God of War. Good for you. If you knew that 2A6 and later models carried a more powerful gun, you would have said as much rather than tell me I'm talking out of my ass.

What is the kinetic energy transfer from a conventional sabot round fired from a Leo 2A6, versus the DU sabot fired from the Abrams? If you wish to get into a discussion on ballistics I will gladly oblige you…..

Numerous as in a handful, and the improvements made directly as a result of those hits were unlikely to be substantial.

A subjective term if there ever was one……What are the key differences between the onboard computers, fire control systems and communications of the M1A1 Abrams and the M1A2?

Please, try and tell me that the Leopard 2 wouldn't have torn crappy Soviet tanks apart in Iraq. I'm getting a really good gauge of what sort of person I'm arguing with here.

I never said that it couldn’t……you’re the one with the unfounded claim that it could as effectively as an Abrams though.

Sure we do, just like we knew before the Gulf War how the M1 would fare against them. Was it any surprise that the Abrams, with a 30-50% effective range advantage on its gun, and an armor package designed to withstand hits far greater than the opposing Iraqi tanks could deliver at even short range, proved successful? It was a foregone conclusion then, just as it would have been with the Leopard 2.

Ahhh, but indirect fire-support and engagements with other tanks are only a few of the facets encompassing armoured warfare……we would need to look at the whole gamut, but of course we can’t with the Leopard II

Yeah, like trainer aircraft and APC's. If you think that Egypt's decision to purchase/build 1100 Abrams had nothing to do with the fact that the US was footing 1/4 of the bill for them, there's nothing else for me to say.

The Americans don’t build trainers and APCs? Following your meme, the Egyptians should have been purchasing Hawks and Bradleys with their American credit card…..

Your grasp of history is as impressive as your grasp of logic.

Care to retell the fate of the Afrika Korps?

It shared much the same fate as Sadat's army in '73.......

Edited July 20, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[cybercoma]

The F-35 is fake. All the videos are CG.

[Moonbox]

That’s a tactical weapon……the impunity was gained by knocking out the command and control facilities…..as often quoted of Powell, cutting the head off the chicken.

The head of an already-helpless chicken. Command and control facilities don't have much effect when they have no tactical capabilities. It's great that Iraqi anti-air brigades lost communication etc with their leadership, but whether or not that happened they still would have been nailed every time they activated their radar.

Everything, this was the threat that lead to the development of the three tanks we’re discussing, and in turn, the threat that the Iraqi army was modelled after.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Leopard 2 vs the Abrams, especially considering both the Leo 2 and the Abrams were designed with East German tank battles vs Soviet models in mind. It's yet another misguided red herring steering the conversation off course that you've somehow decided was relevant. How, in any way whatsoever, does this contribute to a comparison between the Leo 2 and M1?

How many armoured engagements has the Leo II been involved in again?

Repetition does not make this worthless comment any less foolish with subsequent uses.

What is the kinetic energy transfer from a conventional sabot round fired from a Leo 2A6, versus the DU sabot fired from the Abrams? If you wish to get into a discussion on ballistics I will gladly oblige you….

Another useless side-topic that does nothing to distinguish the actual tanks from one another. Seeing as though both tanks are using the same L/44 120mm gun, whether or not you choose to stock DU ammunition doesn't change the individual tanks' characteristics. In the case of the 2A6 and later models, which use the longer barreled L/55, the effective range is +4000m, whereas the Abrams modified L/44, as far as I know, doesn't have that range even with the "Silver Bullet" DU round (no kills scored in Iraq beyond 4000m, which even the British Challenger managed). Regardless, stocking DU ammunition is a matter of choice. The Germans and like-minded countries choose not to use it because it's disputed to violate chemical weapons treaties, among others. It has nasty side-effects and various UN and other agencies have been arguing to ban it on those grounds. You knew that, however, but tried to pretend anyways that the Leopard 2 somehow couldn't field a similar round if its operators wanted to.

A subjective term if there ever was one……What are the key differences between the onboard computers, fire control systems and communications of the M1A1 Abrams and the M1A2?

Incremental upgrades are made to any tank, regardless of whether or not it gets plinked by a few ineffective Iraqi legacy guns. While the M1A1 was being upgraded to the M1A2, the Germans were busy upgrading their design with similar systems and installing a better gun.

I never said that it couldn’t……you’re the one with the unfounded claim that it could as effectively as an Abrams though.

Okay, well how about we say that based on its armor package and design, it's virtually certain that the Iraqi muppet tanks the Abrams faced would have had equal difficulty damaging the Leopard 2, and that just like the Abrams, the Leopard 2 would have been firing with impunity from stand-off range and pulverizing the same Soviet garbage. With all of your dissimulation, it's hard to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

The Americans don’t build trainers and APCs? Following your meme, the Egyptians should have been purchasing Hawks and Bradleys with their American credit card…..

There's a difference between importing hundeds/thousands of high-ticket items like MBT's and Fighter planes, and awarding relatively puny contracts to trainer planes or rifles. Certain types of equipment are also not cost-prohibitive to develop yourself, or in partnership. Spending billions on MBT's, however, is something altogether different.

Care to retell the fate of the Afrika Korps?

It shared much the same fate as Sadat's army in '73.......

The Afrika Korps, consisting of mostly Italian troops, supported and commanded by Germans, fought impressively and outnumbered by 50-100% against the British for ~3 years, despite British naval blockade and supply-line nightmares. Despite the enormous logistical, technical and numerical advantages the British enjoyed, they still nearly lost, and with it the Suez canal. It took nearly 2:1 numerical superiority for the British to manage their first real victory, and despite the loss Rommel is still regarded as one of the best generals of the whole war.

What were the circumstances and outcome of the Yom Kippur war? Oh yeah, Egypt and Syria getting embarrassed by their tiny neighbour.

[Derek 2.0]

The head of an already-helpless chicken. Command and control facilities don't have much effect when they have no tactical capabilities. It's great that Iraqi anti-air brigades lost communication etc with their leadership, but whether or not that happened they still would have been nailed every time they activated their radar.

So the American led coalition targeted the Command & Control facilities first for no reason in particular?.....

In other words, wiping out the leadership of the Iraqi military, a military that is heavily centralised (based on the Soviet model), serves no strategic purpose…..

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Leopard 2 vs the Abrams, especially considering both the Leo 2 and the Abrams were designed with East German tank battles vs Soviet models in mind. It's yet another misguided red herring steering the conversation off course that you've somehow decided was relevant. How, in any way whatsoever, does this contribute to a comparison between the Leo 2 and M1?

What threat were the Leo II and Abrams designed to counter?

And for the life of me, why do you keep referring to “East Germany”? The Soviets had no intent on fighting there……

Repetition does not make this worthless comment any less foolish with subsequent uses.

If you answer the question, I won’t have to keep repeating it…..

Another useless side-topic that does nothing to distinguish the actual tanks from one another. Seeing as though both tanks are using the same L/44 120mm gun, whether or not you choose to stock DU ammunition doesn't change the individual tanks' characteristics.

Well actually it does, fore DU rounds can penetrate thicker armour at greater distances then conventional ammo…

In the case of the 2A6 and later models, which use the longer barreled L/55, the effective range is +4000m, whereas the Abrams modified L/44, as far as I know, doesn't have that range even with the "Silver Bullet" DU round (no kills scored in Iraq beyond 4000m, which even the British Challenger managed).

What thickness of armour can the A6 penetrate at that range?

Regardless, stocking DU ammunition is a matter of choice. The Germans and like-minded countries choose not to use it because it's disputed to violate chemical weapons treaties, among others. It has nasty side-effects and various UN and other agencies have been arguing to ban it on those grounds. You knew that, however, but tried to pretend anyways that the Leopard 2 somehow couldn't field a similar round if its operators wanted to.

Are you to suggest that conventional ammo is as effective at penetrating thick armour as depleted uranium?

Incremental upgrades are made to any tank, regardless of whether or not it gets plinked by a few ineffective Iraqi legacy guns. While the M1A1 was being upgraded to the M1A2, the Germans were busy upgrading their design with similar systems and installing a better gun.

Actually no……said “better gun” was sought to improve the ballistics of the conventional rounds used by the Leo II, so as to approach the performance delivered by the DU rounds of the Abrams…….Of course the Americans were delayed in development and integration of the same gun, but of course, their Abrams tanks were conducting an actual war…..

Okay, well how about we say that based on its armor package and design, it's virtually certain that the Iraqi muppet tanks the Abrams faced would have had equal difficulty damaging the Leopard 2, and that just like the Abrams, the Leopard 2 would have been firing with impunity from stand-off range and pulverizing the same Soviet garbage. With all of your dissimulation, it's hard to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

No I don’t, I disagree with your unfounded assertion that the Leopard is the equal to the Abrams though.

There's a difference between importing hundeds/thousands of high-ticket items like MBT's and Fighter planes, and awarding relatively puny contracts to trainer planes or rifles. Certain types of equipment are also not cost-prohibitive to develop yourself, or in partnership. Spending billions on MBT's, however, is something altogether different.

I thought you said armoured personal carriers…….But since you mentioned rifles, what is the primary rifle of the Egyptian army? What will be it’s replacement?

The Afrika Korps, consisting of mostly Italian troops,

No, the Italians belonged to the 10th Italian army Group

supported and commanded by Germans, fought impressively and outnumbered by 50-100% against the British for ~3 years, despite British naval blockade and supply-line nightmares. Despite the enormous logistical, technical and numerical advantages the British enjoyed, they still nearly lost, and with it the Suez canal. It took nearly 2:1 numerical superiority for the British to manage their first real victory, and despite the loss Rommel is still regarded as one of the best generals of the whole war.

....yet they lost.

What were the circumstances and outcome of the Yom Kippur war? Oh yeah, Egypt and Syria getting embarrassed by their tiny neighbour.

They, like the Germans lost.

[Moonbox]

So the American led coalition targeted the Command & Control facilities first for no reason in particular?.....

In other words, wiping out the leadership of the Iraqi military, a military that is heavily centralised (based on the Soviet model), serves no strategic purpose…..

Going after leadership was more symbolic and psychological than anything. It perhaps contributed to an earlier surrender, but given the near-imperviousness of western air and ground forces, it was hardly critical.

What threat were the Leo II and Abrams designed to counter?

Why are you asking this, when you've already stated it and I agreed with you. I ask again, what does this have to do with an Abrams vs Leo 2 comparison, specifically.

And for the life of me, why do you keep referring to “East Germany”? The Soviets had no intent on fighting there……

West Germany. No idea why I said that.

If you answer the question, I won’t have to keep repeating it…..

It's a rhetorical question to which your floundering sense of logic has erroneously attributed critical importance. What's especially funny about this comment is that despite it's rhetorical nature I have answered the question, multiple times. I've also explained why it does little to support your point. Hilariously, however, you continue to repeat yourself like a broken record. Is this a slogan for you now?

Well actually it does, fore DU rounds can penetrate thicker armour at greater distances then conventional ammo…

Sure, no argument there, but that's a question of ammunition choice, not of individual tank characteristics. Regardless, the Leopard 2A6 with its longer L55 gun is advertised with an effective penetrating range of 4000m on just its tungsten round, something that the Abrams never managed with its L44 and DU "Silver Bullet" round fighting push-over Iraqis. Nothing is stopping the Leopard 2 from firing DU rounds aside from their operators' refusal to employ toxic weapons that potentially poison the areas in which they're used.

What thickness of armour can the A6 penetrate at that range?

Don't know, but at 2km it's about 720mm, which is about 5% less than the newest DU penetrators the M1A2 uses, without having to actually use DU. Again, we're only talking about ammunition here, and nothing is stopping the Leopard 2 operators from producing or buying their own DU ammunition other than the political considerations behind firing poisonous rounds.

Are you to suggest that conventional ammo is as effective at penetrating thick armour as depleted uranium?

Where could it be suggested that I even implied such an idea Derek? Your pathetic attempts at misdirection are getting tedious. My post that you quote here explains that Leopard 2 operators chose not to use depleted uranium for political reasons, mainly their potential violations of chemical weapons treaties (ie human rights abuses). I made no mention whatsoever of its penetrating power. That's really sad.

Actually no……said “better gun” was sought to improve the ballistics of the conventional rounds used by the Leo II, so as to approach the performance delivered by the DU rounds of the Abrams…….Of course the Americans were delayed in development and integration of the same gun, but of course, their Abrams tanks were conducting an actual war…..

It's not a said "better gun", it's factually a much better gun. It uses better materials, is less than half the weight of the Abrams gun, and it achieves much higher muzzle velocity. While the Americans may indeed upgrade their tanks to the L55, when is another question altogether. They've had about 20 years to do it and haven't yet. Details on the M1A3 have been near-mythical.

No I don’t, I disagree with your unfounded assertion that the Leopard is the equal to the Abrams though.

Hey, we're finally getting somewhere here. If you agree that the Leopard 2 would have met equal success to the Abrams in the Gulf War, then your argument about Iraqi experience being a contributing factor to the Abrams superiority gets pretty flimsy!

I thought you said armoured personal carriers…….But since you mentioned rifles, what is the primary rifle of the Egyptian army? What will be it’s replacement?

I did say APC's, because the Egyptians are building their own. Even Canada does that.

No, the Italians belonged to the 10th Italian army Group

Ending up under Rommel's command. Until he took over they were getting manhandled. After he took over and integrated them with the Afrika Corps, they acquitted themselves well. Their fates thereon were intertwined.

....yet they lost.

Yes, they lost. No disputing that. Why they lost was obvious. They were fighting a losing battle from the start, but impressively still almost pulled out a win. It wasn't due to incompetence like you're directly implying. Norman Schwarzkopf, who you've no doubt heard of, is quoted as saying "Rommel had a feel for the battlefield like no other man."

Now that your mockery of undeniable German military effectiveness has been dealt with, what will your response be?

They, like the Germans lost.

There we go! There's that repetition again! Keep it up Derek! Your reasoning and argumentation skills are really on display with that sort of post!

Edited July 21, 2014 by Moonbox