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

[Derek 2.0]

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.

No, going after a Soviet style, centralized military C&C apparatus does more than symbolic and psychological damage.

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.

You continually suggested the reason for development was not important to the outcome…….clearly confronting a superior force (in terms of numbers) of crappy Soviet tanks was the intent of both designs.

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?

So you won't answer the question?

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.

So refusal to employ more effective ammunition on political/moral grounds doesn’t, in your opinion, contribute or detract to the overall effectiveness of the tank?

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.

Source?

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.

So in your view the ammunition doesn’t play into effectiveness of the tank………So a Leo II armed just with smoke (for political reasons of course) would be as effective as a Abrams with a standard combat load?

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.

Now I know you feel ammunition doesn’t play into the overall tanks effectiveness, but in your view would a M1A3 with a L55 and DU rounds be no improvement over the A6?

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 never said the Abrams combat experience was the sole superior trait……there are far more areas were the Abrams are superior.

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

We build our own rifles too......Yet the Egyptians are purchasing CZ rifles as opposed to Colt rifles with their American credit card.

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?

So you’re saying that it’s ok to look at individual success in an overall defeat……….So learning what works and what doesn’t is important in your view?

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!

Hey, you’re the one that suggested Egyptian armoured failures are to be renounced and decried, but German failures beggar excuses and celebration………

Edited July 21, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

Talk about thread derail!

[waldo]

tanks a lot!

[Derek 2.0]

tanks a lot!

Back on topic it is then:

Now I know you weren’t a Gripen worshiper:

Saab has declined to bid for $4.37 billion Danish fighter contract while reports indicate that US firm Lockheed Martin is set to land the deal, The Local.se reported.

Three candidates are officially in the running to receive one of Denmark’s biggest public purchases of all time when the military purchases new fighter jets by July 1st 2015. It was expected that four producers would provide bids for the contract, but the Swedish government and weapons producer Saab decided at the last moment to not bid for the contract.

Saab withdrew from the bid process thinking that the Denmark has already decided to purchase F-35 jets from the US Lockheed Martin.

The three bids are Lockheed, Boeing (Super Hornet) and the Eurofighter.......Throughout the history of the Royal Danish Air Force, they have only ever operated a single, twin engine aircraft (a handful of 1940s era Gloster Meteors through the 50s), with the remainder all being single engine designs………And of course, the Danes have operated these aircraft, despite their single engine, for decades forward based to the Arctic through Greenland:

[Moonbox]

No, going after a Soviet style, centralized military C&C apparatus does more than symbolic and psychological damage.

Not if your opponent doesn't have the systems or capabilities to fight back in the first place.

You continually suggested the reason for development was not important to the outcome…….clearly confronting a superior force (in terms of numbers) of crappy Soviet tanks was the intent of both designs.

Both tanks had an identical intent behind their design, and thus offers nothing to distinguish them in a comparison. That's a really impressive failure of logic.

So you won't answer the question?

You've already answered it yourself, numerous times, and I never contested it:

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

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

a good design is a good design. Not having combat experience doesn't take that away.

Whether or not the Leopard 2 has ever faced enemy tanks in combat was never in question, by me or you. The significance of that fact WAS in question, and I explained at length why it was a trivial. Your continued insistence on repeating this question, therefore, is rather worrying. Either you're struggling to follow simple logic, forgetting what you already wrote, or you're trolling.

So refusal to employ more effective ammunition on political/moral grounds doesn’t, in your opinion, contribute or detract to the overall effectiveness of the tank?

Nope, because that's a comparison of ammunition, not tanks. If you fired that same ammunition in a Leopard 2's L/55 (which you can), it would hit targets harder, more accurately and further away than if fired from the M1A2's L/44.

Source?

The sources online for this sort of information, as you know, are at best nebulous, as even going on the contractor's website doesn't provide the information. The best we get are estimates:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

"Estimated penetration performance of the DM 53 (LKE II) tungsten long rod penetrator round fired by the Rheimetall 120mm L55: 750 mm at 2000 meters."

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126322

"US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)"

Granted, neither of these sources are fabulous, but the information is classified so this is the best I can find. Regardless, whatever ammunition you put in the Leopard 2A6, it can fire it more effectively than the M1A2.

Now I know you feel ammunition doesn’t play into the overall tanks effectiveness, but in your view would a M1A3 with a L55 and DU rounds be no improvement over the A6?

Another rhetorical question. Of course, if both tanks had the exact same gun, they'd sport the exact same firewpoer, and thus the shell selected would dictate penetration. This all depends on the M1A3 going past prototyping and us actually getting information on it.

I never said the Abrams combat experience was the sole superior trait……there are far more areas were the Abrams are superior.

none of which you bothered mentioning.

So you’re saying that it’s ok to look at individual success in an overall defeat……….So learning what works and what doesn’t is important in your view?

I'm saying that Egyptian military tradition is one of utter incompetence, whereas Germany's has, for centuries, evoked respect. Germany's defeats weren't due to the incompetence of it's armed forces, but rather from the geo-political catastrophe that they found themselves in - literally unwinnable wars. All of this goes back to your absurd implication that the Egyptians somehow knew more about armored warfare than the Germans and their Allies do.

Hey, you’re the one that suggested Egyptian armoured failures are to be renounced and decried, but German failures beggar excuses and celebration………

For good reason. One performed well above expectations and circumstances, one performed incompetently and well below expectations. The childish logic you employ here (ie. they lost so that's all that matters) is the same as the foolishness you employ with your comparison between the Leo 2 and the Abrams. The Abrams has seen combat, the Leopard 2 has not, therefore the Abrams is superior, irregardless of technical specifications etc. That's the argument you've been making, and a high school student can point it out for the pathetic logical fallacy that it is.

Regardless, I wipe my hands of this thread, and it should probably be locked. The amount of effort required to keep up with your pointless red-herrings is exhausting, and I shouldn't have indulged. Your badgering repetition of already-addressed questions and arguments makes me feel like I'm arguing against a cheerleader. That bias is unassailable.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Moonbox

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh no....does this mean no more discussion about F-35 Main Battle Tanks ?

[Derek 2.0]

Not if your opponent doesn't have the systems or capabilities to fight back in the first place.

So you’re suggesting eliminating the command structure of the Iraqi military at the onset was no benefit?

Both tanks had an identical intent behind their design, and thus offers nothing to distinguish them in a comparison. That's a really impressive failure of logic.

How so? Did I not say both tanks (Born out of the same design process to boot), were not designed for the same threat?

Nope, because that's a comparison of ammunition, not tanks. If you fired that same ammunition in a Leopard 2's L/55 (which you can), it would hit targets harder, more accurately and further away than if fired from the M1A2's L/44.

And if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle

I never said anything like that. I merely said that the Leopard sports a more effective gun. If both tanks were using the same ammunition, the Leopard 2A6 would have superior range and penetration values.

But the Leopard II doesn't use the same ammo.....so in effect, it is not as effective as the Abrams.

Another rhetorical question. Of course, if both tanks had the exact same gun, they'd sport the exact same firewpoer, and thus the shell selected would dictate penetration. This all depends on the M1A3 going past prototyping and us actually getting information on it.

And the benefit of DU munitions is what?

none of which you mentioned.

Sure I did…….Superior acceleration and gear ratios……mine plough and rollers I’ve spoken of…….other ones off the top of my head:

-Electric traverse motor for the turret (The Leo II up to A4 relied upon hydraulics)

-Superior, secured battlefield communication package since it’s inception which allowed a tank commander to directly contact artillery (M109 or MLRS) or air support (Cobras, Apaches, Kiowa and A-10s etc) without reliance on a FOO or FAC.

-Net-centric data sharing between not only other tanks, but other (armoured) vehicles within it’s formation (M2/3 Bradley, LAV-25, AAVP7 etc), aircraft, artillery and the command structure.

I'm saying that Egyptian military tradition is one of utter incompetence, whereas Germany's has, for centuries, evoked respect. Germany's defeats weren't due to the incompetence of it's armed forces, but rather from the geo-political catastrophe that they found themselves in - literally unwinnable wars. All of this goes back to your absurd implication that the Egyptians somehow knew more about armored warfare than the Germans and their Allies do.

The Egyptians in ‘73, initially drove the Israelis back along the Sinai until the Americans provided modern ECM equipment so the Israeli Phantoms and Skyhawks weren’t being plucked from the air by Egyptian air defences…….

And of course, I never asserted the Egyptians knew more about armoured warfare then the Germans, but that they had more recent direct experience…….I doubt the German army has any serving veterans of the Afrika Korps within their senior ranks…..

For good reason. One performed well above expectations and circumstances, one performed incompetently and well below expectations. The childish logic you employ here (ie. they lost so that's all that matters) is the same as the foolishness you employ with your comparison between the Leo 2 and the Abrams. The Abrams has seen combat, the Leopard 2 has not, therefore the Abrams is superior, irregardless of technical specifications etc. That's the argument you've been making, and a high school student can point it out for the pathetic logical fallacy that it is.

Yet more personal attacks……..Again, as I said earlier, who has had more recent experience in armoured warfare? Germany or Egypt…………You celebrate German success, even though they ultimately ended in defeat, but assume the Egyptians had no successes of their own because they also lost?

As to technical specifications upon the tanks in question, I’ve provided my reasoning, coupled with the Abrams proven combat record…….

Regardless, I wipe my hands of this thread, and it should probably be locked. The amount of effort required to keep up with your pointless red-herrings is exhausting, and I shouldn't have indulged. Your badgering repetition of already-addressed questions and arguments makes me feel like I'm arguing against a cheerleader. That bias is unassailable.

Clearly your inability to have a discussion without resorting to personal and emotional attacks is a clear indication of you being fatigued…….don’t worry, I certainly don’t take it personal and hope you return once you’re rested and in good spirits.

[Derek 2.0]

Oh no....does this mean no more discussion about F-35 Main Battle Tanks ?

Only if they are of a European design

[On Guard for Thee]

Why not startup a tank bullshit thread and get off this one?

[Smallc]

What more is there to discuss in terms of the F-35?

[On Guard for Thee]

What more is there to discuss in terms of the F-35?

There could be a few things amongst the taxpayers like me who may have to pay for this turkey. But that has to do with a plane, not a tank. Which is probably a seperate issue, and probably why everyone else has left this thread.

[Derek 2.0]

There could be a few things amongst the taxpayers like me who may have to pay for this turkey. But that has to do with a plane, not a tank. Which is probably a seperate issue, and probably why everyone else has left this thread.

Sorry if you were unable to follow our discussion on cost/benefit returns relating to defence procurement programs that encompass far more then the F-35…perhaps a little too in-depth and/or bland for some……..feel free to slag Harper/Americans or regale us with one of your Gumpish tales…….

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry if you were unable to follow our discussion on cost/benefit returns relating to defence procurement programs that encompass far more then the F-35…perhaps a little too in-depth and/or bland for some……..feel free to slag Harper/Americans or regale us with one of your Gumpish tales…….

Bland is the operative word.

[Derek 2.0]

Bland is the operative word.

Ahhh but it’s also subjective to ones own tastes……..I find little interest in for example climate change, social justice or bash Israel topics, as such, I don’t normally read & partake in those threads……If you find what other people are discussing boring/bland don’t read it……seems a simple concept no?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ahhh but it’s also subjective to ones own tastes……..I find little interest in for example climate change, social justice or bash Israel topics, as such, I don’t normally read & partake in those threads……If you find what other people are discussing boring/bland don’t read it……seems a simple concept no?

Here's a simple concept you may understand: a thread about an airplane is not a discussion about ww ii tanks etc., etc., etc. Try and focus OK?

[Derek 2.0]

Here's a simple concept you may understand: a thread about an airplane is not a discussion about ww ii tanks etc., etc., etc. Try and focus OK?

I’m sorry if you feel our discussion lacked your level of clarity, but did you ever consider that some people are capable of having more nuanced discussions, focusing on a wider plane of a topic, then yourself?

[On Guard for Thee]

I’m sorry if you feel our discussion lacked your level of clarity, but did you ever consider that some people are capable of having more nuanced discussions, focusing on a wider plane of a topic, then yourself?

And feel free to carry on.

[Derek 2.0]

And feel free to carry on.

I have every intention of continuing to discuss this subject, a subject encompassing all facets of costly defence procurements contrasted to the technical benefits that they will bring to a modern battlefield, versus older or less expensive legacy platforms……..be they tanks, F-35s, new ships, rifles or combat boots...

From a political perspective, some consider providing the men and women that serve in our Armed Forces the equipment that they deem necessary to perform tasks placed upon them by the elected Government a very important discussion…….some don’t find such subjects interesting and of that I’m not surprised……others, like yourself and WWWTT, consider the members of our armed forces nothing more than teenagers that “just got their license” or War Pigs….

I certainly don’t feel I need your blessing to continue.......

[On Guard for Thee]

I have every intention of continuing to discuss this subject, a subject encompassing all facets of costly defence procurements contrasted to the technical benefits that they will bring to a modern battlefield, versus older or less expensive legacy platforms……..be they tanks, F-35s, new ships, rifles or combat boots...

From a political perspective, some consider providing the men and women that serve in our Armed Forces the equipment that they deem necessary to perform tasks placed upon them by the elected Government a very important discussion…….some don’t find such subjects interesting and of that I’m not surprised……others, like yourself and WWWTT, consider the members of our armed forces nothing more than teenagers that “just got their license” or War Pigs….

I certainly don’t feel I need your blessing to continue.......

I have never referred to our armed forces in either of the ways you mention. Matter of fact I have served with them and others in a number of war zones. The discussion started out being about pissing away money on a troublesome piece of hardware those folks may end up with. And of course you don't need my blessing to continue.

[waldo]

I’m sorry if you feel our discussion lacked your level of clarity, but did you ever consider that some people are capable of having more nuanced discussions, focusing on a wider plane of a topic, then yourself?

your nuanced wider plane... became a tank!

[Derek 2.0]

I have never referred to our armed forces in either of the ways you mention. Matter of fact I have served with them and others in a number of war zones.

Here:

Do you think your 16 year old havind acquired his DL is the best person to select his new car? Would you sign a blank check and send him out to the car lots? That's more or less what the Harper crowd did. As always a "second sober thought" might be a better idea.

[Derek 2.0]

your nuanced wider plane... became a tank!

I thought someone would catch the pun……….

But it is a common theme of this discussion……Some lean towards the equipment identified as required by the military, some suggest a “cheaper alternative” as “good enough” and attempt to justify their selection by contrasting with what the Forces actually need.......

As I’ve said, who better to define technical requirements then those that will use it?

[bush_cheney2004]

...I have every intention of continuing to discuss this subject, a subject encompassing all facets of costly defence procurements contrasted to the technical benefits that they will bring to a modern battlefield, versus older or less expensive legacy platforms……..be they tanks, F-35s, new ships, rifles or combat boots...

Quite applicable in the broader context of defense development and cost containment . A lot of our dear members do not know just how troubled the MBT70 and XM1 main battle tanks programs were back when West Germany and the Soviets still existed. Chrysler and later GD had one helluva time with criticism about the weight, turbine engine, and high fuel consumption. West Germany and the U.S. canceled the MBT-70 program outright, leading to the Leopard 2 and Abrams.

There are limits to what Congress will tolerate for defense program excesses, and the F-35 has not reached the relative levels seen for these MBT programs back in the 1970's. Ditto A-12 Avenger II...canceled because of severe program issues and unbounded cost growth.

[On Guard for Thee]

Quite applicable in the broader context of defense development and cost containment . A lot of our dear members do not know just how troubled the MBT70 and XM1 main battle tanks programs were back when West Germany and the Soviets still existed. Chrysler and later GD had one helluva time with criticism about the weight, turbine engine, and high fuel consumption. West Germany and the U.S. canceled the MBT-70 program outright, leading to the Leopard 2 and Abrams.

There are limits to what Congress will tolerate for defense program excesses, and the F-35 has not reached the relative levels seen for these MBT programs back in the 1970's. Ditto A-12 Avenger II...canceled because of severe program issues and unbounded cost growth.

Here we go again.

U boys have funb now ya hear

[waldo]

I thought someone would catch the pun……….

naval related procurement has it's own thread (several, in fact... you probably started them)... perhaps you should start a tank related thread, possibly expanding it more broadly to encompass your other "(non-aviation flights of fancy". This thread has an aviation focus, one particularly dedicated to the F-35, with natural extensions to include supposed other planes being short-listed as candidates for Canada's replacement/next, uhhh... 'bomb truck'!