Europe Forced to Rearm
May 29, 2008: Although European nations cut their defense spending drastically after the Cold War ended in 1991, they still have minimal requirements for major types of military equipment (armored vehicles, aircraft and warships). In the last few years, European politicians have been shocked by the news (delivered by their military commanders), that lots of Cold War era gear was approaching the end of their useful lives (30-40 years in most cases). Thus in the next decade, these nations will have to buy hundreds of billions worth of new stuff, or allow themselves to be disarmed. The latter prospect has appeal for some voters, but the majority still remember what a dangerous place Europe has been for thousands of years.
The current period of peace (since the end of World War II), is the longest Europe has gone without a major war in all its recorded history. The current generation of tax payers are not willing to bet on it continuing. So the politicians find themselves given the green light to spend huge sums on a new 30-40 year supply of weapons. Complete disarmament is not an option.
Europe already has a large warship building industry, and the replacement ships are already showing up. European fleets were already getting a little old when the Cold War ended. Britain is building two large aircraft carriers, and many nations are keen to get at least a few of the new AIP subs (which can stay under for weeks without nuclear power). The AIP boats cost less than half what nuclear subs go for, and are quieter. They are very popular.
For new aircraft, a lot of the business is going to the United States. The F-35 is replacing a lot of F-16s, and some older warplanes as well. Europe builds the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale, but none are as stealthy as the F-35, and stealth is the next big thing. But the three European fighters are getting sales from the budget minded. Europeans also build helicopters and transports, and are keeping most of those replacement sales at home as well. AirBus even snagged the big contract for the new U.S. aerial tanker.
The one big sale that is still up in the air is for a new tank. The Challengers, Leopards and LeClercs are approaching the end of their service lives, and no replacement is available for sale. All eyes are on the United States, where the U.S. Army is putting together the first truly 21st century tank design. Lighter than the current generation of tanks, the FCS tank will use high-tech armor and lots of electronics. Europeans want to see this one before they decide to build their own, or, especially for many of the smaller nations, buy American.
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
The Challenger 2 has another 25+ years left in it and I think the LeClerc even more (don't know about the others); I don’t see a need to start thinking about a replacement any time soon. Even if they were the FCS isn’t where they’d all be looking, as far as I know the project isn’t attempting to produce an MBT replacement.
I don’t really get what point the article’s trying to make, if it’s that Europe is up-arming then I just don’t see the evidence. A lot of gear is being replaced but that happens constantly. The only new things going on in terms of overall force levels are cuts.
Europeans want to see this one before they decide to build their own, or, especially for many of the smaller nations, buy American.
Papa1, going by current trends they will either build their own or buy some cheap from Germany. Most likely a future tank would be collaberative, two or maybe even one program. Will be interesting to see how that works out. Nobody will be buying American tanks in western Europe though, hate to disappoint.
Quote:The Challengers, Leopards and LeClercs are approaching the end of their service lives, and no replacement is available for sale.
I bet who wrote this text has never heard about the Leopard 2 (no pun intended for the rest: LeClercs, Challengers) which is by far superior to anything u.s. armee has in its inventory...
I bet who wrote this text has never heard about the Leopard 2 (no pun intended for the rest: LeClercs, Challengers) which is by far superior to anything u.s. armee has in its inventory...
The word "superior" can be used to describe the LEO-2A6-HEL even it is ONLY "a bit better". If something is of better quality and/or performance than something else, using the word "superior" is appropriate. Some people may not like that, but that's kind of too bad for them.
It's well ahead.
--------
-same cannon
-Abraams is prolly better protected
-Situational awareness, i.e. NCW, goes to the Abraams
-Mobility and cost goes to the Leo
-Servicability (which tank needs less maintenance) or whatever you wanna call it is prolly very close
I'd say, none has a decisive advantage over the other one.
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
A few advantages of the LEO-2 ("prolly" there are more)
1. Doesn't need an armada of thin skinned fuel supply vehicles to follow it around due a thirsty jet engine (gas turbine) like the abrams m1a2 has. This is a tremendous advantage for the LEO2A6. In some or most cases this makes the M1a2 vulnerable.
2. Another major advantage the LEO-2A6 enjoys is that it can be fitted with a 140mm main gun very easily.
Other smaller advantages:
A. the LEO2a6 is slightly faster than the m1a2
B. the LEO2 a6 has an 75-85km greater range (maybe this is not such a small advantage)
ANOTHER considerable advantage: The LEO-2 makes it peak power at 2600 RPM, the M1 makes it at 30,000 rpm, this usually means that the engine which makes it's peak power at lower rpm ranges................
1. Has more LOW END torque, and for multi-ton vehicles this is of major importance and gives it a very considerable advantage to other comparable vehicles which make their power LATER in the rpm range.
2. Needs less maintenance, obviously, machines whose parts are travelling some 8 or 9 times faster in the rpm's (abrams M1) are going to need more maintenence. They WILL break down sooner.
Quote: ANOTHER considerable advantage: The LEO-2 makes it peak power at 2600 RPM, the M1 makes it at 30,000 rpm, this usually means that the engine which makes it's peak power at lower rpm ranges................
One is gas turbine and the other is a diesel, they are completely different. Perhaps 30,000rpm is low for a gas turbine. All things considered the Leo 2A6 is not far superior, all modern western tanks are about the same in capability.
"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
christians will be dead they cant last long. sinful drinking merrymaking ways in gay abandon penetration nudity prostitution - these are call of hour in christian europe america
