Airbus' bet for the A380 seems to collapse

Skybird · 12-12-14, 06:43 AM

Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error.

But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer.

If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff.

Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman.

Oberon · 12-12-14, 07:15 AM

Challenger 2 has tea making facilities, your argument is invalid.

Jimbuna · 12-12-14, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Challenger 2 has tea making facilities, your argument is invalid.

A saying often used by a friend of mine who was a tank commander in a Challie 2

Matador.es · 12-12-14, 09:39 AM

well, i flew in it about 2 months ago and i must say, i never flew like it

We even got a shower about 1,5 hour before we landed. It was the smaller version, with 550 ppl more or less. Next time i head to asia i definitely try to pick a flight with an A380.....

ikalugin · 12-12-14, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error.

But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer.

If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff.

Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman.

Armor protection is around the same for the smaller mass (due to the smaller armoured volume, which is the result of the autolader usage). Leclerc has superior survivability (neither tank was actually combat proven and no, what they do in Afghanistan does not count as real combat) due to the ammo placement.

The only reason why anyone would buy Leopard II is the price - if I remember it right most of the Leopards IIs exported were the used ones. That said most of the arms sales are politicised anyway, so if the item has superior quality/price doesn't really matter, as far as if that country is who you want to be friend - especially true when talking about US weapons sales.

Skybird · 12-12-14, 06:52 PM

You seem to be determined to rewrite a bit what is known about modern Western tanks. Well, I stick to what I said. I could refer you to the forums of eSim and have your theories discussed with the guys there. The audience is brimming with former or still active tankers and military members, and several tankers are engaged in the creation of their sim (which is bought by over a dozen Western nations).

I trust their discussions over the past years slightly more than you, sorry.

No personal offence meant. I am juzst not that active over there anymore. Time changed over the years, so did the man.

ikalugin · 12-13-14, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

You seem to be determined to rewrite a bit what is known about modern Western tanks. Well, I stick to what I said. I could refer you to the forums of eSim and have your theories discussed with the guys there. The audience is brimming with former or still active tankers and military members, and several tankers are engaged in the creation of their sim (which is bought by over a dozen Western nations).

I trust their discussions over the past years slightly more than you, sorry.

No personal offence meant. I am juzst not that active over there anymore. Time changed over the years, so did the man.

Why not Tank Net?

In the end discussions between tankers (even the active service or ex service tankers) boil down to the manhood measuring contest between the groups present. In the western forums it tends to be between M1 and Leo2 series fans/users in tanks, in the eastern ones between T72/64/80 series fans/users.

However my point stands - French have a valid tank designing engineering school (as they have a valid aircraft designing school), thus saying that they couldn't contribute to a joint project is just plainly wrong. What happens is that often in the end they protect their own industries, thus joint projects collapse due to the insufficient total work loads.

Skybird · 12-13-14, 06:37 AM

I did not say Nextor has no competence to design tanks. I said it has no knowledge to offer that justifies to give them access to KMW's knowledge pool - only to give the German access to the French customer list, which is extremely short.

The technical summary on the Leclerk that I gave, stands as it is.

The guys from eSim you you extremely underrate. Telling that with 15 years of experience in following their discussions. You have the players behaving like you said, too, yes. But the core group and the group of those creating and contributing to the sim, is a different calliber, and much more objective. That may have somethign to do with that many of them have experiences with multiple platforms, and that the company is kind of an American-German joint team venture, plus supporting contributors from other countries. If they were as partisan as you imply for tank forums' audience, they would not be in business and over a dozen nation'S defence m inistries would wonder why they should buy tens and hundreds of thousands of bucks for their licences.

Obviously there is enough competence that make it appear as a good deal to these ministries.

ikalugin · 12-13-14, 06:54 AM

@skybird
edit - actually screw this, we went far enough in OT anyway.

Skybird · 12-13-14, 03:21 PM

He rules!

This had to be said. Now we can stop it.

[Pic by Rotareneg, eSim Forums]

12-12-14, 06:43 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error. But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer. If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff. Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 12-12-14 at 06:54 AM.

12-12-14, 06:52 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	You seem to be determined to rewrite a bit what is known about modern Western tanks. Well, I stick to what I said. I could refer you to the forums of eSim and have your theories discussed with the guys there. The audience is brimming with former or still active tankers and military members, and several tankers are engaged in the creation of their sim (which is bought by over a dozen Western nations). I trust their discussions over the past years slightly more than you, sorry. No personal offence meant. I am juzst not that active over there anymore. Time changed over the years, so did the man. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-13-14, 06:37 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I did not say Nextor has no competence to design tanks. I said it has no knowledge to offer that justifies to give them access to KMW's knowledge pool - only to give the German access to the French customer list, which is extremely short. The technical summary on the Leclerk that I gave, stands as it is. The guys from eSim you you extremely underrate. Telling that with 15 years of experience in following their discussions. You have the players behaving like you said, too, yes. But the core group and the group of those creating and contributing to the sim, is a different calliber, and much more objective. That may have somethign to do with that many of them have experiences with multiple platforms, and that the company is kind of an American-German joint team venture, plus supporting contributors from other countries. If they were as partisan as you imply for tank forums' audience, they would not be in business and over a dozen nation'S defence m inistries would wonder why they should buy tens and hundreds of thousands of bucks for their licences. Obviously there is enough competence that make it appear as a good deal to these ministries. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-13-14, 03:21 PM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	He rules! This had to be said. Now we can stop it. [Pic by Rotareneg, eSim Forums] __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 12-13-14 at 03:31 PM.

12-12-14, 07:15 AM	#2
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Challenger 2 has tea making facilities, your argument is invalid.

12-12-14, 09:39 AM	#4
Matador.es Chief Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 327 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	well, i flew in it about 2 months ago and i must say, i never flew like it We even got a shower about 1,5 hour before we landed. It was the smaller version, with 550 ppl more or less. Next time i head to asia i definitely try to pick a flight with an A380.....

12-13-14, 06:54 AM	#9
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	@skybird edit - actually screw this, we went far enough in OT anyway.