ADF goes with Challenger 2 or Leopard 2

[MacCaulay]

-snip-

Dude, you hit the nail on the head.

This can totally be seen in the military expenditures of...say...Canada in the 90s vs. now.

They dumped the entire Chinook fleet in the early 90s. Why? They were paying a lot for that medium-lift capacity, and it wasn't getting them anything. Politically, they needed to show that they were listening to the public and their general wish for less defense and more education/public sector spending.

Then they got into Afghanistan, and it was politically expedient to show they were tough on defense, so they bought new Chinooks. (due in 2012, a year after they leave)

This gives me an idea for a new thread...

 

[Riain]

Australia did the same thing with our Chinooks in the late 80s. The halfwits in charge decided that with our new Blackhawks we didn't need our C model Chinooks. Boeing offered to take all 11, convert them to then new D standard and keep 5 to sell as payment and give back 6. Good deal? But noooo, the ADF was too bloody clever. In the end we ditched all 11, realised we'd made a mistake and bought 4 Ds, another 2 Ds and will buy 7 Fs soon.

 

[Legosim]

Australia did the same thing with our Chinooks in the late 80s. The halfwits in charge decided that with our new Blackhawks we didn't need our C model Chinooks. Boeing offered to take all 11, convert them to then new D standard and keep 5 to sell as payment and give back 6. Good deal? But noooo, the ADF was too bloody clever. In the end we ditched all 11, realised we'd made a mistake and bought 4 Ds, another 2 Ds and will buy 7 Fs soon.

I found it curious as too why so many Aussie members of Armchair General hate their Ministry of Defence. It seems as if that stereotype is true after all.

 

[Paulo the Limey]

The Lepoard, Challenger, and Abrams all use a variation of the same German designed Tank Gun. All have chobum armor, incredible sophistication in their electronics.

The French main battle tank is an excellent design, not unlike the other 3.

Small point, but I believe that the L30 gun used on the Challenger 2 is not a variation of the German gun. The L30 is rifled, whereas the other tanks used smoothbore guns.

 

[Riain]

We don't have a lot of major defence equipment, spare money in the aquisition budget or a large defence industry so we can't afford to be doing shit like that. This is a far more fertile field for Australian military WIs than the smoothly run tank programme.

WI Australia had accepted Boeing's Chinook offer? What would extra capability would the ADF have now with the money it wasted throwing them away and buying them back for greater cost?

WI the RAN had bought Lynx in the 70s or very early 80s? What capabilities would the RAN/ADF have without the need to lengthen the first 2 FFGs, buy Seahawks at $70 million a pop and blow a billion dollars on Sea Sprites?

 

[Alexius]

Small point, but I believe that the L30 gun used on the Challenger 2 is not a variation of the German gun. The L30 is rifled, whereas the other tanks used smoothbore guns.

Currently, yes- the British Army like their HESH anti-tank rounds, which you need a rifled barrel for. Because of commonality, and because the Germans have better APFSDS rounds, they are looking into replacing it with the Rheinmetall L55 (also used on the Leopard 2A6 and Greek and Spanish export variants and the South Korean K2).
The Abrams uses the Rheinmetall L44, along with earlier Leopard 2 models, the Japanese Type 90, and the Korean K1.
The Leclerc has its own odd French 120mm smoothbore gun which is midway between the two.

 

[Hecatee]

Indeed the french armor has it's own national designed systems, compatible with NATO standards but still with it's own specificities which are often the basis for special and inovatives weapons designs, even if lack of money means most of those are never introduced (for exemple the Leclerc was one of the first western tank designed with main gun fired guided projectiles in mind). When it first appeared the french gun was one of the best availlable and gave the Leclerc a lot of it's lethality, especially on the move. The fast reload time provided by it's automatic loader (which is, I think, still currently the best one installed in a western tank) also improved the tank's abilities.
But low production series and high technology meant quite high costs, probably too much when compared with all the second hand Abrahams and Leopard and even new build tanks from large series availlable.
Leclerc is small and performs very well in desertic settings, so it could have been a good technical choice for Australia, but politics would have prevented it. Also Leclerc have the avantage of having only 3 men onboard against 4 in any other western tank.
Leopard 2 would have been easier to get by due to larges stocks availlability and are fearsome beasts, especilly inthe latter variants, many technical analysis put it in front of the Abrahams. Outside of Merkava IV I'm not sure many tanks could be said to be better.
Challenger 2 were produced in too small quantities (about half of the amount of Leclerc built) and had too many defects to be seriously considered, also not being on NATO amunitions standards.

 

[Riain]

NATO common ammo etc isn't the big deal it's made out to be for most western countries. In Vietnam Australia used 20pdr tank ammo and 4.5" naval shells without a problem and western countries have their own well developed supply and sustainment frameworks, its this that makes us so lethal. Indeed in Vietnam Australia chose Phoc Tuy province AO specifically so we could have our own national supply chain. Non superpowers can tap into superpower food, fuel and other common crap and concentrate national efforts on supplying country-unique things.

 

[Magniac]

We don't have a lot of major defence equipment, spare money in the aquisition budget or a large defence industry so we can't afford to be doing shit like that. This is a far more fertile field for Australian military WIs than the smoothly run tank programme.

WI Australia had accepted Boeing's Chinook offer? What would extra capability would the ADF have now with the money it wasted throwing them away and buying them back for greater cost?

WI the RAN had bought Lynx in the 70s or very early 80s? What capabilities would the RAN/ADF have without the need to lengthen the first 2 FFGs, buy Seahawks at $70 million a pop and blow a billion dollars on Sea Sprites?

Perhaps this is best asked in another thread, but anyway, Riain, what's your opinion of the new plan to double the size of the submarine branch? The RAN getting bluer has got to have an impact on new purchases for the other two services.

 

[Riain]

I listened to CDF Angus Houston deliver the reform programme, starting by showing a clip of a pitstop of Allan Moffat at Bathurst 1974 which took over 2 minutes, followed by a clip from Eastern Creek 2008 showing HRT do a pitstop in 8 seconds. The message was that this isn't 1974, so do things better, and if you're not in get out!!!!

His direct comment on the subs was that in the past the sub force would get a crew just in from patrol and shove them in another sub with different officers and send them out again after a couple of days. Thus submariners kept transferring out, so they'll be given better conditions for starters.

With a dozen subs it looks like we are planning to sink a shitload of ships, I wonder who they are lining up.

 

[xt828]

Until I see some hard evidence that we're capable of crewing and running the number of subs we have now I'll remain very doubtful about the feasibility of doubling the number of boats.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Also Leclerc have the avantage of having only 3 men onboard against 4 in any other western tank.
.

How much of an advantage is that really? On another board a former tanker was of the opinion that a 3-man crew might be good for finances but hell for the crew itself as there is 1 person less for maintainance, watches etc. etc.

 

[Landshark]

Currently, yes- the British Army like their HESH anti-tank rounds, which you need a rifled barrel for. Because of commonality, and because the Germans have better APFSDS rounds, they are looking into replacing it with the Rheinmetall L55.

Which I think is a retrograde step. Considering likely opposing tanks are going to be Russian/Chinese Model T's and that the most common use for the Challenger at the moment is bunker busting and fire support against insurgent forces, changing to a gun optomised for defeating the best armour in the world isn't a good move.