Main battle tanks of today.....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I have not heard whether they are going to or not but there are certain advantages to getting rid of the Turbine.

For instance the M1 gives off much more heat than the Leopard II because of the Turbine engines, the Leopard II however is much louder than the M1.
 
Matt308 said:
Really, Soren? The US is going to dump the turbine? Haven't heard of this. What is the rationale. Can't be maintenance. Fuel prices? Compatibility with other vehicles?
Click to expand...

The Turbine guzzles way more fuel, and like Adler pointed out it leaves an excellent heat signature for enemy missiles to lock on to. The MTU is also much easier to maintain.

Another advantage of the MTU 870 series engine is that it's a multifuel engine.

German MTU also recently released their new engine, called the Europowerpack and designated MTU 883, it's a 1,650 HP Diesel Multifuel engine which is more compact than its predecessor, the MTU 873. Germany's new Leopard 2A6's are fitted with this engine and the British Challenger and US Abrams are to have the engine as-well. The French Leclerc Isreali Merkava have the old 1,500 HP MTU 873 engine.

As for the Diesel being louder, I don't know, I always thought that turbine engine was pretty loud, don't hear any significant difference - are you sure about this Adler ?
 
Matt308 said:
Really, Soren? The US is going to dump the turbine? Haven't heard of this. What is the rationale. Can't be maintenance. Fuel prices? Compatibility with other vehicles?
Click to expand...

Russians are dumping the gas turbines in the T-80s or so I have heard.. they proved to be unreliable in Chechnia.. I guess constant high consumption of fuel just isn`t a good point operationally.
 
Glider said:
It isn't the sort of conversion that can be easily done. You would be talking about a whole new design
Click to expand...

I agree. The only reason I would not be suprised is because you know they are allready designing a replacement for the M1. It is a continual process.

That is if they are even going to replace it with a tradional "tank" at all...

Soren said:
As for the Diesel being louder, I don't know, I always thought that turbine engine was pretty loud, don't hear any significant difference - are you sure about this Adler ?
Click to expand...

It is only something that I have read. I do know that the Honeywell AGT1500 engine is very loud.

However the M1 Abrams Honeywell AGT1500 is a multifuel engine as well. Just like the MTU 870 so that is not an advantage of the Leopard II because they are both the same.
 
And I was under the impression that the big sell for the turbine was ease of maintenance. I would find it hard to believe that a diesel engine is less maintenance, but then again I'm always up for a schooling.
 
The Australians considered the Leopard II as a replacements for the IA4s currently on strnegth, however, they were ultimately rejected for a number of reasons. Most importantly was that we wouuld achieve commonality with the Americans, our chief allies. Also the Abrams has a proven track record, and quite successful at that. Thirdly as per my previous post, there are unconfirmed reports that the superhardened face armour on the Leopards has turned out to be a definite liability, with the armour having gone brittle. This has significantly shortened the operatrional life span of the Leopards. There is strong circumstantial evidence to support that, because there are no plans to on-sell the Leopards, or retain them in the reserves, they are going straight to the scrappers yards.

We were sold the Abrams very cheaply, and believe that there is still at least 15 yesrs service left in them. Lastly, although not stated, there is a perception that European suppliers have become very suspect suppliers. We all know what the french did to Israel back in the seventiesr regarding the mirage IIIs , basically embargoed the supply of spare parts to israel, in an effort to force the israelis to negotiate. The French applied similar pressure on the Australians during the Vietnam war, which was the main reason why our Mirages never saw service there. Germany's latest demonstrations pertaining to Iraq were factors that dissuaded the Australians from taking a risk with yet another dubious european supplier
 
Dubious supplier ? That's pretty ridiculous as testing bought material would quickly reveal any weaknesses. But one also has to keep in mind when the Leopard I was introduced and the metallurgical technology available at that time. The Leopard 2 features different armor.

Also what has the French got to do with Germany and the rest of Europe ??
 
I didnt mean that they were dubious suppliers from the point of view of after sales repairs, but rather along the lines of the french. In the case of the french, it was the government of France who were the problem. In the case of israel, they placed an embargo on the sale of spares and ordinance, hoping to ground the Israeli Mirages on strength at the time. this led to the Israelis stealing plans and producing their own spares and replacements.

In the case of Australia, the French government did the same thing, but the Australians, lacking as much indigenous aero -industry as the Israelis and not wanting to upset a major trading partner, acquiesced to the french demands. But it was a bitter lessen for the Australians, and one they are unlikely to ever forget. It will be a very long time before any further major purchases from France are ever likley to occur.

In the case of the Germans, their recent postionings regarding Iraq, at governmental level make them a suspect supplier for Australia,. the Australians do not want to be placed in the same situation as they were with the Mirages. There is nothing inherently wrong with the actual suppliers. Althoiugh I think on cost the Leopard II are a bit overrated.
 

Chill the **** out Soren. Dont take it so damn personal. He is stating reasons why his country decided not to buy it.

Anybody says anthing negative about Germans or Europe and you go spastic. Seriously open your mind...
 
I was actually hoping to start a strand of this thread that looked a little more closely at this armour crystallization issue. how widespread is the problem, and how serious is it. It was a cue for the budding metallurgists to step forward
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Chill the **** out Soren. Dont take it so damn personal. He is stating reasons why his country decided not to buy it.

Anybody says anthing negative about Germans or Europe and you go spastic. Seriously open your mind...
Click to expand...

Come on! I was merely questioning why Australia would doubt any European supplier based on what the French once did. I'm not taking it personal. Geez, it seems that you get your panties in a bunch over nearly everything I say these days..

Problem with many governments today is that they're oversuspicious, heck take the US government, they want to sell the F-35 to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark, but they won't give them the vital upgrades (new blocks), as if they're not close Allies. It's ridiculous.

There's a lack of trust which is disconcerning, esp. seeing that this is the 21st century.
 
Code:

Hello Soren,

That sounds very good for the Eurofighter, so please don't interfere

Regards
Kruska
 

The French decision was indeed a very strange one, mind boggling to the rest of Europe to say the least. It's still a mystery what the reasoning behind the decision was.

In the case of the Germans, their recent postionings regarding Iraq, at governmental level make them a suspect supplier for Australia,. the Australians do not want to be placed in the same situation as they were with the Mirages.
Click to expand...

Now this I don't really understand as I see nothing about this which would make Germany a suspect supplier, could you please clarify it abit?

There is nothing inherently wrong with the actual suppliers. Althoiugh I think on cost the Leopard II are a bit overrated.
Click to expand...

The Leopard 2 is probably the safest deal out of every other available tank today, and it's definitely not overrated seeing that it has beaten every other tank in the world in the many tests conducted by the many countries who have bought the Leopard 2.

As to the crystalization of the Leopard I's armour, well this is seriously completely new to me and I know people who maintained and operated this tank. But a simple explanation to the problem could be poor maintenance or a metal composition suffering from long term deterioration unknown to metallurgical science at the time - Perhaps a corrosive mix??
 
Soren said:
There's a lack of trust which is disconcerning, esp. seeing that this is the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Soren that is nothing new to the 21st Century and it is a normal practice to any country in the world.

You do not sell your best and latest technology to other countries, even your allies because you do not know what is going to happen in the future.

Do you think that the Germans sell there modern U Boots with the latest technology. No they sell them with lesser technology so that they keep an edge.

As for the US and selling the F-35 with lesser avionics and technologies, that is normal and the same reason as the Germans with the U Boots.
 
Kruska said:
Code:

Hello Soren,

That sounds very good for the Eurofighter, so please don't interfere

Regards
Kruska
Click to expand...

Well Eurofighter SAAB will both supply all the new upgrades when they arrive, which is the sign of trust that is needed from Lockheed, otherwise they'll remain what I'd call a suspect supplier. I mean you don't offer to sell someone something and then deny them the evolutionary upgrades, that's like giving a guy who has just bought a whole aeroplane a set of wings instead and then there you go, have fun!

Now I understand the deal with the F-22, all nations want something of their own that other nations don't have, but the deal with the F-35 is abit suspicious.
 
Soren said:
Now I understand the deal with the F-22, all nations want something of their own that other nations don't have, but the deal with the F-35 is abit suspicious.
Click to expand...

Why is it suspicious? Because it is the United States doing it? Read my post above Soren, all counties do it and there is a reason for it. There is nothing new about it and there is nothing suspicious about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The F16 Turned 50 Years Old Today, Dec 13 1973.
Replies
13
Views
950
cvairwerks
C
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
888
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
531
Thumpalumpacus
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
689
SaparotRob
S
Request help identifying type of aircraft
Replies
4
Views
1K
MiTasol
Menu
Log in
Register