Who Bought The Wrong Weapon?

[Pachy]

If the Marine Nationale had got the F/A-18, it would probably have killed the Rafale project entirely. Rumour says that the Hornet was considered "good enough" for the Aéronatique Navale's needs and they didn't really want Rafales. But less orders would have made the Rafale too expensive for the Armée de l'Air!

[swerve]

If the Marine Nationale had got the F/A-18, it would probably have killed the Rafale project entirely. Rumour says that the Hornet was considered "good enough" for the Aéronatique Navale's needs and they didn't really want Rafales. But less orders would have made the Rafale too expensive for the Armée de l'Air!

 

Yes, but one of the chief reasons for the existence of the Rafale, was that the French dropped out of the Eurofighter project because they wanted a plane they could fly off their carriers, & nobody else was interested. Buy F-18s, & stay in Eurofighter. Typhoon would have Mica integrated on it, & all those French PGMs. Good selling points, non?

[GdG]

As for France: well, dropping the Mirage 4000 - Mirage 2000 duo for just the Mirage 2000 and starting immediately the Rafale. The Mirage 4000 would have provided equal or higher performances than the F15 to the Armée de l'Air. That's just like the current F15-F22 polemic here. The Mirage 4000 could have lasted until 2020 or so, enough to devellop a new (stealth) aircraft, assuming its development had started by the 90's. The F18 would have been enough for the Aéronavale.

 

The Rafale (and Eurofighter) are IMHO between two generations, the 70's ones and the stealth ones. Able to spank any non-stealth aircraft (and the little JSF), but not a real stealth aircraft such as the F22.

 

The problem is that most of the NATO countries inherited from a Cold War industrial conception... You got the Mirage III from the late 50's... then the Mirage F1 from the mid 60's... then the Mirage G8 and V from the late 60's... then the Mirage 2000 and 4000 from the mid 70's... then the Rafale from the early 80's... you barely had more than 5 or 7 years before a new project was launched... now, that's every 20 or 30 years...

 

Second error: abandonning the franco-german MBT project by the 60's, and getting the... AMX30.

Edited January 15, 2005 by GdG

[Arminius]

Yes, although that's part of a bigger issue: the 7.65mm NATO round chosen instead of some decent intermediate cartridge.  Some decades later, it was the same shit over again, then with the 5.56mm NATO, wich is in return too light again. 

Now the US have their 6mm and 6.5mm designs, wich atlast seem right, only to discover Britain had a similar round ready 50 years earlier...

The 'old' continent indeed!

133811[/snapback]

 

Correct!

 

And don´t forget the 6.5 mm Mannlichers, with a case diameter like the rounds we are discussing now, only needed a 125 to 129 grs Spitzer and would be perfect might have shortened the case somewhat ).

 

And there is the Czech 7.62x45.

 

H

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

As for France: well, dropping the Mirage 4000 - Mirage 2000 duo for just the Mirage 2000 and starting immediately the Rafale. The Mirage 4000 would have provided equal or higher performances than the F15 to the Armée de l'Air. That's just like the current F15-F22 polemic here. The Mirage 4000 could have lasted until 2020 or so, enough to devellop a new (stealth) aircraft, assuming its development had started by the 90's. The F18 would have been enough for the Aéronavale.

 

Problem is at that time there was no money for buying Mirage 4000! And Mirage 4000 was a 70s aircraft, while the later Rafale was to be a 80s aircraft to be deployed in the 90s and replace Mirage F-1/2000. There was simply no money for everything and at that time nobody could have foresighted Mirage 4000 would have been good till at least 2020. There`s a very interesting history on the Mirage 4000 which has been running in "Le Fana de l`Aviation" for three or four months during 2004 where everything is explained.

 

Second error: abandonning the franco-german MBT project by the 60's, and getting the... AMX30.

134313[/snapback]

 

It`s the first time I see such a frank and bold statement coming from a Frenchman! Although I do really like the AMX. Maybe not up to Leopard 1 standards on quality but not that bad I think the biggest French Army mistake on MBT development was to spend so much time developing the LeClerc. Probably the AMX-40 should have been built outright in the early 1980s as a 120mm/composite armored stop gap MBT but, again, there was no monet for both AMX-40 and LeClerc.....

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Yes, but one of the chief reasons for the existence of the Rafale, was that the French dropped out of the Eurofighter project because they wanted a plane they could fly off their carriers, & nobody else was interested. Buy F-18s, & stay in  Eurofighter. Typhoon would have Mica integrated on it, & all those French PGMs. Good selling points, non?

134284[/snapback]

 

The French dropped from EFA because they wanted overall control of the project, which couldn`t be accepted by the other partners. Rafale shows that a common design could have been able to be carrier capable to suit French Aeronavale needs with the rest having a lighter land based variant. When the F-18 was evaluated by the Navy, France was already out of the EFA and Rafale about to fly (the first technology demonstrator which was roughly flown with the EAP) so cancelling Rafale and going back to EFA was absolutely out of the question.

 

had the Aeronavale got Hornets in the late 80s/early 90s Rafale would have been dead and with it an important part of the French aeroespace industry. We should forget that both EF2000 and Rafale have served to foster the development of the European/French aeroespace industry. Of course they are expensive and took years to develop and mature, but also helped a lot to their respective industries.

 

A couple years ago a French naval magazine got a very agressive edito claiming that the Rafale for the AF was responsible fo many of the shortcomings of the French navy and its decay in near block obsolescence, as it robbed the navy millions of francs needed to move on with force modernization/replacement programs. I think that this is going too far but it`s just another opinion to add to the list (in my humble opinion, the PA01 and SMNLE-NG are to blame as they ate lots of Navy credits!)

[Durandal]

A couple years ago a French naval magazine got a very agressive edito claiming that the Rafale for the AF was responsible fo many of the shortcomings of the French navy and its decay in near block obsolescence, as it robbed the navy millions of francs needed to move on with force modernization/replacement programs. I think that this is going too far but it`s just another opinion to add to the list (in my humble opinion, the PA01 and SMNLE-NG are to blame as they ate lots of Navy credits!)

134334[/snapback]

 

 

14 years of this *$@=* of Mitterand could be the real reason...

[GdG]

Problem is at that time there was no money for buying Mirage 4000! And Mirage 4000 was a 70s aircraft, while the later Rafale was to be a 80s aircraft to be deployed in the 90s and replace Mirage F-1/2000. There was simply no money for everything and at that time nobody could have foresighted Mirage 4000 would have been good till at least 2020. There`s a very interesting history on the Mirage 4000 which has been running in "Le Fana de l`Aviation" for three or four months during 2004 where everything is explained.

It`s the first time I see such a frank and bold statement coming from a Frenchman! Although I do really like the AMX. Maybe not up to Leopard 1 standards on quality but not that bad   I think the biggest French Army mistake on MBT development was to spend so much time developing the LeClerc. Probably the AMX-40 should have been built outright in the early 1980s as a 120mm/composite armored stop gap MBT but, again, there was no monet for both AMX-40 and LeClerc.....

134330[/snapback]

Yes, I read the Fana de l'Aviation articles. I know that it was a matter of money. But anyway, the Mirage 4000 would have been an awesome aircraft. Cancelling schools, hospitals just to see them fly would have been worth it

[GdG]

14 years of this *$@=* of Mitterand could be the real reason...

134368[/snapback]

Well, we may agree on the fact that Mitterand was one of the worst presidents ever, but when it comes to defense & national interests, he did a pretty good job. Being sometimes harsher than the conservatives against the Warsaw Pact, and launching major projects such as the Rafale, Tigre, Leclerc, La Fayette, PA1, M51...

 

He increased the defense budget during the 80's. Note that conservative governments were the ones who cut drastically the budget (especially Balladur).

 

In fact, when it comes to inner politics, Mitterand was a leftist, but reguarding the foreign affairs, he was clearly conservative. See what he did in Africa (against Libya, in black Africa also...), GW 1...

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Well, we may agree on the fact that Mitterand was one of the worst presidents ever, but when it comes to defense & national interests, he did a pretty good job. Being sometimes harsher than the conservatives against the Warsaw Pact, and launching major projects such as the Rafale, Tigre, Leclerc, La Fayette, PA1, M51...

 

He increased the defense budget during the 80's. Note that conservative governments were the ones who cut drastically the budget (especially Balladur).

 

In fact, when it comes to inner politics, Mitterand was a leftist, but reguarding the foreign affairs, he was clearly conservative. See what he did in Africa (against Libya, in black Africa also...), GW 1...

134407[/snapback]

 

I completely agree. But even a booming economy sparing the years of Mitterand nationalisation effords (which were brought by failing economics!) wouldn`t have been able to support so many programs.

[Durandal]

Well, we may agree on the fact that Mitterand was one of the worst presidents ever, but when it comes to defense & national interests, he did a pretty good job. Being sometimes harsher than the conservatives against the Warsaw Pact, and launching major projects such as the Rafale, Tigre, Leclerc, La Fayette, PA1, M51...

 

He increased the defense budget during the 80's. Note that conservative governments were the ones who cut drastically the budget (especially Balladur).

 

In fact, when it comes to inner politics, Mitterand was a leftist, but reguarding the foreign affairs, he was clearly conservative. See what he did in Africa (against Libya, in black Africa also...), GW 1...

134407[/snapback]

 

 

Increased budget in the 80????

 

Source please

[Corinthian]

How about the other side? Would Russia been better off with the T-80U/etc rather than the T-90? T-64 rather than T-72?

[Ol Paint]

Leopard 2 & M1 were in service, & Leopard 1 was licence-built in Italy, so a follow-on Leo 2 deal should have been a doddle to arrange. Challenger was available. Leclerc was under development,  so probably not a contender.

 

Oh, I made a mistake about the F-104ASA. I was thinking of the original F-104S, rather than the 1980s ASA upgrade, which could have been dispensed with in favour of new F-16s, F-18s or Mirage 2000s. Presumably it was a budgetary decision, upgrading F-104S being cheaper than buying anything new.

 

N-156F first flight was on 30 July 1959, 9 months after the F-104G contract was awarded. The first true F-104G flew on 05 October 1960, over 1 year later.

 

But that was the F-5A, not the F-5E. And only the prototype. F-5A entered service in 1965. The prototype F-104 flew in February 1954. The F-104A was in service in January 1958, the F-104G in 1962. The first F-5E didn't fly until 1972.

134133[/snapback]

My bad. You got me on the F-5E. In my defense, I had forgotten I had specified the "E" model... However, the first F-5 production contract wasn't awarded until October 1962, with the first two production aircraft joining the flight test program at the end of 1963. Deliveries started to the training squadrons in April 1964. This makes ~18 months from the contract award to the delivery of the aircraft. The production contract for the F-104G was issued in February 1959, with the delivery of the first production articles in October 1960--20 months. It is my opinion that the F-5A could have been delivered within the same time period as the F-104G--but deliveries had to wait until the aircraft won a production contract. From my reading, it would appear that there weren't any unusual problems turned up in the test program that would have forced delays in the program, had the contract been issued in 1959, instead of 1962. Admittedly, the F-104G was an all-weather fighter, while the F-5A had minimal avionics, but I do wonder if it could have been fitted with a radar & avionics to provide this capability in 1960.

 

Douglas

[Stephan]

for all the Leopard 2 fans like me how about the U.S. buing the Leopard 2 and not the Abrams. Then we could practically stop all the which tank is better treads.

134156[/snapback]

 

Well, you have a point there. IIRC the Leopard 2 was rejected mainly for (officially) two reasons:

1. It was automotively inferior, especially regarding acceleration.

2. The armor protection did not meet requirements.

 

Now, the XM1 prototypes obviously weren't armored any better, however there were plans for heavier armor for the production variant. Similar plans did exist for the Leopard 2. The AV variant that had been send for the trials had quite a different armor layout than the finally accepted production variant, this is especially obvious on the hull front. So, the US and Germany could very well have combined their effort to finalize the Leopard 2 to be acceptable for both. Especially since the weight increase of the new armor almost completely negated the automotive advantage of the M1.

Besides that, the Leopard 2 did come with a superior fire control (two axis independent stabilization, commanders independent sight) and a superior gun right from the start..

Don't get me wrong, both have come out as excellent vehicles, I'm just wondering what the Leopard 2 would look like if the US and Germany would have worked together.

 

For another project, I'd nominate the HS 30 IFV. It was plagued with problems right from the start, which is no surprise, as there was no real prototype phase before the production started. Finally only about a third of the originally planned number of vehicles were build.

Granted, at that time there was no comparable vehicle available and the Bundeswehr was in desperate need for an IFV. Still I think that they would have been better of by accepting that the technology was not ready yet and just buying the M113 (four years later), with which many units ended up anyway until the Marder was ready. The money saved could have been very well used to speed up developement of the Marder, making it ready at least two years earlier.

[Yama]

Don't get me wrong, both have come out as excellent vehicles, I'm just wondering what the Leopard 2 would look like if the US and Germany would have worked together.

134962[/snapback]

 

Well, I'll hazard: something like this?

 

 

[Stephan]

Oh well, I'd say that both countries had learned their lessons from that and were well beyond it. I was thinking more along the lines of the Leopard 2 maybe using the turbine (after all it was tested for possible use if the US decided to buy it), more armor on the turret flanks, all ammo in the bustle (this was actually considered along with the turbine) and all sorts of upgrades during the lifespan.

[Rickshaw]

Oh well, I'd say that both countries had learned their lessons from that and were well beyond it. I was thinking more along the lines of the Leopard 2 maybe using the turbine (after all it was tested for possible use if the US decided to buy it), more armor on the turret flanks, all ammo in the bustle (this was actually considered along with the turbine) and all sorts of upgrades during the lifespan.

135307[/snapback]

 

Why on earth would anybody want to replace the Leopard's fuel efficient diesel with the thirsty turbine of the M1?

[Koesj]

Why on earth would anybody want to replace the Leopard's fuel efficient diesel with the thirsty turbine of the M1?

135607[/snapback]

 

Because of some serious acceleration and top speed, or maybe even for its quietness? It's more of a finely tuned race car than a sputtering diesel if I may draw the analogy.

[Rickshaw]

Because of some serious acceleration and top speed, or maybe even for its quietness? It's more of a finely tuned race car than a sputtering diesel if I may draw the analogy.

135626[/snapback]

 

 

You don't take a "finely tuned race car" to war. ODS proved the serious disadvantages compared to other MBTs powered by diesels, that the M1 has.

[Chris Gould]

according to ospery "Leopard 2" fuel consumption durring swedish trials 1994

 

Leopard 2 3730km/26874liters

 

m1a2 3820km/56488liters

 

leclerc 3000km/41400liters

 

as for speed the Leopard 2 i would assume is far from slow

 

for the noise the swiss have extra noise-reducing mufflers.

[Stephan]

Why on earth would anybody want to replace the Leopard's fuel efficient diesel with the thirsty turbine of the M1?

135607[/snapback]

 

I am not saying that objectively this specifically would have been a very good idea, however, as Ol Paint noted earlier in this thread, the turbine engine was a requirement for the US. KM therefore integrated it into a Leopard 2 prototype to show that the use of a turbine was possible. So, if the US had decided for the Leopard 2, we might be seeing them equipped with the turbine today.

Edited January 19, 2005 by Stephan

[lastdingo]

for the noise the swiss have extra noise-reducing mufflers.

135656[/snapback]

 

Swiss told me about a huge loss of engine power due to these. That equipment is only for peacetime use, to annoy the civilians a bit less with noise.