| Tango01 | 31 Aug 2015 11:06 p.m. PST |
"When the Abrams main battle tank entered a new era of production in 1985, it was still untested by enemy fire and had weathered some doubts in Washington about its effectiveness as a Cold War weapon. Thirty years, nearly 10,000 tanks and more than $20 USD billion later, Abrams is a proven asset in several wars and an economic engine for Southeast Michigan's defense contracting community — but another battle for its future lies ahead. The former Chrysler Defense Inc. XM1 Tank Program delivered its first two production vehicles to the U.S. Army in 1980. Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp. (NYSE:GD) acquired the automaker's tank-making division in 1982 for $348.5 USD million and renamed it General Dynamics Land Systems…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
 Legion 4   | 01 Sep 2015 7:36 a.m. PST |
Sure .. cause it's not like the biggest, strongest, most experienced, battle proven and ready military in
NATO and anywhere else for that matter … needs MBTs … ?  |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Sep 2015 8:30 a.m. PST |
Few people might disagree with that assessment… link link |
| doug redshirt | 01 Sep 2015 10:10 a.m. PST |
Doesnt matter which Western tank is the best. Which Western tank lets you deploy several thousand in 3 months times. |
| Tango01 | 01 Sep 2015 10:22 a.m. PST |
|
| GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Sep 2015 12:08 p.m. PST |
Likewise. Better a second rate tank than no tank :) Of course, this is especially true if the enemy tanks are third rate. |
| Weasel | 01 Sep 2015 12:48 p.m. PST |
When gear gets this expensive, it becomes a significant issue how you keep producing it, keep the skill sets up and keep the manpower needed to produce and test things going. I wonder if we're seeing a return to the naval races, where maintaining modern navies got so expensive, that nations simply dropped out of it. Are people willing to keep footing the bill? What will you give up to do so? |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Sep 2015 1:03 p.m. PST |
I think that one of the West's most obvious short term failure is in this area – closing production lines for short term savings and making it difficult to producing more of x piece of kit in the future. Likewise, we (mainly talking about UK) junk slightly obsolescent kit instead of putting into reserve/storage with spares. Why o we insist on 'new new new' when potential enemies such as Russia gain a material/quantitative advantage by keeping and maintaining old kit when it is still able to do the job? Jaguar, Tornado and Harrier may be 'old kit' – but better than the vast majority of potential 'enemy' kit… by which I basically mean Russia and Argentina. Do we NEED Eurofighters in the Falklands, based on their potential opponents? Do we NEED Eurofighters to escort TU-95s out of UK airspace? Not really – but we DO need a skilled workforce and continuing production lines. |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Sep 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
And yes, I would be quite happy to see UK defence spending go to 3 or even 4% of GDP. |
| Weddier | 01 Sep 2015 3:49 p.m. PST |
It may prove more important to Congress to save the jobs involved than the money, as that was what happened last time this came up. The Army stated then that it had enough tanks in inventory to meet expected needs, but Congress gave them more anyway. Alternatively, Congress may decide to finally implement the Army's plan to convert the artillery to Abrams chassis vehicles. This would also keep the production line open. |
| ArmymenRGreat | 01 Sep 2015 4:57 p.m. PST |
Likewise. Better a second rate tank than no tank :) The Challenger II isn't that bad! ;-) |
| Lion in the Stars | 01 Sep 2015 7:38 p.m. PST |
Building a new tank that is more readily deployable might be a good idea if the US is going to continue to play World Police… Alternatively, Congress may decide to finally implement the Army's plan to convert the artillery to Abrams chassis vehicles. This would also keep the production line open. I thought that the M109A7 was on a Bradley chassis? |
| Legion 4 | 02 Sep 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Few people might disagree with that assessment… I didn't say the M1 is the best MBT in the world … I said the is the biggest, strongest, most experienced, battle proven and ready military in
NATO and anywhere else for that matter , No mention of the M1 being the best … Regardless, the US is not going to buy anyone else's MBT. When the US has a capable proven weapons system like the M1 … |
| Jemima Fawr | 02 Sep 2015 1:10 p.m. PST |
Garrison, I agree with the thrust of your argument, but Tornado F3s were on their last legs anyway and needing retirement due to the late delivery of Typhoon, leaving Typhoon as the UK's only air defence fighter. You wouldn't intercept potential air threats with bombers, though that seems to be what you're suggesting. There is a war reserve of laid-up aircraft – chiefly Tornado GR4 and Jaguar at present. In fact, a small squadron's-worth of Jaguars actually still run, as they're used to train techies. You can see them taxiing around at RAF Cosford and RAF Cranwell. |
expands his 15mm modern building collection.
