NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.global-defence.com/2005/Utilities/article.php?id=77

The first trial versions of the new "Puma" Infantry Fighting Vehicle are coming of the production line some time this week I believe.
It's meant to replace the "Marder", of which the US Army actually has some.

Currently, the IFVs that the US Army has are modifications of fairly old vehicles, and to my knowledge there are no immediate plans to build new ones. But in Iraq at the moment, the shortcomings of various armoured vehicles are made tragically obvious.

This Puma is meant to deal with things like mines, roadside-bombs and so on, it has an automatic turret with a mean autocannon on top, and the crew and infantry can see everything around them. Plus, it's got pedigree: Both KMW (Leopard II) and Rheinmetall (among other things the guns of the new Abrams) worked together on it.

In other words: It'd be great for the US Army to have, right?

So should the US try and buy a few hundred of these? Why is it important that the US produces all its equipment itself?

This could by the way also be brought up in regards to planes. The F-22 was finished a few days ago, but there will only be 180 of these. That's not enough, and I'm not sure in what sort of numbers, and when, the F-35 will be ready.
Should the US maybe buy a batch of jets from the EU, for example the Saab Gripen, or even the Eurofighter?

The US is of course not alone with this. European countries have only a decade or two ago decided that they were going to start an independent defense industry. Why? And is that a good thing, or a waste of resources?

If we can get better arms from an ally then we should import it. If not, we should build our own. Seems cut and dry to me.

If we can get better arms from an ally then we should import it. If not, we should build our own. Seems cut and dry to me.
But apparently that's not what is being done, both in the US and in the EU.

And what about the US buying stuff from Russia for example, if it was better?

But apparently that's not what is being done, both in the US and in the EU.

And what about the US buying stuff from Russia for example, if it was better?

Well i did say "ally" and Russia is on pretty shaky ground at the moment. I guess the biggest concern is that if we ever have to go to war with a country we bought arms from it would give them an advantage.

Currently, the IFVs that the US Army has are modifications of fairly old vehiclesthe usa have the bradley, it entered service in 1981, the marder, which the germans have been using is from the 1960s, so you would expect them to stick with the bradley for 2 more decades.This Puma is meant to deal with things like mines, roadside-bombs and so onreading the description at the link it looks more like it is designed to counter more sophisticated threats than ieds. it is gonna have IR jammer, laser warningsystem, capabilities against attckhelicopters etc, nothing you would need against roadside bombs.Plus, it's got pedigree: Both KMW (Leopard II) and Rheinmetall (among other things the guns of the new Abrams) worked together on it.ahem:

...the problems involved in its development, apart from choosing its nomenclature, have been numerous.

Among these have been the alleged lack of innovative capacity on the part of the German defence industry...The F-22 was finished a few days ago, but there will only be 180 of these. That's not enough, and I'm not sure in what sort of numbers, and when, the F-35 will be ready.
Should the US maybe buy a batch of jets from the EU, for example the Saab Gripen, or even the Eurofighter?180 is not enough for what? you really have to tell me what the usa need to buy fighters for? the way it is now they could probably shoot down all other airforces in the world combined ten times.European countries have only a decade or two ago decided that they were going to start an independent defense industry.dont you mean they ditched their nationally independent industries in favour of a joint european one?

the usa have the bradley, it entered service in 1981, the marder, which the germans have been using is from the 1960s, so you would expect them to stick with the bradley for 2 more decades.
That's a long time, don't you think? During the Cold War, simply modifying existing designs was probably a better idea, but today combat has changed a lot, so it might be time for a completely new thing.

reading the description at the link it looks more like it is designed to counter more sophisticated threats than ieds. it is gonna have IR jammer, laser warningsystem, capabilities against attckhelicopters etc, nothing you would need against roadside bombs.
Those features are all nice, but it's particularly its armour which is designed with such unconventional things as roadside bombs and shape charges in mind.

ahem:
...the problems involved in its development, apart from choosing its nomenclature, have been numerous.

Among these have been the alleged lack of innovative capacity on the part of the German defence industry...
You can criticise everything, but I think this thing is pretty innovative.
And you really can't say anything bad about the other products of these two firms, which are pretty much top of their class in all aspects.

Nonetheless, it was just an example.

180 is not enough for what? you really have to tell me what the usa need to buy fighters for? the way it is now they could probably shoot down all other airforces in the world combined ten times.
The US currently probably has a few thousands of jets all together (I have no idea). 180 of those are the new top of the line best jets in the world.
That doesn't make a full modernisation by a long shot. For the time being, USAF will keep F-16s, 18s and 15s, which are kinda outdated now.
A Eurofighter is easily good for two F-15Es (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005), and plenty more F-16s. And the Russians are for example developing new planes constantly, and selling them cheaply to whomever wants them.
The idea is that a Saab Gripen is cheap, and newer than current US Fighters, so it might be a good thing to buy if the US were looking for an upgrade right now. But again, it's just an example of the principle.

dont you mean they ditched their nationally independent industries in favour of a joint european one?
Not really. It used to be that most European armies would largely field US Equipment of one sort or another, particularly in the air.
Apparently that bothered someone, so they started various programs of developing things themselves.
I'm wondering whether that is a good idea, or whether it's an unnecessary waste of money.

We should make our own stuff, but we should also import millitary technology so we can reverse engineer it to work with our own manufacturing methods/millitary needs.

I personally wouldn't buy the Eurofighter; it's an overly expensive boondoggle, and most of the analyses I've seen of it put it only in the same category as the F-15 and the Navalised F-18. Also, unless the Swedish government has changed the law while I wasn't looking, SAAB isn't allowed to sell military hardware overseas, which puts the Grippen out.

It seems to me that if you CAN build your own military equipment, you should, if only because you KNOW it will fit your combat and deployment doctrines. But most countries can't do that, so they have to buy from overseas.

During the Cold War, simply modifying existing designs was probably a better idea, but today combat has changed a lot, so it might be time for a completely new thing.but with the end of the cold war the arms race slowed down, that is known as the peace dividend. so you need allnew weaponsystems less often.it's particularly its armour which is designed with such unconventional things as roadside bombs and shape charges in mind.i disagree, the front armor is particulary strong, so it is not specifically designed for a roadsidebomb/ambush scenario, where the blast would come from the side. anyway, the armor is overall stronger than the bradleys, but then that is no wonder, after all it has oneandahalf to two times the bradleys weight.For the time being, USAF will keep F-16s, 18s and 15s, which are kinda outdated now.
A Eurofighter is easily good for two F-15Es (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005), and plenty more F-16s. And the Russians are for example developing new planes constantly, and selling them cheaply to whomever wants them.imo there is more to air superiority than the fightercraft itself. especially the missiles and systems like AWACS and GPS complement the fighter, ideally the plane launches a missile, that destroys the enemy before the opposition even notices the fighter. finally i believe the usa have the best and best trained pilots in the world. but that could be prejudice.I'm wondering whether that is a good idea, or whether it's an unnecessary waste of money.oh, it is better than wasting the money on agricultural subsidies.

I personally wouldn't buy the Eurofighter; it's an overly expensive boondoggleNo? You not like?
Also, unless the Swedish government has changed the law while I wasn't looking, SAAB isn't allowed to sell military hardware overseas, which puts the Gripen out. Also, unless the Swedish military can tell buyers the Gripen isn't just a missile for two, who would buy it..?

It seems to me that if you CAN build your own military equipment, you should, if only because you KNOW it will fit your combat and deployment doctrines. But most countries can't do that, so they have to buy from overseas.
And that... is all Pentagon et al want us to do. It's ok though. Costs more to make it NATO compatible than to buy it NATO comp... You already make it all...just buy from the US.

I personally wouldn't buy the Eurofighter; it's an overly expensive boondoggle, and most of the analyses I've seen of it put it only in the same category as the F-15 and the Navalised F-18.
See, it's the opposite for me. Every bit of data I can find puts the Eurofighter second, after the F-22 (which is slightly expensive itself...:p ), and miles ahead of the next best, which is apparently the Rafale.

Also, unless the Swedish government has changed the law while I wasn't looking, SAAB isn't allowed to sell military hardware overseas, which puts the Grippen out.
They must've found a way around it, because Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and a few others have them. And Denmark just ordered them as replacement for the F-16.

It seems to me that if you CAN build your own military equipment, you should, if only because you KNOW it will fit your combat and deployment doctrines. But most countries can't do that, so they have to buy from overseas.
How about standardising everything for a common NATO doctrine then? Assault Rifles all fire the same ammunition, Leopard and Abrams tanks fire the same guns and so on.

but with the end of the cold war the arms race slowed down, that is known as the peace dividend. so you need allnew weaponsystems less often.
I'd agree, but only once you finished rebuilding the military. "Transformation" is the buzzword I guess, but Germany in particular is working on transforming the Bundeswehr from a tank army designed against the Soviets to a more mobile sort of peacekeeping force with all the necessary power projection for emergencies. Costs a lot of money though, so it's not going too fast.

i disagree, the front armor is particulary strong, so it is not specifically designed for a roadsidebomb/ambush scenario, where the blast would come from the side.
I'm not an engineer, so I can't judge what they're saying, but KMW are very explicit about how they designed the thing to deal with things like that.
http://www.kmweg.com/gb/produkte/puma_special.php

imo there is more to air superiority than the fightercraft itself. especially the missiles and systems like AWACS and GPS complement the fighter, ideally the plane launches a missile, that destroys the enemy before the opposition even notices the fighter.
That's true of course. But regarding that, European firms are also building their own independent Anti-Air Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_missile_system) and even GPS System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_positioning_system).

oh, it is better than wasting the money on agricultural subsidies.
That is certainly true. ;)

Which one will usher in a reign of destruction the fastest? Because I vote for that option.

There's several reasons.

First, there are capability requirements. The USN and USMC haver requirements for Carrier operations, and there's only one other country that operates the same form of carriers, and they only have one. There is a definate need within the USAF for longer range operations, considering the distance from the CONUS to any potential region of conflict. The range difference isn't as big as it was, but is still exists. Also, there is doctorine issues. The M2 Bradley IFV is specifically built to work with the M1 Abrams. The Stryker family of wheeled AFV's is built for medium to low intensity combat, and is actually based on the Swiss MOWAG Pirhana series, as is the Marines LAV-25. Other nations AFV's are built for their doctorine, and it makes little sense to change it.

Second, we're still mostly working through existing Cold War era stocks of AFV's and aircraft. These are all bought and paid for, so why not use them? IIRC, there was a point where the US Army had twice or more as many tanks as crews!

Third, is the rather foolish nationalistic issue and "Not Invented Here." It is a problem, but for the US it makes some sense, as no one else has the same size and technology level as us. The French are the worst examples in this regard. (Rafel, anyone?)

Oh, and the whole thing about the Eurofighter and the Eagles, I'm not suprised, and I don't take it as a threat, because what really matters is pilot quality. That combined with technology superiority produces wins.

Anyways, for putting bombs on targets, two planes are better than one. Especially if they were the "E" model, modifed for strike.

Why is it important that the US produces all its equipment itself?

My opinion...it's just as much a political question as it is a security question. Congress is always going to consider the impact on jobs whenever the military considers purchasing a defense system from a foreign government. Why send the money and jobs overseas, when you can keep it here?

First, there are capability requirements. The USN and USMC haver requirements for Carrier operations, and there's only one other country that operates the same form of carriers, and they only have one.
I'm not sure whether the F-22 can be based on a carrier. I don't think so.
The Rafale however was definitely developed with modern carriers in mind. ;)

Other nations AFV's are built for their doctorine, and it makes little sense to change it.
But don't we all have NATO doctrine essentially?

The French are the worst examples in this regard. (Rafel, anyone?)
What's wrong with it? I can assure you that the European Defense Industry is very capable indeed, it's just a matter of having access to different amounts of funds.
A case in point is of course the Neuron Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron).

Anyways, for putting bombs on targets, two planes are better than one. Especially if they were the "E" model, modifed for strike.
True. Nonetheless, the Eurofighter is the newer and better plane of the two, and it too will have versions specialised in different things. But that's not the point.
The point is whether the US, or any other major power, should consider buying foreign machinery, as is practiced by smaller countries all the time.

My opinion...it's just as much a political question as it is a security question. Congress is always going to consider the impact on jobs whenever the military considers purchasing a defense system from a foreign government. Why send the money and jobs overseas, when you can keep it here?
In other words, the government is in the pockets of the defence industry?

Just to interject my opinion, whoever said that the F-22 is better than the Euro fighter is absolutely correct. The F-22 is definitely way better than the leading competition. To compare, F-15 pilots don't think it's fair to have to fight an F-22. I think one test put 3 or 4 F-15's down from one F-22. Those things are beast.

Just to interject my opinion, whoever said that the F-22 is better than the Euro fighter is absolutely correct. The F-22 is definitely way better than the leading competition. To compare, F-15 pilots don't think it's fair to have to fight an F-22. I think one test put 3 or 4 F-15's down from one F-22. Those things are beast.
No one doubts it.

But the issue is that they are so expensive that they will only ever be a halo-project, and that they will not really replace any of the other jets, because even the US can't bear it to buy so many of them.

No one doubts it.

But the issue is that they are so expensive that they will only ever be a halo-project, and that they will not really replace any of the other jets, because even the US can't bear it to buy so many of them.
Ahhhh. I see what you're saying. Like with the Shermans being cheaper and easier to produce than the Tigers, but the Tigers were so much better(which in the end, made little difference)

Ahhhh. I see what you're saying. Like with the Shermans being cheaper and easier to produce than the Tigers, but the Tigers were so much better(which in the end, made little difference)
Yeah.

Or like the Germans having a few King Tigers, but in the end still having to fight with Panzer IVs.

The Rafale however was definitely developed with modern carriers in mind. ;)
The F/A-18 was twenty years into series production by the time the Rafel came into service. And the E/F "Super Hornet" program was largely completed. It makes no sense to buy the Rafel. Also, what's the max takeoff weight of a Rafel, compared to the Hornet?

What's wrong with it? I can assure you that the European Defense Industry is very capable indeed, it's just a matter of having access to different amounts of funds.
A case in point is of course the Neuron Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron).

I don't know too much about UCAV's. See below


The point is whether the US, or any other major power, should consider buying foreign machinery, as is practiced by smaller countries all the time.

I don't deny there is some high quality equipment being manufactured outside of the US. There are quite a number of non American ships I consider far superior to what the US has, particular in the Frigate catergory. What equipment the US does bring in from the outside is principally specialist, or for the Coasties and the Marines, who manage to esacpe a lot of that insanity.

Oh, if you bring up how well the Indians did in Cope India vs. USAF, I will find evidence for that.

Yeah.

Or like the Germans having a few King Tigers, but in the end still having to fight with Panzer IVs.
Exactly, now I get it. I can RIP now.

Just to interject my opinion, whoever said that the F-22 is better than the Euro fighter is absolutely correct. The F-22 is definitely way better than the leading competition. To compare, F-15 pilots don't think it's fair to have to fight an F-22. I think one test put 3 or 4 F-15's down from one F-22. Those things are beast.

I thought it was five, and the F-15s didn't know the thing was coming....

But you pay through the nose for it.

You could probably shoot two F-15s at the least down with a single MiG-1.44 or Su-47, both of which are far more economical, and both of which boast better guns (for some strange reason, the Russians have the best guns on their fighters. A trend begun with the MiG-15, one which we have yet to catch up on). Both aircraft share the delightful nickname of "Raptor Killer" for a reason, after all. They also both have the famed inbuilt Russian toughness and, despte their massive size (again typical of a Russian aircraft), they were designed to be stealthy (although they are not true stealth).

As for buying Russian aircraft, that's an idea that's been thrown around by many in the military since the Cold War ended, but nothing has ever come of it. A particular favorite is using the Navalized Su-27 as a replacement of the F-14 in lieu of the F/A-18E/F. Cheaper and more capable, although it would be in dire need of American electronics. The most common concept is buying the first batch and then securing rights to manufacture a licensed version.

Given the Russian economy and that we're both 'at war' with Islamic terrorists (they have Chechnya, we have Iraq and Afghanistan), they would probably be more than happy to sell us the Su-27. I would support buying the Su-47 or MiG-1.44 to replace the F-15 and support the F-22s, but that's me. And if we can manage to get rights to the airframes such that China would be excluded from being able to buy them, so much the better. Ironically, in order to find a truly innovative aircraft industry any more, one has to shop Russian. (Neither 'Raptor Killer' is nearly so conventional in appearance as the F-22 or the YF-35. They might even have the edge on the Saab Gripon and the Eurofighter2000.)

(Note: The Australians, I believe, have replaced their aging F-16s and F-111s with Russian-built MiG-29s.)

Anyhue.

I opinion is that it's best to build your militaries own goodies, but there's no sense in not allowing yourself to borrow from the best minds in the world, whether foreign or domestic. The reasoning is simply that you might not always have the best rifles, tanks, or aircraft. If someone makes them better, though, you might want to look at licensing them for domestic production. (For those who suggested reverse-engineering, the Russians did that in the '40s while developing the MiG-15. It garaunteed that no one would ever sell them technology again. At least for a while.) If you can't do that (say, because you're dealing with SiG), then you might conveniently arrange for the specifications for a weapon similar to the weapon tested, only different enough that no one can accuse you of reverse-engineering.

In the case of special forces, as is the case with the real life special forces, anything goes. While your regular military will need to have domestic supplies of any weapon, your specfor guys need the best.

Of course, the whole reason for this is simple: If you go to war, it is highly likely that your foreign suppliers will get cut off from you. They may be captured by the enemy, or the enemy may simply be doing an exquisite job of making sure most shipments wind up scattered along the tops of mountains or the bottom of oceans. In a worst case scenario, the supplier may be allied against you. In peace time you also get to benefit from lower unemployment numbers, as the factories would require workers. And unlike every other industry, its one that cannot be outsourced.

It makes no sense to buy the Rafel.
Which kinda is the point. The French chose to build their own plane, even though an American one may have done just as good a job.
As for Maximum Takeoff Weight -
Super Hornet: 29.9t
Rafale: 19.5t
I wouldn't say that the Rafale is a total dud, I guess it does what France wanted from it, but I prefer other planes.

There are quite a number of non American ships I consider far superior to what the US has, particular in the Frigate catergory.
Like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class_corvette)? :D

Oh, if you bring up how well the Indians did in Cope India vs. USAF, I will find evidence for that.
Please do. I haven't heard all that much about it.
But the Indians are also working on some slick new designs of their own. It seems to be a trend these days. Maybe it would be better if everyone just specialised in an area they are particularly good at.

The first trial versions of the new "Puma" Infantry Fighting Vehicle are coming of the production line some time this week I believe.
It's meant to replace the "Marder", of which the US Army actually has some.

Currently, the IFVs that the US Army has are modifications of fairly old vehicles, and to my knowledge there are no immediate plans to build new ones. But in Iraq at the moment, the shortcomings of various armoured vehicles are made tragically obvious.

This Puma is meant to deal with things like mines, roadside-bombs and so on, it has an automatic turret with a mean autocannon on top, and the crew and infantry can see everything around them. Plus, it's got pedigree: Both KMW (Leopard II) and Rheinmetall (among other things the guns of the new Abrams) worked together on it.

In other words: It'd be great for the US Army to have, right?

I think so, yes.


So should the US try and buy a few hundred of these?

Sure, why not?

Why is it important that the US produces all its equipment itself?

It's important to assuage the fears of xenophobes who don't believe that trading with foreigners is a Bad Thing.

But it isn't actually important.

Should the US maybe buy a batch of jets from the EU, for example the Saab Gripen, or even the Eurofighter?

If the US military thinks those are good, yes.

European countries have only a decade or two ago decided that they were going to start an independent defense industry. Why? And is that a good thing, or a waste of resources?

It's a good thing. German engineering in particular is great. Why not take advantage of that?

I think so, yes.

Except the M2 and M3 Bradley are working fine for us.

Sure, why not?

We might buy a couple for testing, to see how we might improve on the Bradley, as a possible addition to the Bradley (in bulk), or simply paint them up Soviet-style and use them for Opfor.

It's important to assuage the fears of xenophobes who don't believe that trading with foreigners is a Bad Thing.

But it isn't actually important.

Except our service pistol, our next gen service rifle, the main gun on the M1A2 tank, our SAW, our light machine gun, our fully-automatic grenade launcher, among others, are all made under license to European nations. (Italy, Germany, Germany, Belgium, Belgium, and Germany, respectively, for those listed.)

If the US military thinks those are good, yes.

The US military probably respects them, but would have no need. We have the YF-35 that will be entering service soon. If the occasion arises where we have to replace the F-15/16 ASAP, then either development of the F-35 will be sped up or those airplanes (or some Russian aircraft, alternatively), might be purchased as a stop-gap.

It's a good thing. German engineering in particular is great. Why not take advantage of that?

I concur. And we do. That's why the XM8 rifle and XM320 detachable grenade launcher and the Mk. 4 (? I always forget the number) Grenade Launcher are all made in Germany, along with the 120mm L.44 cannon mounted on the M1A2 and M1A1H.

And the Germans aren't the only one with excellent weapons and mechanical skill, the Belgians (courtesy of FN), Italians (Beretta and Benelli), and Swiss (SiG) also make fine weapons, which we also take advantage of.

...along with the 120mm L.44 cannon mounted on the M1A2 and M1A1H...
I think it's L55 now.

Rheinmetall (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1446&action=pd) seem very pleased with themselves.

By the way...can you really say that "German engineering" is any better than other engineering? Why would stuff from Germany be any better than stuff from France for example? Or from Togo, if Togo had the necessary facilities.

By the way...can you really say that "German engineering" is any better than other engineering?

Well, sure. Kinda like how American music is better!

Why would stuff from Germany be any better than stuff from France for example?

I'm not sure, but IMO it more often is than not.

The "buy american" attitude serves two purposes:

Firstly, the US defence budget is so huge, it represents a massive amount of pork dollars, so every politician in this country wants it in his district, not overseas.

Secondly, and more importantly, it represents a commitment to maintaining the defense industry infrastructure of the US. Ideally - though this is not always the case - the US is commited to being able to fill all defense material needs domestically. As such, a more expensive inferior option is often selected from domestic contractors in order to keep them "ticking over." Sure not many F-22s are going to be purchased in the initial batch. (Actually the number keeps falling). But in the event more are needed, the second batch would be considerable cheaper because there is no need to eat the R&D costs &c. Plus the bloated cost represents more to the US than just the worth of the fighters themselves, it's also the cost of keeping the production capability within the US. On the other hand, Buying Eurofighters would do nothing to support the infrastructure in the US, so it won't ever be considered. (Unless the EU grants a license to manufacture them here by US firms, which I can't see happening anyway, because the Eurofighter has range problems - even if the flight control software gets fixed).

Like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class_corvette)? :D Too short ranged. Besides, I don't want it to burn down around me. The British Destroyers and Frigates are better than our OHPs by quite a margin. Also, the USN has long neglected inshore work.


Please do. I haven't heard all that much about it.
O.K. Apparently, under ther rules the IAF waxed the USAF. However, ther rules were set up to favor the Indians heavily. For example, the Americans could only fight with in visual range, and could not use data links, only voice.
Christian Science Monitor Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051128/wl_csm/otopgun)
Good expanded story (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.php)The guy who wrote this is a long time defense analyist


But the Indians are also working on some slick new designs of their own. It seems to be a trend these days. Maybe it would be better if everyone just specialised in an area they are particularly good at.Yeah, but how much ex-Russian stuff are they playing around with?

That shit's dangerous to play with. There's an old Soviet diesel boat in San Diego CA as a musesum, and it did not look like a nice boat when it was in service.

I think it's L55 now.

Rheinmetall (http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1446&action=pd) seem very pleased with themselves.

By the way...can you really say that "German engineering" is any better than other engineering? Why would stuff from Germany be any better than stuff from France for example? Or from Togo, if Togo had the necessary facilities.

Yes, on the Leopard2A6. Not on the M1A2 (yet!).

As for the alleged quality of German engineering, it's something that's assumed. Germany has a history of being ahead of the game, from an engineering perspective, just as Russian aircraft, guns, and tanks are noted for their rugged-ness and reliability and Japan and the United States are noted for their cutting edge electronics.

Usually, they're true, because they're based off of what a nation thinks it needs. Germany probably wants the best engineered weapons and vehicles (which explains H&K, Walther, Rheinmetall, Kraus-Wegmann among others), while Russia demands ruggedness and their doctrine calls for masses of conscripts, and the United States has this thing for having the best electronics on earth integrated into their weaponry.

[url]The first trial versions of the new "Puma" Infantry Fighting Vehicle are coming of the production line some time this week I believe.

Puma!!! Griff was right!!!!!!!! (watch redvsblue)
and no you won't get a link

Yeah, but how much ex-Russian stuff are they playing around with?

That shit's dangerous to play with. There's an old Soviet diesel boat in San Diego CA as a musesum, and it did not look like a nice boat when it was in service.
Well, they are interested in the Mig 1.44 program, and maybe the Chinese version of that too (depends on whether the two can really be friends, I guess). Plus, they're making their own new "LCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Combat_Aircraft)" and "MCA (http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-mca.html)"

I have no problem with the US to purchase armored vehicles from Germany. If its a good piece of equipment then why not. I think the US produces the vast majority of its equipment so there is not a large need for other nations hardware to support the US military. I also think that the tech edge is an important thing to take into consideration.




This could by the way also be brought up in regards to planes. The F-22 was finished a few days ago, but there will only be 180 of these. That's not enough...


These 180 F-22 can take down any nations airforce without a problem. There is not a need to purchase planes from outside the US. Not saying that there are not high quality planes out of Europe. There just is no need.

*snip*

(Note: The Australians, I believe, have replaced their aging F-16s and F-111s with Russian-built MiG-29s.)

*snip*

Nope, we've still got the crappy old F-111 and we never had F-16s. We have F/A-18s instead.

According to this, we're looking at replacing them with the F-35A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF

Note: The Australians, I believe, have replaced their aging F-16s and F-111s with Russian-built MiG-29s.

Australia has never had F-16s. Currently the RAAF operates ~75 F/A-18s, and ~20 F-111s. EDIT: 71 F/A-18s, 35 F-111s. Both these types will be replaced by ~100 F-35s, which has caused quite a stink here as the F-35 could never do the job of the 111s, and are likely to only become available at least 5 years after the 111s are due to be retired.
A mix of about 25/75 F-22s and F-35s would probably be a better fit, but was rejected on cost. And before anyone questions whether the US would ever sell F-22s to anybody, yes they were offered.

I don't think the RAAF has given more than passing consideration to Russian jets - certainly not MiG-29s, but someone probably would have (briefly) looked at the possibility of ordering one of the Flanker variants.
Aside from considering the performance of the aircarft itself, the alliances Australia has undoubtedly weighs heavily on any decision about where to purchase aircraft.

As for countries importing military equipment, well some countries do not have a choice. For example Australia simply does not have the kind of aerospace industry necessary to design and develop a state-of-the-art fighter jet - although apparently most of the F-35s that Australia is going to purchase will be assembled here under license.

As for countries importing military equipment, well some countries do not have a choice.

Except to not have a military. NZ just got rid of thier air force. Admirable, if you think you can do it.

These 180 F-22 can take down any nations airforce without a problem. There is not a need to purchase planes from outside the US.
The question is whether the F-22 turned out the plane it was meant to be. I'd be saying that it wasn't, because I think that you would not now mothball all F-15s, or F-18s, or all the other jets it was originally meant to replace.

It's probably true that 180 F-22s are the most formidable air force on the planet - but consider the size of the planet, the fact that the F-22 doesn't like Carriers and so on, and you'll find that they are a halo-project, which might not actually see combat for years, instead leaving that job to ageing alternatives.
Until the F-35 comes in of course.

http://www.global-defence.com/2005/Utilities/article.php?id=77

The first trial versions of the new "Puma" Infantry Fighting Vehicle are coming of the production line some time this week I believe.
It's meant to replace the "Marder", of which the US Army actually has some.

Currently, the IFVs that the US Army has are modifications of fairly old vehicles, and to my knowledge there are no immediate plans to build new ones. But in Iraq at the moment, the shortcomings of various armoured vehicles are made tragically obvious.

This Puma is meant to deal with things like mines, roadside-bombs and so on, it has an automatic turret with a mean autocannon on top, and the crew and infantry can see everything around them. Plus, it's got pedigree: Both KMW (Leopard II) and Rheinmetall (among other things the guns of the new Abrams) worked together on it.

In other words: It'd be great for the US Army to have, right?

So should the US try and buy a few hundred of these? Why is it important that the US produces all its equipment itself?

This could by the way also be brought up in regards to planes. The F-22 was finished a few days ago, but there will only be 180 of these. That's not enough, and I'm not sure in what sort of numbers, and when, the F-35 will be ready.
Should the US maybe buy a batch of jets from the EU, for example the Saab Gripen, or even the Eurofighter?

The US is of course not alone with this. European countries have only a decade or two ago decided that they were going to start an independent defense industry. Why? And is that a good thing, or a waste of resources?
Expressing the opionions of New Zealand......

We do not have a very large Military Industry as there is no need as we do not have a very large Miltary full stop.

however as of '96 therehas been a greater emphasis on purchasing Kiwi made military equipment of course this only comes down to simulators and not actually real hardware.

The main contribution was to the ANZAC class frigates.

Buying National equipment is good as it instils(or hopefully) pride in the fact you are using 'your own' equipment.

US Marine Harriers...
However sometimes(always) it involves politics and things like the SR 153 are never built.




The F-22 Thunderbolt II is now active!
The things cost a bundle an the US wouldn't really wan't to sell them overseas and give away all that hard earned technology now would they?

Except to not have a military. NZ just got rid of thier air force. Admirable, if you think you can do it.


We got rid of the fighter wing which we never used anyway. Basically, if we get invaded, we're fucked whether we had the shitty old fighters or not. Our military largely focuses on peacekeeping and things, so the money is going towards things that assist that.

*snip*


What we should have done was secretly bought off that chap who was making a cruise missile in his garage.

Maybe they are and we don't know... That's buying kiwi made :)

What we should have done was secretly bought off that chap who was making a cruise missile in his garage.

Maybe they are and we don't know... That's buying kiwi made :)
Iran wanted them.

Our Skyhawks would have passed their flying capabilities right about now.
But for us to get rid of them at that stage ws dumb.
To reject the F-16 deal was dumb.

We have commitments to SEATO and Australia.

1/3rd or so of the Strike wing in case of war with Indonesia over East Timor was planned to be supplied by us.

Skyhawks used as ground support would be fine think of them as the new age Stuka.................

Skyhawks used as ground support would be fine think of them as the new age Stuka...
New Age?

Well, I don't know. If I wanted a ground attack airplane for support, I'd want an A-10.

Just to throw my 2 cents into the equasion before I head home (thread will be bookmarked to see your replies next year - OMG, that sounds bad!):

Has there been any testing in how

a) The F-22 performes against the Mig29?
b) The Eurofighter performs against the Mig29?

Just wondering because when Germany still had some Mig29s they really ruled the skies during maneuvers.

And why the hell did Germany sell all their Mig29s to Poland for € 1,- a piece? I mean, spare parts for the Migs gotta be cheap as hell and for training purposes there's little better than to have some of the craft around you'd probably be facing around the world?

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/topgun.gif
Wish you all a merry Christmas!

New Age?

Well, I don't know. If I wanted a ground attack airplane for support, I'd want an A-10.

I'd want a Harrier.

hey hey hey hey hey....... Russia only sells to China and Iran.

Australia has never had F-16s. Currently the RAAF operates ~75 F/A-18s, and ~20 F-111s. EDIT: 71 F/A-18s, 35 F-111s. Both these types will be replaced by ~100 F-35s, which has caused quite a stink here as the F-35 could never do the job of the 111s, and are likely to only become available at least 5 years after the 111s are due to be retired.
A mix of about 25/75 F-22s and F-35s would probably be a better fit, but was rejected on cost. And before anyone questions whether the US would ever sell F-22s to anybody, yes they were offered.

I don't think the RAAF has given more than passing consideration to Russian jets - certainly not MiG-29s, but someone probably would have (briefly) looked at the possibility of ordering one of the Flanker variants.
Aside from considering the performance of the aircarft itself, the alliances Australia has undoubtedly weighs heavily on any decision about where to purchase aircraft.

As for countries importing military equipment, well some countries do not have a choice. For example Australia simply does not have the kind of aerospace industry necessary to design and develop a state-of-the-art fighter jet - although apparently most of the F-35s that Australia is going to purchase will be assembled here under license. The Australian government under the Liberals has been notoriously stingy with military issues,, I'm disappointed that we haven't had a more serious look at other alternatives outside or as well as the F-35A. Particularly now that countries such as the U.K. are starting to get cold feet.

Frankly, it lacks the force projection needed for such a large country and we'd do well to at least couple our purchase of the F-35s with some F-22s which would suit us far better IMO.

(BTW I'm not suggesting things were far better under the ALP, where billions were wasted on idiotic pipe-dreams and stupid overexpensive investments such as the notorious Collins Class Submarines)

And why the hell did Germany sell all their Mig29s to Poland for € 1,- a piece? I mean, spare parts for the Migs gotta be cheap as hell and for training purposes there's little better than to have some of the craft around you'd probably be facing around the world?

Probably logistical problems, i'd say. Re-engineering the MiGs with western avionics to support weapons like the sidewinder probably proved too costly. In a conflict situation, the differing ordinance requirements really complicate things.

Unless a country has no industrial base to speak of, it is not in their best interests to rely on anyone else for the hardware for their defense.

Treaties are not inviolate. It's hard to defend yourself if you are suddenly embargoed (literally) to death.

The Australian government under the Liberals has been notoriously stingy with military issues,, I'm disappointed that we haven't had a more serious look at other alternatives outside or as well as the F-35A. Particularly now that countries such as the U.K. are starting to get cold feet.

Frankly, it lacks the force projection needed for such a large country and we'd do well to at least couple our purchase of the F-35s with some F-22s which would suit us far better IMO.

(BTW I'm not suggesting things were far better under the ALP, where billions were wasted on idiotic pipe-dreams and stupid overexpensive investments such as the notorious Collins Class Submarines)

Buy Eurofighter! Nobody else will...

Has there been any testing in how
a) The F-22 performes against the Mig29?
b) The Eurofighter performs against the Mig29?
The Migs are getting on in years...Sukhois are the new thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft#DERA_study
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/text/fighters/fighters.html

F-22 is massively on top, Eurofighter second, then another gap and you get to the Su-35.

If I was going to buy Russian it would definitely be the Su-35. While Mikoyan-Gureyevich has been getting all the publicity, it's been the Sukhoi design bureau that has been doing the real innovation.

(Actually, I'd personally prefer the Su-37 - that's a modded Su-35 with forward-sweep wings and a better avionics package.)

I know the MiG-29 has been tested by the US Aggressor Squadron, both in comparison to and against the F-22, but the report on those tests is still classified. Be a few years before we can really know.

New Age?

Well, I don't know. If I wanted a ground attack airplane for support, I'd want an A-10.
No no i was saying the Skyhawk would get shot out of the Sky like Turkeys(.....) just like the Stuka did.

Of course i'd want the Warthog.

I'd want a Harrier.
They also get chewed out.-But i'd still want them.