The Germans are coming!

[mas]

More importantly it will help alleviate the US-German trade imbalance that Trump does not like having with any nation.

[loke]

Since it seems they have decided to develop their own 5. gen fighter with France it would probably be cheaper to skip the F-35 alltogether and make do without nuclear bombs until the new 5. gen fighter is ready.

Some of the same thinking that was behind the UK's decision to drop carrier aviation for several years until the F-35B is ready (and the new carriers of course).

To NATO a few F-35 more or less would not make a big difference. How many F-35 will NATO countries have by 2030?

There will also be non-NATO countries that are nevertheless close allies of NATO countries that will also have quite significant numbers of F-35; in Europe there will be Finland (perhaps 64 F-35, one of the largest F-35 operators in Europe!?) and of course in Asia-pacific there will be Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, etc., in the ME of course Israel will have a huge F-35 fleet in 2030...

Germany could build a few extra subs instead, small subs are currently in high demand, and few of them exist in NATO!

Another wet dream is that European NATO countries pull their act together and build a 5. gen tank, the Leo2 is becoming a joke.

So much to do and so little money to spend...

[ricnunes]

... the Leo2 is becoming a joke.

Why?? May I ask?

[XanderCrews]

Why even compare the Typhoon to the F-15E? One was conceived as a pure interceptor with A2G capabilities added later as an afterthought while the other is a mud-mover. Apples and oranges really.

Calling the F-15E a "mud-mover" is like calling the F-11 and dogfighter.

Pretty sure the F-15 was conceived with not a pound for air to ground and got the A2G as an afterthought as well. It's just a split of variant e vs C Vs a split in capability

[loke]

... the Leo2 is becoming a joke.

Why?? May I ask?

Nothing wrong with it, just that it's getting rather old.

A next generation tank is needed. Something with stealth features. A lot has happened in material science the last few years, so one could in the near future build something that could be quite revolutionary. One may also consider to replace the diesel engine with a hydrogen fuel cell, for audio stealth, but also for easy access to massive amounts of electricity to feed the laser and potentially a rail gun (to replace the old gun systems). It should also have space for drones that can be released and recovered. It should be fully networked with LPI datalinks. Etc, etc.

Leo is becoming outdated, just like the F-16 is becoming outdated.

[steve2267]

A next generation tank is needed. Something with stealth features. A lot has happened in material science the last few years, so one could in the near future build something that could be quite revolutionary. One may also consider to replace the diesel engine with a hydrogen fuel cell, for audio stealth, but also for easy access to massive amounts of electricity to feed the laser and potentially a rail gun (to replace the old gun systems). It should also have space for drones that can be released and recovered. It should be fully networked with LPI datalinks. Etc, etc.

Leo is becoming outdated, just like the F-16 is becoming outdated.

Technology for technology's sake rarely works out well. Rather it usually ends up in very expensive programs that do not produce a useful product that then end up getting canceled.

Some of the things you mention, e.g. audio stealth, or drones, are worthwhile goals or features that could have a real tactical impact on a battlespace. Better, IMO, to implement some spiral, technology development programs to develop the technology first. Once the technology reaches a certain maturity level, then consider a product development program to develop a real product; but FIRST define realistic requirements your new gizmo must reach or achieve.

This is how the propulsion system on the F-35 was created. Perhaps if the sensor fusion and HMDS had been developed similarly the F-35 would have come on line much faster and at a far lower cost. (Shoulda coulda woulda - hindsight is usually 20-20.)

[mtrman]

....

To NATO a few F-35 more or less would not make a big difference. How many F-35 will NATO countries have by 2030?

There will also be non-NATO countries that are nevertheless close allies of NATO countries that will also have quite significant numbers of F-35; in Europe there will be Finland (perhaps 64 F-35, one of the largest F-35 operators in Europe!?) and of course in Asia-pacific there will be Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, etc., in the ME of course Israel will have a huge F-35 fleet in 2030...

...

@loke, why don't you count possible 100+ F-35s of Turkey?

[mas]

mtrman, the Turkmen have been very naughty in Syria droning the Russian Base. Is Erdogan going to run back to the US and play the NATO card again against an angry Putin ? Erdogan makes Trump look calm and collected .

https://www.rt.com/news/415454-drone-at ... ia-turkey/

[ricnunes]

Nothing wrong with it, just that it's getting rather old.

And what's better than the Leopard 2 either currently fielded or under development??

I would say that currently the top 3 MBTs in the world are precisely the Leopard 2, the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 (and not by any particular order).

The French Leclerc is a 50 ton class MBT while all the 3 above (including the Leo2) are 60 ton class tanks so it likely not so well protected (armour wise).
The Israeli Merkava IV is a good contender but in the end this is a different beast - it can carry 4 soldiers plus the usual crew - so it's a bit of a mixture of a MBT with very limited IFV capabilities.

The Leopard 2A6 has the best gun of all MBTs, namely compared to all of the above.

The only new MBT that's being currently under development (that I know of) is the Russian Armata but at a 40 ton class, I have my reservations how it would fare against all the MBTs above, specially in terms or protection (armour).
Anyway, the Armata was not designed to be the best MBT but instead to be a modular common design which can be used as a "MBT", APC, IFV or if I'm not mistaken as a Mobile Howitzer.

The fact is that there isn't anything which is superior (or clearly superior) to the Leopard 2 either fielded, in development or planned in the foreseeable future.

A next generation tank is needed.

Again why? The Leopard 2 fits and surpasses the requirements needed to carry out all and every role currently needed and required for a MBT.
I can't see anything to be developed with current and near future technology that could match the survivability and the mobility of a MBT like the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams or Challenger 2.

And by the way, the Leopard2 is being constantly updated, with the latest variant being the Leopard 2A7 which seems to have some considerably technological advances (namely sensor and communications wise).

Something with stealth features.

Initially I would ask why but here I prefer to ask: How?

One may also consider to replace the diesel engine with a hydrogen fuel cell, for audio stealth,

Here I ask which one "explodes better" if hit by an incoming shell or missile? My bet is on the hydrogen fuel cell

(again hydrogen fuel cells may "grant" a lower survivability than a Diesel engine for example when hit by enemy fire)

but also for easy access to massive amounts of electricity to feed the laser and potentially a rail gun (to replace the old gun systems).

Don't get me wrong but this seems a bit similar as saying that we should replace the current assault rifles with Laser or Plasma Rifles.
I believe that this will be something that will eventually happen but just not in the foreseeable future.

It should also have space for drones that can be released and recovered. It should be fully networked with LPI datalinks. Etc, etc.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't fit such technologies in the Leopard 2 or in any other MBTs that I mentioned above.

Leo is becoming outdated, just like the F-16 is becoming outdated.

Just because something was designed decades ago doesn't mean that this same something is obsolete and needs replacement. For example is the M-16 or M-4 Assault Rifles becoming outdated? I don't think so!

This just means that nothing newer and better has come.
Not all technologies evolves at the same pace. Just because current fighter aircraft are becoming obsolete doesn't mean that current MBTs (or Assault Rifles) are obsolete as well.

[SpudmanWP]

Speaking as an M1 tanker, the tracks make more noise than my turbine engine. The turbo diesel on my old M60A3 was MUCH louder than my tracks however.

[steve2267]

Speaking as an M1 tanker, the tracks make more noise than my turbine engine. The turbo diesel on my old M60A3 was MUCH louder than my tracks however.

Wasn't whispering death one of the nicknames given the M1?

[ricnunes]

Speaking as an M1 tanker, the tracks make more noise than my turbine engine. The turbo diesel on my old M60A3 was MUCH louder than my tracks however.

Cool!
By the way Tanks are among my favourite military equipment alongside with fighter aircraft and what you mentioned is very interesting indeed, which prompts me to ask you the following question:
- There are Rubber Pads that can be fitted to the tracks, this are mostly used when traveling by road (so as not to damage to road pavement), is this correct? And also about Rubber Pads, do or can they somehow reduce the track noise that you mentioned?

[SpudmanWP]

The tracks always had the rubber pads and they (M60 but not M1 pads) can be replaced when damaged.

Most of the track noise came from the metal on metal grinding between the drive/idle gears and from all of the track retention pins(4)/bolts(6 & 9)/connectors(7, 10, & 11).

This is a breakdown of the M1 (T156) track shoe assembly

[ricnunes]

Thanks Spudman

[popcorn]

Didn't they develop a super quiet hybrid electric drive for Crusader?