France Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

gelgoog said:

The Leopard 2 has an ammo rack on the side of the tank. With really thin side armor. You hit it and the turret flies off.

Click to expand...

The ammo racks plural are located in the hull forward left side and turret left side bristle. Not the side side.
As to the FCS again which version the latest or the older versions used by the Turks and for the record the Leclerc has a much lower turret weight and armor so the suspension is inferior in terms of weight capacity compared to the leopard 2. That's why the makers joint venture included a Leopard 2 hull with a Leclerc turret.

gelgoog said:

Saudi Arabia has a lot of money, more than the UAE, yet their M1 Abrams haven't worked all that well in Yemen either. It's an obsolete tank design and the US does not have an export armor kit for it that's up to modern standards. The most modern armor kits only exist in limited numbers and are for US only use

Click to expand...

It helps if you actually use the tank correctly and support it with infantry. Also armor kits can be assembled by other makers or negotiated. To date the Saudies don't seem to be ingesting in such.

gelgoog said:

The Rafale does not have folding wings because it was decided so, as a cost saving measure

Click to expand...

Reducing the number of fighters in the carrier air wing. In a already fairly small modern nuclear carrier.

gelgoog said:

As for the French carrier program, it was delayed because the French back-pedalled on having a conventionally powered carrier. The conventional power was a government decision to ensure commonality in design and was against the interests of the armed forces who saw it as a step backwards. They wanted a nuclear powered carrier. I would say it's a good thing they delayed the program

Click to expand...

Meaning that every time the CVN has to get a repair or overhaul the French Navy looses all carrier capabilities. The aim of the joint French English program was to allow at a affordable price carriers for the two partners. The single carrier deck limits ther ability to respond to emergency by putting all there eggs in one basket.

gelgoog said:

Chinese are currently building conventionally powered EMALS CATOBAR carriers. The QE design was obsolete the moment they decided to use a ski-ramp on such a large carrier. It is about as obsolete as the basic Kuznetsov design

Click to expand...

No, the Chinese have not been confirmed as building EMALS into there decks.
The method of take off and landing of the S/VTOL Queen Elizabeth class is vastly different from that used by the Russian / Chinese carriers the lift system buys extra payload vs that of the Russian system and saves on ship building and electrical drain.

Aug 2, 2018

Jura said:

Mar 11, 2018
so
A jet sale to Egypt is being blocked by a US regulation, and France is over it

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

while now
Mattis says US-France in talks about loosening export limits on cruise missile

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. defense officials are in detailed talks with French counterparts on a request for the sale of American components built into French cruise missiles, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said.

Asked by a French journalist about Washington blocking the sale of the Scalp long-range weapon to Egypt and Qatar, Mattis said American and French staff were meeting on that very issue even as a press conference was being held.

“We discussed this,” he said. “We also have our staffs meeting. We have an invitation out to France to answer two final questions. The meetings are going on as we speak.”

Mattis, on his first visit to Paris as defense secretary, was speaking at a joint press conference with his French counterpart, Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly, held at Brienne House.

The two issues to be resolved target “certain technologies” that the United States only shares with its closest allies, including France, and whether that technology can be further transferred, and how France can protect that technology, he said.

“Right now we don’t have a final answer but it is all going in the right direction,” he said. “And it was a very fruitful discussion today. Our staffs are working this forward right now.”

The conundrum stems from the French sale to Egypt and Qatar of Scalp cruise missiles to arm Dassault Rafale fighter jets. The weapons include U.S. parts, leading Washington to evoke the International Traffic in Arms Regulations regime.

Parly, meanwhile, thanked Mattis, for help in gaining U.S. authorization for arming French Reaper drones, cleared for fitting by the end of the year.

U.S. President Donald Trump plans to come to Paris to mark the Nov. 11 Armistice Day, she said.

That date is highly significant for France, marking the end of World War I, in which millions of troops died in the trenches.

Mattis said he was not concerned about a drive by France and Germany to build a stronger European defense, as there were some issues which were “of interest only to Europeans.” As long as the European drive would not duplicate NATO or compete for alliance forces, “we see this in a positive direction,” he said.

Mattis earlier met French President Emmanuel Macron and would go on to Brussels for a NATO ministerial meeting.

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The ammo racks plural are located in the hull forward left side and turret left side bristle. Not the side side.
As to the FCS again which version the latest or the older versions used by the Turks and for the record the Leclerc has a much lower turret weight and armor so the suspension is inferior in terms of weight capacity compared to the leopard 2. That's why the makers joint venture included a Leopard 2 hull with a Leclerc turret.

It helps if you actually use the tank correctly and support it with infantry. Also armor kits can be assembled by other makers or negotiated. To date the Saudies don't seem to be ingesting in such.

Reducing the number of fighters in the carrier air wing. In a already fairly small modern nuclear carrier.

Meaning that every time the CVN has to get a repair or overhaul the French Navy looses all carrier capabilities. The aim of the joint French English program was to allow at a affordable price carriers for the two partners. The single carrier deck limits ther ability to respond to emergency by putting all there eggs in one basket.

No, the Chinese have not been confirmed as building EMALS into there decks.
The method of take off and landing of the S/VTOL Queen Elizabeth class is vastly different from that used by the Russian / Chinese carriers the lift system buys extra payload vs that of the Russian system and saves on ship building and electrical drain.

Click to expand...

The CDG carrier can carry up to 35 Rafale fighters. The Liaoning carrier can carry 26 J-15 fighters. QE-class carriers can carry up to 36 F-35Bs. I do not consider that the fact that the Rafale does not have folding wings to so strongly impair the number of aircraft on their "small" carrier. Also, since the CDG does have a catapult, those Rafale fighters will have much more maximum takeoff weight than either the F-35Bs in the QE or the J-15s in the Liaoning. This means those Rafales will have more weapons payload and more fuel. The problem is the French only have one carrier, that is all, this means it has a poor parts supply and it leads to other issues like downtime. Other than that I consider the CDG to be one of the best designs currently in service. Other than the Nimitz and Ford class it is the only nuclear-powered CATOBAR carrier in service in the world today.

The Leclerc has an hydropneumatic suspension. The Leopard 2 has just a plain torsion bar suspension. The Leclerc's is at least one generation better. Only tank with a better suspension would be the Korean K2. Even the T-14 Armata has a suspension better than plain torsion bar. Because the suspension is better the tank has better accuracy while firing on the move and more gun depression in a hull down position. Just like I said. The only advantage the Leopard 2 has is that it was built in more numbers and it is cheaper. The Leopard 2 also was designed over a decade before the Leclerc and it shows. When you consider technologies that have been developed after both those tanks, like CVT transmissions, there is a still lot of room for improvement tough. Ever seen the Japanese Type 10 tank? Because of the CVT it can drive as fast backwards as forward and it's a lot easier to drive it too.

Also you are wrong. The other ammo rack in the Leopard 2 is in the hull, only one ammo rack is in the turret.




The Germans are such cheapstakes the new joint tank design will probably be really crappy to keep production costs down.

The project of the joint Franco-German large twin-jet UCAV also seems like an abortion to me. UCAVs are supposed to be cheaper than fighters. Not the other way around. In practice UCAVs have more crashes and they decide to make the most expensive one they can. It's like the Germans did not learn squat after their Euro Hawk fiasco. UCAVs also have several issues like the possibility of jamming or even worse to be hijacked. When I heard of that project, I just thought it was so stupid, I could not believe it.

The English proposal to replace the Tornado seems to make a lot more sense to me as a project. There is an issue that it might flounder because of Brexit but it is a shame if that happens really. None of the NATO countries will have a deep strike fighter bomber once the Tornado and F-15E are retired otherwise.

So if you penetrate a Leopard 2 on its left side, just below the turret's front, BOOM!
Then the turret flies off. The side armor has AFAIK 50mm RHA equivalent plus a side skirt. So it is really thin for an MBT.

I learned that the hard way when playing Armored Warfare.

Unless you have one of the armor upgrade kits with side armor you better not store any ammo there. Even if you do that, someone can easily kill or injure the tank's driver by striking that position. Of course, the German Army does not have those side armor kits on their tanks. Because it's expensive and Germans are cheap.

gelgoog said:

Also you are wrong. The other ammo rack in the Leopard 2 is in the hull, only one ammo rack is in the turret.

Click to expand...

No I am right the Leopard 2 turret rack is not just on the side it's left side brustle even your display backs that....
Wait you are using a video game as refrence???

I misread what you typed. But anyway, you can penetrate it by hitting the thin side armor and you'll hit the ammo rack in the hull. I've seen footage of Leopard 2 tanks with their turrets blown off in Syria which had been hit on the left side. So in those cases it was clearly a detonation of that ammo rack.

People joke about the T-72 carousel autoloader making that tank family vulnerable and this is a similar issue.

Again Turkish Leopard 2A4 not the latest versions which are basically a totally different tank.

The Carousel will pop not just from the tank getting penetrated but even a overheat of the autoloader. The thing you have to consider though is although the ammo may cook off can the crew bail out or not? You state

gelgoog said:

I learned that the hard way when playing Armored Warfare

Click to expand...

Video games don't let the crew jump out and have vastly different rules than reality. Reality comes in here because the question for a tank on a failure is did the crew survive or were they killed?
T72 cook offs tend not to leave survivors.

AEROSPACE MANUFACTURER LAUAK SELECTS IFS APPLICATIONS 10 TO DRIVE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

The Most Beautiful Demonstration of Dassault Mirage 2000 . . .

google translated last paragraph of
FTI : accélération de la production ? Décalage(s) ?
sounds kinda damning for Belh@rra

C'est pourquoi l'agencement industriel du programme FTI avec une éventuelle commande grecque pour quatre unités dont deux mises sur cale en France aiderait à respecter l'enveloppe financière, voire à optimiser la dépense au point de revenir sur des choix comme la limitation à 16 sabords ou bien l'absence de brouilleurs, de lance-leurres. Il ne serait pas non plus étonnant que tout le programme FTI ait été calculé sur le plan financier avec l'appoint fort probable de deux unités grecques : la Marine aurait fait entrer les cinq frégates dans l'enveloppe allouée, quitte à abandonner quelques équipements pour ne pas avoir à réduire d'autres enveloppes dédiées dont celles aux qualités intrinsèques de la plateforme. Ces équipements mis de côté reviendraient alors avec la commande grecque permettant de réduire la facture initiale au point de faire entrer ces équipements dans l'enveloppe, sans jamais la dépasser. C'est une hypothèse à creuser.

Click to expand...

:
"This is why the industrial layout of the FTI program with a possible Greek order for four units, two of which were put on hold in France, would help to respect the financial envelope, or even optimize the expenditure to the point of going back to choices such as the limitation to 16 ports or the absence of jammers, decoy launchers. It would not be surprising either that the entire FTI program was calculated on a financial level with the most likely supplement of two Greek units: the Navy would have brought the five frigates in the allocated envelope, even leaving some equipment for do not have to reduce other dedicated envelopes including those intrinsic qualities of the platform. This equipment set aside would then return with the Greek order to reduce the initial bill to the point of entering the equipment in the envelope, without ever exceeding. This is a hypothesis to dig."

now this paragraph is interesting:

Par ailleurs, rien que le rédacteur de cette note demeure attentif à la livraison

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Athènes avait souhaité se procurer des destroyers de la classe Kidd avec des SM-2 MR mais Washington refusait au nom de la stabilité régionale. Refus levé quand Paris pouvait proposer ses FREMM de classe Aquitaine modifiées avec des Aster 30 (portée de 100 km). C'est cela pourvoir aux besoins de sécurité d'un Etat. Cela confirme que le MdCN, en premier lieu, demeure un des points cardinaux du besoin tel qu'exprimé par les Grecs et tel que perçu par les citoyens de leur Etat. Les FTI doivent porter deux lanceurs Sylver A50 (Aster 15 et 30). Il serait donc question pour la Grèce de voir percer la plage avant de deux lanceurs Sylver A70, toujours sur la plage avant.

Click to expand...

"Moreover, the editor of this note remains attentive to the delivery to Greece and anti-aircraft missiles Aster 30 and Naval Cruise Missiles (MdCN). Athens had sought Kidd class destroyers with SM-2 MRs but Washington refused in the name of regional stability. Refusal raised when Paris could propose his modified Aquitaine class FREMM with Aster 30 (range of 100 km). This is to provide for the security needs of a state. This confirms that the MdCN, in the first place, remains one of the cardinal points of the need as expressed by the Greeks and as perceived by the citizens of their state. FTIs must carry two Sylver A50 launchers (Aster 15 and 30). It would be question for Greece to see pierce the beach before two launchers Sylver A70, always on the beach before."