The Eurofighter is far inferior to the F-22. The Type 45 is about the same as the AB....though the U.S. Navy has so many other advantages it doesn't matter. The Leopard and Challenger are great tanks, but not appreciably better than Abrams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet Check them for yourself. In my view the Eurofighter is the best, then the 15, then the Rafale, then the F18, then the F16. No doubt you disagree.
Well yes the F22 is better than the Eurofighter, I never said it wasn't, I said the Europeans now have better conventional jets than the US. If the UK every makes a multirole type 45 is will be better than the AB because it has stealth, that is why the US is building a new stealth destroyer/crusier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer What do you mean not appreciably better than the Abrams? Most people I have talked to say the German and British tank is better than the Abrams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Variants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams I quess you admit the Astute class is the best nuclear attack sub in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf_class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine
Linking random wiki articles doesn't prove your point. The Type 45 isn't a stealth ship. It carries significantly fewer missiles and a much weaker ECM and radar than the AB. What conventional jets are better? In a full war scenario (multiple aircraft with AWAC etc. support) squaring off against each other how can you prove the European aircraft are superior?
NATO was created for a very specific purpose, to fight the expansion of the Soviet Union. This is why most alliances are formed. Not for political purposes, but as defensive measures. What you are proposing appears nothing more then an attempt to restore colonization. You are grossly oversimplifying wars, and looking at one aspect of the people fighting, and not the actual cause of the war. In WWII, you had Catholics fighting Protestants, and both fighting Muslims. In WWII you had Budhists and Shinto fighting Christians. Were either of those wars religious? Under Saddam Iraq fought 3 wars, were any of those religious? Religion in war is almost always an excuse, not the real cause. And sorry, but I am not even going to bother repeating the last. I am sorry, but I think your world view is very simplistic, and has almost no connection to the reality of international politics and what causes wars. A council will determine if a war is right? funding for a nations military will be suspended? Yea, like that would frighten another Hitler or Miloević. They would just continue to do what they want, to heck with what your alliance wants. This would be worse for Europe then the Versailles Treaty was.
And to most of us, this is what it all really boils down to. "In my view". And what are your exact qualifications, that should make us consider your view as more important then that of professional military members? What are your credentials, your experience? You might as well be trying to explain what you think the best programming language is, even though you are not a programmer. You appear to have no real understanding of the role, purposes, or abilities of the various pieces of equipment you discuss. But we are supposed to accept anything you say? And once again, "Most people I have talked to say..." And who are these people? Are these professional tankers? Do they have experience in the actual equipment? Or are they also civilians that just look up wikipedia articles and use that as their entire source of information? This is the difference between military professionals and amateurs. Amateurs read Soldier of Fortune, and beleive that they know everything there is to know about warfare. Professionals actually make it part of their life. They constantly learn new things, and add them all together. And our education never ends. For example, even though I have served for over 14 years, I have been in school since the beginning of the month, learning more. And this week, it is going through basic Infantry tactics and operations. Which is rather funny, since in my platoon, only 3 of us are or have been Infantry. The others have jobs that range from Band and supply to tankers and reporters. But it is a skill we all need, and us 3 with the experience are trying to help out the others as much as we can. But this is what professionals do. We constantly learn and expand our abilities.
You left out "and keep Germany down." Nobody was willing to let the Germans up after World War Two, not after what the Nazis were up to was truly laid bare. All the Germans, Nazis or not, were considered guilty by pretty much the rest of the world. As the actions of our Soviet ally changed our opinion of Stalin and his regime, fear of the Soviets changed the viewpoint regarding suppression of Germany. I point this out as it should accurately demonstrate the level of fear generated by the Cold War, and, therefore, what it takes to generate a genuine, functioning military alliance. It should also point out why I think the 'European Defense Pact' is a non-starterthe threat is just not there. Additionally, all this equipment pointed out by mymoon costs. A single supercarrier, without an airwing or defense escorts, based on a known hull design will cost you around five billion, depending on what you put into it. And that's just to purchase the thing, not equip or operate it. Defense companies are in the business to make money, not hand out free toys that go 'bang.' Given the current and projected fiscal environment, again, a non-starter. Mymoon's whole viewpoint strikes me as very naive and Euro-centric.
It is still got a lot stealth than the AB destroyer. I know the AB carriers more missiles, and less helicopters, meaning the type 45 is as good at hunting subs and has a longer range. What do you mean ECM? I see no real difference in the radar. Look at the performance numbers, the Eurofighter is the best, Rafale 3rd.
Yes, the Type 45 has fewer missiles, hasnt so far been fitted with Harpoon, but has recently been upgraded with Phalanx CIWS. Stealth? , but one thing i will argue is that the type 45 has a highly advanced radar, doubt if their is any other destroyer afloat that can touch the type 45's AAW capabilities.
The alliance is for military, economic and political reason. It's not colonization, but defensive power projection. You said most of the European war were because they culturally hated each other, that is rubbish, that's all I am saying. As most of the was have been fought for religious reason, or kings fighting other kings. Iraq has nothing to do with Europe. WW1 was fought for kings based on hatred, so was WW2. What your point that is just 2 wars. The Napoleonic was were fought for control of Europe, 7 years war fought for trade control. Yes some nations used to hate each other like the English and France, but we are far passed that now, the Balkans as I said would be the problem, not the rest of Europe. I would have to say most Europeans will "hate" Americans because of their culture than they do other Europeans. I understand geo politics and the cold was has started again, but this time China is the great eastern power not Russia, meaning the western world needs to build up it's military and economy to meet the threat, fight proxy was like Sudan and Libya, which the west needs to keep winning, the USA has shown it no long has the will to keep fighting Europe's war, we must do it our selves. Hitler and Miloević would have been stopped right away by the pact after they attacked another nations. I mean the UK/French alliance didn't stop Hitler and NATO didn't stop Miloević.
Me the and other guy are arguing about US Arleigh Burke class destroyer or UK Type 45 destroyer. I am saying the Type 45 is better, it has longer range, more helicopters, better AAW radar and has more stealth. Their for I am saying that the Type 45 is the best destroyer in the world at the moment, until the US brings out it's now stealth destroyer. So we really have nothing to argue about. Do you think the Astute class is the best nuclear attack submarine in the world? And do you think the Eurofighter is the best conventional jet in the world? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer
All you pro's have to go on is wiki articles, nobody on this forum has flown both the Eurofighter and the F15, so all we have to go off is the performance number off wiki. One person I asked about the tanks was a former Para and has seen the Challenger 2 and Abrams in action, he say as a tank the Challenger 2 is better, but the US tank has better tachnology. So as a tank the Challenger 2 is better.
If that is the case then why is NATO still around there is no threat. On the other hand I think there is many threats, that a European defence pact could sort out. A 70,000 ton carrier would cost 23-25 billion euros over 10 years, including aircraft and unkeep costs, and depending on if it is nuclear and oil powered. The first hyper carrier would cost 42-44 billion over 10 years for everything. Come on we both know most European nation apart from maybe Greece, are not in debt because of military spending. What is wrong with being Euro-centric?
Inertia. Small wars like those in the Balkans, Libya and Afghanistan also provide some internal justification. And Russia is still out there, though far, far less of a threat than it once was. But mostly inertia. And the UK just cut their defense budget by how much? How big is their military now? And what of Portugal? Spain? Italy? The EU is riddled with financial problems and strong, technically and tactically competent military is not cheap. Europe has depended on the US to provide the real hitting power within NATO for decades. It will take that much time and longer just to build back up to that level of competence again. It also takes more than just money to create a military like ours. European culture is not big on any military spending right now (and not necessarily without reason, given the first half of the last century and the Cold War). Youre talking about a major sea-change in attitude of the average European. No, they're not in debt from military spending. Neither are we. We're both in debt up to our eyeballs from deficit spending on entitlements. And the Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank. Nothing, until you realize an organization on the scale youre referring to is going to be powerful enough to impact events the world over. People are not going to like it if you dont use the tools you have at hand to help with world problems.
Listen the Germans are as we speak being forced to give over more economic powers to the ECB, all the European defence pact needs is their backing and it will go ahead, the Germans couldn't stop it. Also who know what the threat could be in 10-15 years, the Europeans need to be ready for anything. 13% in real terms. But the budget is still above 2% of GDP. Yes I koew but in 5 years when the PACT would be inplace the European economy will be better off. I think the European could build everything in 10 years. Everybody likes to win wars and be powerful, that's what the PACT will do the public will come across in the end. And in my view the PACT needs to be much more cost effective than the UK MOD. China wasn't very happy when we wrecked it's plans in Libya and the Sudan, these are the smaller wars the PACT could fight while the USA's main force is in the Pacific, projecting power. The PACT would go into nations in the area around Europe, no father, unless it gets attacked, or there is a UN mandate.
This is actually a rather circular argument. Stealth in ships is very much a non-issue. Sure, you want to keep the radar profile down, but unlike an aircraft it will never truely be "stealth". And since in modern warfare ships generally operate in groups, this is yet another non-issue. What good is a "Stealth Destroyer", if you can still see the LST, CVN, and GMCs from a hundred miles away? And also there is the "Air Defense Destroyer" classification. Sure, I would handidly admit that it is probably the most powerful Air Defense Destroyer in the world. However, most of the Navies in the world do not rely on Air Defense Destroyers. Instead, they rely on Air Defense Cruisers. For example, your Type 45 carries 48 SAM missiles. A Ticonderoga class Missile Cruiser carries 122 SAM missiles. The Ticonderoga also has 8 Harpoon missiles and 6 torpedo tubes. So once again, it goes back to apples and oranges. You are claiming a "best in class", when it is really a ship that nobody else uses for other reasons. Mostly in that the US and Russia tend to prefer cruisers to destroyers for air defense vessels. In fact, the Russians have one of the best cruisers in the world for air defense, the Pyotr Velikhy. This beast carries around 300 SAMs of various types, from short to long range.
Actually, I do not go strictly from Wikipedia. A great amount of what I know comes from first hand knowledge. However, because I am in the military and have a security clearance, I have to be very careful in what I say in public forums, to prevent from accidentially releasing what may be classifies information. By referencing an open-source like Wikipedia, this prevents me from getting into any kind of trouble for it. You had one person tell you that TANK A is better then TANK B. This is an opinion. If you get together a group of 100 tankers, you will probably have 100 different opinions on what is the best tank and why. This is like saying who is better, Ford or Chevy. Macintosh or PC. It is an opinion, and you really do not say why, other then somebody told you it was better. To give an example, this debate has gone on for decades when comparing the M-16 with the AK-47. In some areas one is better, in other areas the other is better. In the end, it all generally goes down to personal preference. And it also depends on the role. This is something we have been saying over and over again. What is great in one role may not be so good in another. And the reverse is also often true. And when you compare the Challenger 2 and Abrams, there is also the number built and when designed to consider. So far, there have been 446 Challenger 2's built, since 1998. For the Abrams, there have been over 9,000 built since 1983. The newest version, the M1A1AIM v.2 is an almost totally different beast then the original M1 or even the M1A1. So when you are comparing the Abrams to the Challenger 2, which version are you talking about?
I'll say one thing, it will be interesting to see how the new ZUMWALT class turns out.......this ship is quite a departure from the current warship design, particularly in stealth. Even the gun barrels, when not is use, are enclosed in a housing so as to reduce radar signature. Anyway the Americans seem to be very happy with their AB's and are continually building ever more improved versions. My assumptions on the Type 45 are based on reading various articles, and of actually been aboard HMS Daring. The things that stood out to me were the ample space for future weapons fits, and interior space for the crew. The very impressive missile control room..............and from the outside the huge towering SAMPSON radar mast. If only our previous Labour goverment hadnt squandered so much of our countries riches...otherwise we could of had a class of 12 of these wonderful ships, as was originally intended.
So I say I want the Europeans to build a ship the same size as the Pyotr Velikhy and you say I am speaking rubbish, but then you call the Pyotr Velikhy a beast, so what is it, are those ships in or out? The main difference I would have is 2 heavy guns on the front. BTW nobody use crusiers apart from the US and Russia, and very few nations have a destroyer most of them are Frigates. That is why UK didn't join with France and Italy in building their Frigate.
12 is a bit over the top, why they are costing 1.1 billion each. 9-10 is better, 6 air defence, and 3-4 mutlirole. Plus 15-20 type 26 frigates, 4 more HMS Clyde's, 7 Astute subs and 3 aircraft carriers. Most people I think would be happy with that. ZUMWALT will be the best ship in the world by miles. So much for stealth not mattering.
How long do you thing the average German citizen is going to want to have yet more of their money given over to the EUDP? They are not overly happy about having to bail out failing economies within the EU as it is, now you want o take an additional 15% out of their pockets? The EU will worry far more about their economic issues than some redundant military alliance put together by people with dreams of a re-asserting imperial dominance over the globe. And you seriously think you can build up that kind of military hitting power in ten years without setting off alarm bells the world over? No one makes that kind of shift without serious provocation. Everybodys military needs to be more cost effective. Funny thing is, though, is that there is nothing quite so wasteful as warfare, and, if you intend to win, you have to be able to waste more of your opponents stuff while accepting the losses inflicted upon your stuff. If you want your losses to be light, you have to be well prepared before you and your opponent decide to start flinging rocks at each other. That means you need better rocks, better rock-throwers and people who know how to use those rock-throwers better than anyone else aroundnone of which is either cheap or cost effective. You want to win wars, you gotta pay for it. An effective military is not cheap. Never has been, never will be. This is the setup we have now . . . why start up a competing alliance? You still havent explained that one to me. Why fragment something that already serves the purposes required well enough? Which is all NATO was supposed to do until Afghanistan flared up. And its all NATO can do to keep ISAF going. Libya, right across a comparative pond and armed with the best technology the 1970s could provide, was a huge strain for NATO and there were comparatively very few ground troops involved. NATO is not the all-powerful military alliance it once was. Nor is the United States. Now you want to disassemble NATO to form what will inevitably be a gutted shell of a defensive pact (due to economic pressures). Nothing can go wrong with that plan.
Many of the important systems in ZUMWALT haven't even been completely developed yet. There's no way you can make claims about the effectiveness of it. It keeps running into funding problems too.
So the US will just build 1 ship and put everything they have into it, at over two times the cost of the type 45, it must be better.
I believe the US are building 3 Zumwalts, when i last checked.......however i think they are correct into continuing the build of the AB's......these are very impressive ships and the mainforce of the US surface fleet. Regarding the UK's Type 45's......12 off would of been adequate, remember that with only 6 built, it doesnt mean 6 will be at sea, some will be in for maintenance and refits. Lets hope that in a few years time, the UK finances will be in a better shape, and a reasonable number of the TYPE 26 combat ships will be built to replace the Type 23 Frigates. Going back to the Chinese, i have noticed recently that the PLAN is stepping up production of its Frigate and Destroyer fleet after a few years of evaluating its ships built between 2000-2005.....they are obviously happy with their latest builds and are ramping up production. Currently, building 4 Type 052C (Aegis) destroyers, and an even greater number of Type 054A frigates, which could lead to a total of 20 vessels by 2015. The Chinese by 2020 should have a very modern surface fleet, which though numerically not greater than todays numbers, will certainly be more advanced. Many Naval enthusiasts are watching the Chinese Naval yards to see if in 2012 the long rumored Type 052D Destroyer stars production...if so it is speculated that this ship will be the size of a cruiser class.
