It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 24
1
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
How come? The Leopards have far less real combat experience than the Abrams, which doesn't make the M1 a better tank

It does. Only performance in combat proves how good a tank is.


Originally posted by Mdv2
The F-15 is in service since midway the 70's

That is irrelevant.


Originally posted by Mdv2
Yes, the EU has a bigger population, but also a bigger GDP.
GDP (PPP) ($US)

EU: 11,723,816 million USD
US: 11,190,000 million USD

Thats not true. Americas GDP is 12,410,000,000,000 dollars. The combined GDP of all 25 EU countries is 12,180,000,000,000 dollars. Thus, Americas GDP is higher. Proof: www.cia.gov...

And dont disregard my proof just because it proves you wrong.


Originally posted by Mdv2
And: We've a strong currency, the US has a currency, which can collapse between now and a few years. www.dollarcollapse.com

Keep wishing. The dollar is a stable currency, unlike the euro.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

posted by Zibi
No, it's not, in comparison to the US, British and German militaries. Each of these three militaries outdoes the French military in every term of military power.


Well, actually, no they don't.

The UK doesn't have an Aircraft Carrier, neither do the Germans. I do believe the French have the largest fleet too, although I may be wrong.

The Germans have a capable land force with good armour, but then, so do the French with one of the largest Army's in Europe.

In terms of Air power, the French are up there too with some very good aircraft.

The don't forget the Nuclear weapons...



No, it's not. It's GDP is $ 12,180,000,000 - lower than that of the US, and it's GDP growth rate is just 1.7% - lower than that of the US. Proof: www.cia.gov...


You dont seem to understand, so I'll say it again:

I NEVER SAID THE EU WAS BIGGER (IN GDP TERMS) THAN THE US

Although standards of living are, on average, better in Europe than the US. We pay higher taxes but get better services from our Governments.



No, it's not. The M1 tank is the best tank in the world. It has achieved the best kill ratio.


Thats a matter of some debate. the Leopard is an excellent tank, so is the M1, but the general consensus is the Challenger 2 is the superior tank at this time. Did you know that alot of the technology in the M1 is derived from technology the British developed, such as chobham armour? The fact is the Chally has the latest version of the armour (called Dorset/Dorchester), which is THE best in the world at this time.

Also, the Chally has the record for longest ranged kill at around 5km. The only Chally lost in combat was destroyed by another Chally.



The Eurofighter Typhoon is inferior to the F-15 fighter


Really? Where's Waynos when you need him? Did you know that last year, 2 (thats right, 2!!) F-15's surprised an RAF eurofighter on it's way back from exercise in Northern England. The F-15's thought they would score some brownie points and get an easy "kill", but where surprised when not only did the Eurofighter escape there ambush, but came back round and "killed" them both.

F-15 my buttocks.....



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I use the The Economist 2005 assessment of GDP which shows EU GDP greater then US. Whole Eurpoean GDP is 20% greater than US. We can throw different sources into the pot, bit let's just agree that the EU and USA have a GDP that is comparable.

Comparing idividual military hardware is ridiculous, whether it is Abrams vrs Leo, or F15 vrs Typhoon, although to be frank most informed commentators would not suggest F15 is better than Typhoon and comparison of "combat record" as ultimate proof of "the best" is fraught with silliness because where do you stop? Is the Sopwith Camel better than F15 because I can tell you for a fact that little biplane of another era has shot down rather more aircraft!

The fact remains that the majority of the EU and the USA run First World forces with all the technological edge and advancement that implies. It is however a fact beyond arguement that the USA spends a vast amount of money on their military - approaching half a trillion US dollars. However, they are the only nation that has ships which house 5,000 (i.e. carriers) and that uis expensive!

Futhermore, I think that economic power is the ultimate dictator of influence, which is why when people are thinking about the world Africa and to some extent South America do not exist.

The future I think will revolve around four trading blocks - say next 25 years... The US, the EU, China/Russia and the SE Asian. Everything else is a sideshow. The Chinese and Russia will meddle to dillute the US superpower status, the SE Asians will be fickle and the EU will just plod along. Everthing else is a sideshow where the chess game (like the Cold War) will be played.

Regards



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Great Britain doesn't have an Aircraft Carrier, neither do the Germans.

It doesnt mean that the British and the German navies are inferior to the French navy.


Originally posted by stumason
In terms of Air power, the French are up there too with some very good aircraft.

Which are inferior to the American F-15 fighter.


Originally posted by stumason
The don't forget the Nuclear weapons...

Both the US and Great Britain have more nukes than France.



Really?

Yes. The kill ratio is the only proof of how good a fighter is.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
It does. Only performance in combat proves how good a tank is.


True, and if both the Abram and Leopard fight on a battlefield, the Leo will be superior.

The Leopard has a better power to mass ratio, is faster, has a much longer range, and a longer, better main gun L55, compared to L44.

An advantage of the M1A2 is, it is more silence and has an extra MG.

LEOPARD 2A6 MAIN BATTLE TANK - SPECIFICATIONS

Crew 4

Weight 62 metric tons
Length 7.7 m
Width 3.7 m
Height 3.0 m

Armament
1 x Rheinmetall 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 x coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun
1 x 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun

Maximum speed
72 km/hr

Maximum range
500 km

Powerplant
MTU MB 873 multi-fuel, 1500 hp

Power to mass ratio
25.21 hp/t


ABRAM M1A2 MAIN BATTLE TANK - SPECIFICATIONS

Crew 4

Weight 62.1 metric tons
Length 9.77 m
Width 3.66 m
Height 2.44 m

Armament
1 x Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 smoothbore gun
1 x M2 12.7 mm BMG machine gun
2 x 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun

Maximum speed
67 km/hr

Maximum range
391 km

Powerplant
AGT-1500 turbine engine

Power to mass ratio:
M1A2 - 21.57 hp/t).



Originally posted by Zibi
That is irrelevant.


No, it isn't. You just cannot compare a jet that has just been introduced and still has to proof itself, like the F-22 still has to proof it self as well. The F-15 has proven itself already. You neither compare a P51 to a F-16...



Originally posted by Zibi
And dont disregard my proof just because it proves you wrong.


What proofs your information is right and mine isn't? Do you have other proof to confirm your source's information is right? Then show me.


Originally posted by Zibi
Keep wishing. The dollar is a stable currency, unlike the euro.


The dollar a stable currency, yes it steadily depreciates compared to the Euro
, you might start to follow the decline as well. If the ECB wouldn't intervent, the Euro would already be much stronger compared to the USD.



www.globalresearch.ca...
Iran's euro-denominated oil bourse to open in March: US Dollar Crisis on the Horizon

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the US$ as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market.

Throughout 2004, information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam.[1][2] Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-US government in Iraq, establish multiple US military bases before the onset of global 'Peak Oil,' and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency ( i.e. "petroeuro").[3] However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003, the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments -- especially the EU, Russia and China -- were not amused -- and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The oil producing countries soon will all change towards the EURO, which will even cause a further decline of the USD. You may do your homework partly yourself, use google to find the link between the Euro, China, and Japan.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   


It doesnt mean that the British and the German navies are inferior to the French navy.


Where did I say that? You stated that the Militaries of Germany and the UK out do the French in every department, but they clearly don't.




Which are inferior to the American F-15 fighter.


Oh jebus.......I'm not going to bother with this pointless argument. I must ask though, what is this fetish over a 30 year old aircraft all about? You do know that the F-15 has performed better in combat than the F-22 right? Do you know why that is? Because the F-22 hasn't seen combat. Same goes for the Typhoon and the Rafale.



Both the US and Great Britain have more nukes than France.


The US does, yes, but not the UK. The French have more.



es. The kill ratio is the only proof of how good a fighter is.


No, it isn't. Maybe if you compared to same generation fighters, which fought in the same theatre against the same enemy, but not when comparing a 30 year old workhorse and the next generation of Aircraft.

The F-15 is good and not one has been lost in combat (to my knowledge), but the Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 etc haven't even seen combat.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Both the US and Great Britain have more nukes than France.


Untrue France and most even believe that Israel , have more "Nukes" than Britain,France also has more variety in delivery platforms , since Britain retired its freefall nuclear bombs in the mid 90's, although Britains and the US's Trident missiles are considered to be the best ICBMS in the world .


Originally posted by Zibi


Yes. The kill ratio is the only proof of how good a fighter is.


Then the F-15 would have no trouble gunning down say an F-22 ? and the Sea Harrier(31 for no loss , Falklands) would make mince meat of a super hornet?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
if both the Abram and Leopard fight on a battlefield, the Leo will be superior.

No, it wouldnt, and the statistic you posted doesnt prove that the Leopard 2 tank is better than the M1 tank. Only performance in combat proves how good a tank is. And by that criterium, the M1 tank has shown that it is the best tank in the world.



No, it isn't. You just cannot compare a jet that has just been introduced and still has to proof itself. The F-15 has proven itself already. You neither compare a P51 to a F-16...

Yes, but the US uses a combat-tested fighter which has achieved a 95:0 kill ratio, and Europe uses a fighter that hasnt been tested in combat. Thus, American airforce is stronger.



The dollar a stable currency, yes it steadily depreciates compared to the Euro

Yes, but at least it is stable, unlike the euro.



Where did I say that? You stated that the Militaries of Germany and the UK out do the French in every department, but they clearly don't.

They do outdo the French military.

COMPARISON OF THE GERMAN AND BRITISH MILITARIES AGAINST THE FRENCH MILITARY

GROUND WARFARE

The German and British tanks are better than the French tank. The German IFV is better than the French IFV.

AIR WARFARE

Both the German airforce and the British airforce use the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is a better fighter than the French Rafale fighter.

SEA WARFARE

Both the German navy and the British navy are bigger than the French navy.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

No, it wouldnt, and the statistic you posted doesnt prove that the Leopard 2 tank is better than the M1 tank. Only performance in combat proves how good a tank is. And by that criterium, the M1 tank has shown that it is the best tank in the world.


First of all, in my initial post, I mentioned the fact that if the European Union has a need to raise an army, that it has the resources available to it; without any help of the Americans or their war industry.

Second, the Leopard M2A6 is better in most aspects, in some better than others, the only advantage of the Abrams compared to the Leo's is the quiet engine.

If you want to proof the opposite, then come with other aspects apart from the Abram's combat experience, because the Leopard 2A6 would beat the Abram on all aspects, except the one mentioned before, the most advanced version even has 2 MG's, like the Abram has. The Leo would crash the M1by gun power, by speed, and by range.

I'll explain it once more to you: the L44 gun of Abrams M1 compared to the l55 main gun of the Leopard 2 A6 EX

fprado.com...

A new smoothbore gun, the120 millimeter L55 Gun, has been developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Ratingen, Germany to replace the shorter 120 millimeter L44 smoothbore tank gun on the Leopard 2.

The 120 millimeter L44 gun barrel has a length of 530 cm and weighs 1,190 kg. The whole gun weighs 3,780 kg. By comparison, the 120 millimeter L55 gun barrel has a length of 660 cm and weighs 1,374 kg. The whole L55 gun weighs 4,160 kg. The extension of the barrel length from caliber length 44 to caliber length 55 (130 cm) results in a greater portion of the available energy in the barrel to be converted into projectile velocity.

An important characteristic of the new L55 gun is its compatibility with the Leopard 2 weapons system, meaning that it can be integrated without substantial alterations. The external geometry of the gun was designed to minimize the phenomenon of static sagging, as well as to achieve optimum constant curvature. With respect to both of these factors, the form of the barrel selected for the L55 plays a critical role. This was a prerequisite for the system's high first-shot hit probability. The L55 gun can fire any standard 120 mm round.

Especially when using the new DM 53 KE round, the L55 enables approximately an 30 percent increase in performance compared with conventional systems. For example, when fired from the longer barrel, the DM 53 (LKE II) KE round attains a muzzle velocity in excess of 1,750 m/s.





Yes, but the US uses a combat-tested fighter which has achieved a 95:0 kill ratio, and Europe uses a fighter that hasnt been tested in combat. Thus, American airforce is stronger.


Have I said the USAF is weaker than the European air forces? No I haven't. I just said you cannot compare the F-15 with the Eurofighter.



Yes, but at least it is stable, unlike the euro.


Clarify why the Euro isn't a stable currency? If you're right, why are the major oil producing countries changed towards the Euro.


I'd suggest you to read the following article:




www.financialsense.com...

The losers in all this will surely be those who want to save in dollars, insist on holding investments denominated in dollars, and Americans who would simply like a job working in the most efficient and productive factories in the world, rather than sit back and watch them be built, with the latest technology, half a world away. Unfortunately, since most Americans will continue to use dollars, you can guess who’s going to be the big losers here

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



[edit on 1-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
MDV2 - you again posted a statistic. That doesnt prove that the Leopard 2 tank is better than the M1 tank.



Have I said the USAF is weaker than the European air forces? No I haven't. I just said you cannot compare the F-15 with the Eurofighter.

You're right - the F-15 is better!

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Are you forgetting fact the M1s are built from technology from Europe .Saying that has a single Challenger(I and II) ever been taken out due to combat damage. I know one in the first Gulf broke down but Im sure not a single one has been removed from active service for battle damage. How ever I could be very wrong about this!.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vowles
Are you forgetting fact the M1s are built from technology from Europe .Saying that has a single Challenger(I and II) ever been taken out due to combat damage. I know one in the first Gulf broke down but Im sure not a single one has been removed from active service for battle damage. How ever I could be very wrong about this!.



Yes, the Abram's main gun is the gun of the 'old fashioned' Leopard 2 A5

img515.imageshack.us...

Originally posted by Zibi
MDV2 - you again posted a statistic. That doesnt prove that the Leopard 2 tank is better than the M1 tank.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]


Let's end the discussion about the tanks, as we can go one for another 50 pages. But please reply on my other questions/statements I made about your comments.






[edit on 1-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
MDV2 - you again posted a statistic. That doesnt prove that the Leopard 2 tank is better than the M1 tank.



Have I said the USAF is weaker than the European air forces? No I haven't. I just said you cannot compare the F-15 with the Eurofighter.

You're right - the F-15 is better!

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



foolish

the F-15 is 2 generations older than the typhoon - the typhoon can go toe-to-toe with the raptor , and the raptor killed 5 eagles and it wasn`t even detected.

The F-15 is an old aircraft now , the US airforce say so themselves.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Has the Typhoon gone up against any 4 th gen aircraft in red-blue or equivalent exercises?Say like the F-16 or the F-15?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Has the Typhoon gone up against any 4 th gen aircraft in red-blue or equivalent exercises?Say like the F-16 or the F-15?


Yes. I can recall (as I stated earlier) that the Typhoon was surprised by 2 F-15's on the way back from exercise. It escaped the ambush and killed both F-15's, much to the surprise of the USAF pilots.

As for the Chally 2 being knocked out in battle, only one has suffered this fate. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this was because another Chally 2 mistook it for an enemy tank.

So the only Chally 2 loss was to another Chally 2!!



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Watch

this mini movie to see it in action. (high quality download: www.eurofighter.com...)

Europe's unity.


[edit on 1-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
German navy bigger than the French Navy??!!
Mon dieu qu'est-ce que tu dit??!!!


French Navy


The French Navy (Marine Nationale) is the maritime arm of the French military and is the largest Western European navy with 45,600 personnel (the United Kingdom's Royal Navy has 43,530). It consists of a full range of vessels, from patrol boats to guided missile frigates, one nuclear aircraft carrier and four strategic missile submarines (SNLEs).




Gernman Navy



The strength of the Navy is about 19,000 men and women with another 6,000 navy personnel serving in different elements of the central military organization of the Bundeswehr.


I know Wikipedia ain't the best when it comes to certain grey areas, but this is a non-issue. The French Navy clearly is the biggest!

And as for the F15 being better than the typhoon, well I don't know anything about that(not looked into it yet), but clearly the F15 cannot be touted as the best A/C around after the F22 (that too is under heated debate in tha A/C forum now
)
There are just too many contenders here:

The Typhoon, Su30+, Rafale, MiG 35..
All of these are very capable and definitely can take the F15 on level terms whe nthey are in prime condition with well trained pilots (Note not lousy Arabian/Yugoslavian undertrained/overworked/poorly maintained stuff)
Kill history of an a/c cannot be an accurate gauge of the a/c performance UNLESS it has shown its success in more than a few limited concentrated stereotypical engagements.

Here's a surface scan of what I'm atlking about:

Su30MK beats the F-15C everytime



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
...
No, it wouldnt, and the statistic you posted doesnt prove that the Leopard 2 tank is better than the M1 tank. Only performance in combat proves how good a tank is. And by that criterium, the M1 tank has shown that it is the best tank in the world.
....
Yes, but the US uses a combat-tested fighter which has achieved a 95:0 kill ratio, and Europe uses a fighter that hasnt been tested in combat. Thus, American airforce is stronger.


I wont even start to argue about which piece of equipment is better than which. But you are wrong with your view that the effectivity of system can be measured in it´s simple kill/death ratio. Why? Because a kill/death ratio cannot stand on its own, it only describes the performance against a specific enemy. The F-15 dosnt have a K/d ratio of 95-0. It has a K/D ratio of (I make these numbers up now to illustrate my point, they arent actual records) lets say 20-0 against Iraqi Mig-21s, then it may have 15-0 against Lybian Mig-23, then it has 30-0 against Iraqi Mirage III and so forth... The K/D is a ratio, which means it has been rated against specific enemy, and only against that enemy does the number carry any significance.

The same applies to the M1 tank... When the record says that 200 Iraqi T-55 were killed by the M1, it doesnt have a combat record of 200-0, it has a combat record of 200-0 against the T-55. and thats why any combat records are largely insignificant when we compare systems that have NEVER fought against each other. Now dont come again and tell me that the simplistic Kill/death figure DOES matter, because I just outlined why it DOESNT! You also confuse what "combat tested" really means: Every weapon system is "combat tested" the minute it is used in the field and performs how it should - the K/D ratio doesnt influence this.






The dollar a stable currency, yes it steadily depreciates compared to the Euro

Yes, but at least it is stable, unlike the euro.


Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself? The stability of the € and the "Euro-Zone" is one of THE main reasons why it was introduced at all! Since it´s introduction as actual currency in 2001 it had consistently growing value and less inflation (on average). The Dollar instability vs. the Euro is even DESIRED to certain extend by US economists, because it could trigger certain prospected chains of events.





They do outdo the French military.

COMPARISON OF THE GERMAN AND BRITISH MILITARIES AGAINST THE FRENCH MILITARY

GROUND WARFARE

The German and British tanks are better than the French tank. The German IFV is better than the French IFV.

AIR WARFARE

Both the German airforce and the British airforce use the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is a better fighter than the French Rafale fighter.

SEA WARFARE

Both the German navy and the British navy are bigger than the French navy.


Now you show that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The French Leclerc tank is a formidable piece of equipment. The german Marder IFV is over 40 years old and also intended to be replaced because of that, its french counterparts are younger, more versatile and also more modern. Furthermore, a ground army doesnt consist of tanks and IFVs alone - I hope this fact isnt too much for you to swallow.

The only reason why you rate the Typhoon higher than the Rafale is because it suits your flawed and anti-French view of things - there is no publicly available info that in any way could prove the superiority of the EF. One thing to think about: the French Rafale fleet is IN SERVICE. Most of the Eurofighter fleet is still tested, not operational and some of them arent even built yet! And again I have to remind you that no Militäry bränch consists of a piece of equipment ALONE.


The German Navy is a joke. It has never been different. Germany always had an exceptional army but NEVER, at any point in history, has Germany had large Navy. Why would it? It doesnt need one! Germanies coastline is very small, almost all other large European Nations and specifically France and Britain, have longer coastlines. Not to forget, and as was said before, the French are the ONLY european nation that operates fullsize carrier!

Furthermore, the German Navy cannot operate freely because it´s access to the ocean is blocked by France, Britain and Scandinavia; it also doesnt have former colonies to support/pacify like France and Britain do, and thus there never was an incentive to build a large Navy. Germany has less than 20 ships that are capable of an offensive!




[edit on 2/5/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
When I said that the German IFV is better than the French IFV, by German IFV I meant the Puma IFV.





The dollar a stable currency, yes it steadily depreciates compared to the Euro

Yes, but at least it is stable, unlike the euro.

Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself?

No, I didn't contradict myself. When I said "Yes, but at least it is stable, unlike the euro", I meant that the dollar is stable.

About the F-15: my point was that the F-15 has never been shot down by any plane.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24


Now you show that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The French Leclerc tank is a formidable piece of equipment. The german Marder IFV is over 40 years old and also intended to be replaced because of that, its french counterparts are younger, more versatile and also more modern. Furthermore, a ground army doesnt consist of tanks and IFVs alone - I hope this fact isnt too much for you to swallow.

The only reason why you rate the Typhoon higher than the Rafale is because it suits your flawed and anti-French view of things - there is no publicly available info that in any way could prove the superiority of the EF. One thing to think about: the French Rafale fleet is IN SERVICE. Most of the Eurofighter fleet is still tested, not operational and some of them arent even built yet! And again I have to remind you that no Militäry bränch consists of a piece of equipment ALONE.


The German Navy is a joke. It has never been different. Germany always had an exceptional army but NEVER, at any point in history, has Germany had large Navy. Why would it? It doesnt need one! Germanies coastline is very small, almost all other large European Nations and specifically France and Britain, have longer coastlines. Not to forget, and as was said before, the French are the ONLY european nation that operates fullsize carrier!

Furthermore, the German Navy cannot operate freely because it´s access to the ocean is blocked by France, Britain and Scandinavia; it also doesnt have former colonies to support/pacify like France and Britain do, and thus there never was an incentive to build a large Navy. Germany has less than 20 ships that are capable of an offensive!




[edit on 1/5/2006 by Lonestar24]


Well said Lonestar,

One remark: the Rafale is technically inferior to the Eurofighter Tycoon, regarding the Dutch ministry of defence. They selected four planes, namely:

the Saab Gripen
the Eurofighter
the JSF
the Dassault Rafale

Both the Rafale and Saab dropped out because of above mentioned reason, the Eurofighter was a serious option, but they finally chose to place an order for JSF's as it would be the most profitable, as Dutch companies would be selected to produce specifc parts.



[edit on 1-5-2006 by Mdv2]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join