Modern MBT Question

I was comparing the inviroment of Vietnam with that of North-Korea.

 

You also said:
"Or is it not true that the US couldn't take Vietnam?"

That was in the 1960s / 1970s, with much muddle-headed political influence and with an army largely untrained for jungle warfare. And they still kicked lumps out of the NVA when they met in combat.

Aside possibly from the politicians, all defects are now rectified...

But anyway, this is nothing but a distraction.

 

on-topic

 

Jeffrey wrote:

This slipped past me earlier. I thought we had already discussed the M1A2 SEPS. Are you not familar with the SEPS (System Enhancement Program) and the FCS (Future Combat System-due in a few years)?

Regarding the SEPS:

The part in red is what I was referring to..what are you referring to?
I saw no evidence that any other MBT had anything like the command and control systems in the SEPs much less what is planned for the FCS.
Even if the MBT were capable of such things what country that fields them also has the kind of intelligence assets referred to? i.e. satellite recon, unmanned aerial recon vehicles, AWACs, Hawkeye, etc?

About the FCS from the same article:

 

France does, and I think Britain does too....

 

Castlelot wrote:

Real time satellite imagery? Recon drones? Tied into a command and control system?
I need some sources for that..I've had to admit I was wrong about one thing today already..you never know

 

Well that's something else than you asked in your first post....

France does indeed have:

- Satellite recon(The Helios military recon satelites)

- Recon drones(Put into service recently)

- Awacs


Note: I'm not trying to say that the french military has the same intelligence assets than the US, I was merely responding to the question you asked in your previous post.
I'll check for more details and try to post them when I find them.

 

Israel.
Though with the probable exception of the real-time satellite imagery - I'm not up to date on who has what these days.

 

Grieg, now you are coming up with a whole different subject, you where NOT talking about Abrams tanks controlling unmanned planes and things like that, you where talking about a system in the tank (like a tv screen with a keyboard) where you can see all the friendly vehicles in the area and havving the ability to contact all of them, a system that is already installed in some tanks (Swedisch Lepard2a5S and German Leopard2a6 already have it) and its called BMS, or Battle Manegement System, we (The Netherlands) recently bought this equipment, we are still making room in the tanks to install the whole device ( :lol: ). The thing where you talking about is (as you said) not even available yet, you are talking about a time schedule between 2008 and 2014, and if the US is getting unmanned arial planes controlled by tanks (wich seems unlikely to me in the near future) than I'm sure other Western countries also got a program ''running'' like this one, again, you think other countries are far behind/inferior in technology than the US.

 

I think that Grieg is making a point about the size & range of asets possessed by the USA.
However, many / most developed countries nowadays do have (or are rapidly gaining) similar assets - though again, not in the same scale as the USA.

 

I agree, but why should a country like Israel make a system simulair to that of the US and on the same scale, the scale is based on the size of that particulair army.

 

Yes - but the USA still has an advantage being as it has more.

P.S: sorry if I misinterpreted your argument Grieg.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

Perhaps you should reread my post and not try to interpret my words to suit your purposes. I mentioned things like satellite and aerial reconaissance from the beginning. You apparently misinterpreted.
There is a quantum leap involved from what is merely sophisticated digital link communications such as you describe and the ability to pinpoint in real time the enemies assests as well as incorporate that data into the battlefield picture created. In order to do that you need assets beyond those available to the tank units. Ricky is correct in stating that I was also referring to the full range of intel, recon and communication capabilities.
The Command and Control function involves more than merely communications.

Once again you either misread or misinterpret. The FCS is due between 2008 and 2014. The SEPS program is in place now.

As to your confidence regarding European countries fielding a similar program I would ask you this; how much money do you suppose that these unspecified countries spend on military research and development and how does that compare with the US defense budget?
Do you know?

 

I can give you a rough estimate...

Europe: a fair bit
US: lots. More than all Europe together, probably (around $480 billion, apparently )

 

The US defense budget is roughly equal to what is spent on defense by ROW (rest of the world combined) but more importantly there is a much larger disparity when it comes to defense R&D (research and development).

from EurActiv.com :

Sophisticated military systems are quite costly. If you want to run with the big dogs you have to be willing to ante up

 

''I mentioned things like satellite and aerial reconaissance from the beginning.''

Yes, and as I said many modern Western countries use this (Netherlands, Germany, Brittain, Israel etc) but not controlled by a tank, wich is almost impossible, did you mean that it can rely on information on his Battlefiled Management System given by these unmanned planes, if so, thwe countries I named are also doing this, we are trying to do it to.


''how much money do you suppose that these unspecified countries spend on military research and development and how does that compare with the US defense budget?''

I don't know, I do know that alot of the US defence budget is going into the development of new fighterjets and bombers like the B2 bomber, this thing costs about 2 billion dollars, and did you forgot about all those other heavy bombers and those incredible big aircraft carriers that carry about 5000 men and women abourd, do you think that doesn't costs a couple of millions every day to maintain these ships, and I'm not even speaking about the money that is reserved for ''war'', like the Iraqi war, this war is already well over the estimated costs. Most European (modern) countries don't have aircraft carriers, heavy bombers and they don't spend billions of dollars on war, so they have alot of money to use for development, also every european country has a smaller army than the US wich also doesn't cost as much money...

So that ''bigger defence budget'' thing isn't important as the defence budget of modern European countries is based on the size of the army and what kind of equipment they use.

“We should be worried that the Americans spend five times as much on defence research and technology than Europeans do.”

Again this is based on what kind of things you do most research, the US is doing mutch research on very expensive stealth fighters/bombers.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

Changing your tune already?
None of the countries you mentioned have the capability to recieve real time (the only kind useful of the battlefield) satellite or aerial recon info.

The budget allocations for "black" programs are secret and not a part of the public record. You have zero information as to the breakdown of defense budget allocations to specific R&D programs so why are you making statements about things you have no knowledge of?

See previous comments. You have no idea how the defense R&D budget is being spent.

 

Grieg, you are changing the whole subject, I just remind you to the following topic:

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... c&start=80

Go and read, again, the US is not the only one with this command and control system, absolutely not true.

 

None of the countries you mentioned have the capability to recieve real time (the only kind useful of the battlefield) satellite or aerial recon info.

So you are saying that these countries don't have any UAV's or military satellites?

 

As to incorporating them in real time into a command and control architecture that is what I'm saying.

I made the point in the previous thread and you didn't grasp it then. No reason to think you will get it now. It's plain you don't have an understanding of what a theatre wide Command and Control Architecture refers to. It refers to an entire system not just the ability to communicate between tanks. If the other parts of the system don't exist (like real time satelllite imagery and UAV's) and the ability to incorporate the data supplied by these resorces into a format useable by the MBTs doen't exist then one cannot compare the systems in a meaningful way.
Having a display in the tank capable of displaying enemy positions does not provide the intel needed to determine those positions.
Repetition is tiresome and boring.
I have gone as far as I intend to go in educating you on this subject.