still not comprehensible, i mean they traded in stealth for a glorified F-16?

@Austin..

I do not think the MCA would be a paper tiger, i am talking more about political will then technical ability.

and i am doubting technical ability also..

*mind you i think IITians need to stop showing how arrogant they are..

Austin as in from BR??

hmm BR prob has more detail about this then more other websites.

Originally posted by Vortex
It’s European…that’s the hype :rolleyes:

Awe come on Vortex.. lol dude chill out..We did give you the jet engine and some Seekers for Air to Air missiles.. and not to mention our greatest export Benny Hill

WAit i though the irish were celtic? :confused: so were the French and the a bit of germany too..

Hmm nice mod of an MCA draft 😛

lol cheater

But would it provide protection against things that manage to knock out even M1A’s?

just wondering.. and heres a source and exampled.

Second report is more interesting for me..
~~~~~
M1 Abrams tank disabled by Iraq roadside explosion

In-Depth Coverage
By Jim Mannion

__SNIPS___

Little information was available on the extent of damage or the type of explosive device used in the attack late Tuesday about 40 kilometers (25 miles) northeast of the town of Balad.

But it was another sign of the growing effectiveness of the attacks against even the most heavily armored US forces.

__SNIPS___

A US defense official, who asked not to be identified, said an improvised explosive device detonated as the tank rolled over it.

The force of the blast caused the behemoth to roll over an embankment, which is what killed and injured those inside, the official said.

The 4th Infantry Division has the latest model of the tank, the M1A2 SEP, which weighs 69.5 tonnes, is armed with a 120mm main cannon and is equipped for digitized communications.

“It is the most heavily equipped, and heavily armored main battle tank that the US has ever put out in the field, and supposedly can protect those inside fairly well,” said Patrick Garrett, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.Org, a private research group.

“If it is true that a tank was damaged to this sort of extent resulting in fatalities by a simple roadside bomb, depending on whatever size it was, that does not bode well for the future of the occupation,” he said.

“That really does prove there is no safe place for American soldiers,” he said.

The incident also raises questions for the Stryker, the new wheeled armored vehicle that the army has made the centerpiece of its efforts to make its armored forces lighter and more rapidly deployable.

The Stryker has been scored by critics as too lightly armored to withstand rocket-propelled grenade fire. Its advocates say it makes up for it with advanced communications, greater mobility and precision firepower.

The army plans to deploy its first Stryker brigade to Iraq in the spring.

~~~~~~~~~#

Arsenal worker involved in U.S. tank investigation

In-Depth Coverage
By Ed Tibbetts

They are supposed to be nearly indestructible.

The M1A1 Abrams tank was built to withstand a heavy onslaught. But at the end of August, an Abrams tank on patrol in Baghdad was disabled by a mysterious projectile that has left the Army eagerly searching for an answer as to why one of its most invincible pieces of machinery was stopped by something that created only a pencil-size hole.

The incident, first reported by the Army Times newspaper in late October, is of interest on Arsenal Island because an Arsenal-based technician working in Iraq examined the tank and wrote an unclassified report detailing the incident, which confessed, frankly, that officials were mystified as to how it happened.

“The unit is very anxious to have this ‘SOMETHING’ identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round, and precisely what sort of round is it? The bad guys are using something unknown and the guys facing it want very much to know what it is and how they can defend themselves,” Terry Hughes said in his report, according to the Army Times.

Don Jarosz, an official in Warren, Mich., where Hughes’ command is headquartered, said Friday that the report, while unclassified, was not available. In addition, a tight lid is being kept on the command’s investigation into the incident for security reasons.

Hughes is a logistics assistance representative, a troubleshooter who works in the field connecting combat units with the commands that supply their weapons. He works for the Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, which is based in Michigan but whose logistics assistance representatives are controlled out of the tank command’s office on Arsenal Island.

The incident has not received a lot of attention in the news media, but reports have suggested the Army is keenly interested in solving the mystery. There were no serious injuries as a result of the incident.

A military analyst with the Globalsecurity.org think tank says that, as of a week ago, there still was not an answer.

Speculation has been that a specially designed rocket-propelled grenade may have been the culprit or that terrorists got their hands on a special armor-piercing round, analyst Patrick Garrett said. “There’s also been speculation this was some insanely lucky shot,” he said Friday.

It is not unheard of for one of the 67-ton Abrams to be disabled, he said. An M1 Abrams tank was destroyed and two soldiers were killed by a mine in Iraq at the end of October.

Still, it is unusual for the tanks to be felled, and the fact that it would happen with such an apparent precision-type strike is troubling. The Abrams was designed for Cold War combat.

“They were designed to deal with the Soviet juggernaut,” Garrett said. They are not supposed to be stopped by a pencil-thin projectile. “That’s what’s very confusing about it,” he added.

How long the military’s investigation will take and whether it will be something the public ever knows about is also unclear. Garrett said the Abrams tank is one of the military’s most sensitive pieces of equipment, and the Army probably will not be eager to share information about how one of them was crippled.

~~~~~~~~~~~_______________

From

Global security

TVC for migs?

JUST A QUESTION:

not aviation related.. but Some one mentioned Stryker’s.. Does any person know how a M1A1/A2 was disable by a hole the size of a pencil? Does anyone really think that Strykers could replave MBT’s? I mean seriously?

HOW TO KILL AN ARMY.

~~~~~~

UK military faces major overhaul

The UK military looks set for change
The UK’s top military officer has indicated a major overhaul of Britain’s armed forces to respond to the demands of combating international terrorism.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Michael Walker signalled cuts in warships, aircraft and heavy armour.

The general – speaking ahead of Thursday’s Defence White Paper – warned of “tough choices” ahead.

He said the plans had the backing of military top brass and were not being driven by politicians and accountants.

Our armed forces have to go through the kind of change that modern businesses have gone through

But Conservative defence spokesman Keith Simpson warned against cutting troop numbers.

“With the Army already under strength, and committed from Northern Ireland to Iraq and relying heavily on reservists, it would be highly irresponsible to cut the strength of the Armed Forces further,” he said.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Sir Michael cautioned that there must be “no change for the sake of change”.

He added: “But this White Paper is about building 21st century armed forces.”

Changes were being driven by the need for a more “flexible and agile” armed forces to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to tackle international terrorism.

“Counter-terrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects across the world,” he said.

Fleet ‘adjustments’

“This places a premium on the agility, deployability and sustainability of our forces.”

With the Type 45 destroyer and two planned new aircraft carriers coming into service some of the Royal Navy’s older warships would no longer be required – giving space for “some adjustments” within the existing fleet.

Adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made

And new technology including the latest precision missiles would allow the RAF to achieve its military objectives while deploying fewer aircraft.

In the army, a new generation medium weight armoured vehicle would “inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery”.

“Significant” amounts of cash would be invested so that weapons such as unmanned aerial drones could help spot and attack “targets of opportunity”.

Large-scale operations

“It is inevitable that this will mean change – adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made,” he said.

“It would be quite wrong for us to retain systems, within a finite budget, which we know are no longer effective.”

Mr Hoon said British troops could deploy anywhere in the world
The restructuring, said Sir Michael, would enable Britain to mount “limited national operations” unilaterally or take the lead in small to medium operations in international conflict.

UK forces would also retain the capacity to undertake large-scale operations but the “most demanding expeditionary operations” could only be “plausibly” mounted if the US was involved.

“Consequently, our Armed Forces will need to be interoperable with US command and control structures, maintain the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US,” he said.

Polarisation warning

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told BBC News that Britain required “smaller forces able to move at very short notice to perhaps anywhere in the world”.

“Our armed forces have to go through the kind of change that modern businesses have gone through relying on technology to deliver effect.”

He also stressed the importance of British forces being able to operate alongside the Americans – something which he acknowledged was both “technologically challenging and financially expensive”.

Mr Hoon issued a warning to European allies against any move that would polarise relations with the US.

“In some places, a parody has been developing of America which all but demonises its power and its policies, and seeks to put all of the ills of the world at its door,” he said.

“The dangerous consequence of this is that it can feed misunderstanding and encourage isolationist tendencies on both sides of the Atlantic.”

It was important both to Europe and to the US that there continued to be an “effective and sustainable transatlantic alliance”, preferably via Nato.