I am sure Canada’s Air Force would love to have a squadron of them in Kandahar right now. They would be absolutely ideal.

Wikipedia states a 70 ton empty weight specification for the A400M. Shaving 17-18% off the empty weight of this plane, if true, will be an absolutely massive undertaking. If this is true then I think thie program is in much worse trouble than we have been led to believe to this point.

Fighters, even a small amount of fighters, are necessary for duties such as air policing, dealing with terrorist situations and for sovereignty patrols. SAMs, even the best of them, can’t go up and talk down an errant Cessna or shoot a few shells across the nose of a potential terrosist controlled plane.

A squadron of 15-20 planes can keep a pair of birds on QRA indefinitely. It is a definite necessity.

The Lightning should have a bit of an advantage at the merge due to it’s size. I know the J-79’s were smokey and I am not sure how smokey the Spey’s were in the Phantom, but I give the initial call to the Lightning. The Phantom was considerably larger than the Lightning.

The Phantom”s missile fit (Sidewinders) were probably more effective than the Red Top missiles were on the Lightning and there were four versus 2 IR missiles on the Phantom, however a lack of a cannon kind of evened that out.

Both aircraft were strong performers in the vertical but instataneous turn rates were average and they both bled airspeed and altitude in turning engagements.

I say advantage Lightening overall based on your scenario.

Sounds like a reasonable case……..

Yes it does, but i think it is a bit self serving in the information it does not address:

Maintenance – Leo 2 is less maintenance intensive than Abrams using significantly lower man hours.

Logistical Burden – The Abrams, awesome vehicle it is noptwithstanding, drinks fuel like a demon, and at a significantly higher rate than the conventionally diesel powered Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. The majority of American casualities during Gulf War 2 were of troopers in soft skinned tanker vehicles that were in support of the Abrams armoured spearheads. Leo 2 would require significantly less troops coming behind it in soft skinned vehicles to keep it in the field.

Commonality – Yes the Abrams is the American Tank, but Leo 2 is used by 16 nations including about a dozen NATO members. It is the de facto standard Western Tank. Yes Australia will be likely fighting alongside America going forward, but when posed with essentially the same situation Canada chose the Leo 2 as it not only works well in the NATO environment alongside the Americans, it works well alongside the units of virtually all of NATO.

Abrams is not a bad choice but whether it was the best choice i feel is still open to debate.

Cheers.

Each aircraft competing for the MRCA contract has it’s own specific set of problems to overcome. I have no idea on how this will end or do I have a specific opinion on which would be the best choice for the IAF. Perhaps a quick overall look at the poteitnal isues each bidder has might be useful.

1) Gripen – Indian displeasure with Saab selling AWACS to Pakistan. The fact that Gripen NG is not flying as of yet. Size and development potential.

2) Rafale – Price. Relatively limited primarily French weapons selection. Risk in being the only signiicant export customer.

3) F-16 – Little room for development of mature design. Potential technology transfer issues. Potential issues with using American aircraft for political reasons.

4) F/A-18 E/F – Price. Potential technology transfer issues. Potential issues with using American aircraft for political reasons.

5) Typhoon – Price. Potential issues with local production as 4 assembly lines already exist.

6) MiG-35 – Ongoing issues with Russia over weapons procurement and pricing (Gorshkov, Spares support, contract problems, Amur Subs, etc.). Range. Capability to meet MRCA requirement.

Typhoon and the FA/-18 look to be the two options with the least negatives against them. I give a slight lead to the F/A-18 based on potential engine commonalities with the Tejas going forward. If I was to rank the six from top to bottom based on the probability of winning the deal I would do so as follows:

1) FA/18
2) Typhoon
3) Rafale
4) F-16
5) Gripen
6) MiG 35

What tank force ?? 59 M1s … you cant be really thinking that 59 tanks would make anything but token contribution to any involvement which would mandate “US support” in logistics. …

I have to agree fuly with this point. Canada for example has purchased 100 Leopard II’s from Holland and is in the process of upgrading them to 2A6 standard. 100, according to the outgoing Canadian Chief of Defense staff is the bare minimum number of tanks to support two 20 tank squadrons that can be deployed overseas. 40 tanks in the field/on deployment, 20 for individual crew training, 20 for squadron/regimental level training as a unit, and 20 in repair/upgrade/maintenance.

59 seems like a token force at best that could only possibly support a maximum of 20-25 tanks that could be effectively fielded outside of Australia.

Air Canada
Eastern Provincial Airways*
Wardair*
CP Air*
WestJet
SkyService
Air Transat
Zoom Airlines*
Canadian Airlines
American Airlines
JetsGo*
Air Labrador
Provincial Airlines
British Airways
Southweast Airlines
US Airways
Aeroflot
KLM

*no longer in business