Posted: 1/17/2003 11:58:01 AM EDT
| I just saw it advertised, comes on tonight at 9:00pm est on TechTV in case anyones interested. Don't know what all will be on it but I saw some kind of quad weapon I wasn't familiar with. |
| Future Fighting Machines has been on TechTV for about a year. It is a British show some of the episodes are a couple of years old so the information can be a little dated at times. If you are interested in military equipment you will really like it. They feature a lot of new equipment and technology; do comparisons between different countries equipment. Sometimes you get a British slant on the equipment reviews but overall a good show. |
|
The show is OK, but Max_Mike has it right, it's heavily biased towards European equipment. IIRC, they gave some Euro-trash tank the advantage over the M1A2 (as if!) and put their Eurofighter over the F22 (as if the Euro-crap could get within 50 miles of the F22). |
|
The Challenger II was OK, but the M1A2's integrated electronic suite and targeting systems easily make it the superior tank. The Eurofighter is cool because it can turn on a dime. However, it lacks the speed, range and armaments (and radar) to keep up with the F22. I really do think their bias is a bit obvious. |
|
Quoted: The Challenger II was OK, but the M1A2's integrated electronic suite and targeting systems easily make it the superior tank. The Eurofighter is cool because it can turn on a dime. However, it lacks the speed, range and armaments (and radar) to keep up with the F22. I really do think their bias is a bit obvious. You mean the M1A2, that basically copied the targetting, rangefinding, stablizing systems of the Leopard-2, along with the 120mm gun off the Leopard-2? Or the M1A2 that has the Chobam (sp) armor desinged by the British? Or the American made turbine engine, that is fuel hungry? Leopard 2A5 is a much more interesting tank, with a tried and true conventional diesel, and a lower gross weight. Challenger II is also interesting. Not as good "automotive" performance, but they were rock solid dependable during Desert Storm, per the British. Euopean planes, they have always had less range. Europe ain't that big. So their needs for "long range" id different than the US's, with a giant Country, and worldwide military commitments. |
|
I think the turbine has proven itself in both reliability and performance. As for the gas guzzling nature, that's just the way it is with turbines. I've seen gas turbines running generators that have run for YEARS without troubles. And the main gun came from the Germans (Rheinmetal?). ArmdLbrl, There's no such thing as 3-dimensional thrust vectoring. Only one and two dimensional. The F22 uses one-dimensional vectoring (up and down). And no supercruise on the Eurofighter. |
|
The Leopards get similar performance out of a 1500 hp diesel, vs the M1's 1600 hp turbine. The Leopard has better range. My understanding of turbines, they eat fuel even at idle. The railroads tried turbine locomotives in the 60's. They failed due to the fuel effeciency. |