I know the eurofighter was a huge fiasco.
But they should have at least attempted with the tank too.
Germany has the leo 2
Italy has the Ariete
France has the Leclerc
UK has the challenger 2
Couldn't they all join their efforts into making a single tank to rule them all?
Too much politics. Tanks support local factories.
tanks are more easy to build than fighter jets
I'm pretty sure there was a next generation European mbt project but everyone went their own way.
This. At the end of the day it's better for domestic industry.
They tried it, there was too much politics.
If you want any actual Euro hardware, everyone should go by actual common market rules:
>place order for tank
>companies are free to present proposals
>bonus for multi-company cooperatives, but not enough to punish companies that want to enter the contest alone
None of this forced cooperation stuff where a whole project suffers just because the engines were sourced not to the best company, but to the Spanish one.
The Leopard LeClerc hybrid is the closest thing.
>Why isn't there a euro X?
France, the answer is always because of France.
Fricking frogs, I live near the border and always wonder how single french people can be mostly based but a nation of them becomes moronic.
The answer is p*Ris
Hello, fellow B*ngs.
>It needs to be built in France!
>We won't share British technology!
>The German army demands different specifications for this part!
>This money needs to go to Italian research!
Now do this with every part of the tank down to the screws and randomly assign the nations to the above statements.
different countries have different needs, france has overseas not-colonies so it wants to maintain an expeditionary force, germany couldnt give any less of a frick about what happens outside of europe
The Leopard 2 kind of is. Two different companies in Germany make them and Sweden and Spain each manufacture their own domestic variants.
Nah, Germany built too many then sold them dirt cheap. That's the only reason so many countries operate the Leo2.
The sole purpose of such a project is also the sole problem: politics. My question is why the frick would you make a EURO* if not just to promote the idea of European identity over national identity. There really is no other reason.
>is also the sole problem: politics
Thats bullshit Anon. Yeah,politics are one reason. But the main thing is:
Every country's military has a slightly different doctrine. That's what makes joint systems so hard to achieve - it's always a trade-off for at least one of the countries.
Well, "European Unity" isn't the only reason. Interoperability improves joint coordination. Nations can share not just ammunition but spare parts, and future upgrade packages. Countries can send one another tanks to bolster defense, without worrying about retraining. And they can help repair one another's vehicles too, by sending support personnel. It's the reason Warsaw Pact nations all shared the same gear.
Then you might as well so it NATO wide. Completely useless to do it with just a selection of your military alliance partners and again the reason for doing that is to promote the idea of a European identity.
Have you seen Eurovision? There is a bias to tanks with no turrets. That really just wouldn't work even though it is the politically correct thing to do.
There was a lot of controversy with that new design at first. A tank with no turret, complete design failure. Just a hull with a hole. It can be quite dangerous to perform the retrofit as well since the hull is modified in a way that the turret cannot be put back.
Since Europe is very forward thinking, they gave the tank with no turret a chance. Dropping the main gun requirement of armor penetration, instead turning to grading criteria of punctuality and overall positivity.
The overall design mantra has shifted into tolerance and acceptance of turret less tanks, treating them as equals on the battlefield.
We look forward to the new war.
/misc/ homosexuals try not to think about trans people for 2 minutes (impossible difficulty)
Euros have tried that since the 1950s. For example, what became the Leo-1 and the AMX-30 was originally meant to be a joint W-German French project.
Never really worked out. Every country wanted different stuff, had different parameters.
The development of the Eurofighter was a hughe shitshow. Originally it was meant to be the "Fighter 90" - tells you a lot about how much longer it took.
There already is and it's already as fricked and off-schedule as you can imagine. Might enter service in 2040 if everyone somehow plays nice.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Ground_Combat_System
It looks absolutely disgusting french. I thought germany leads this project.
Nexter has the lead.
>FCAS
>MGCS
Its over
Variety is better since it allows strengths and weaknesses outside a status quo.
German's had slow, heavy tanks in ww2 that were somehow beaten by smaller, faster death traps. You can't really predict what will win a way. So the more variables you throw at a problem, the more likely you are to find a solution or at least part of the solution.
Westerners are too moronic and narcissistic for that
Imagine USA, Mexico and Canada co-developing a new tank. USA designs and manufactures the tank, Mexico delivers a stack of porn pictures to glue inside the tower for decoration, and Canada delivers maple syrup sandwich MREs. The tank is put into production and sells nicely. Now Mexico and Canada demands equal third parts of the profits since they were partners in the project. THAT is how Euro development is done, and THAT is why it invariably fails.
There have been a lot of failed attempts. Tank components (were) too easy to make or at least just buy from third parties - so the option for participants to accept a minor downgrade and go it alone was too strong. A tank is just welding, engine, gun and and an armor formula. EZ.
cooperative tank development rarely works
Tanks:
1) Armor
2) Mobility
3) Firepower
Every tank is a compromise between these three factors. Every country has a different focus what matters more.
Euros tried many a time to co-develop military equipment. It always failed because nobody likes compromises.