Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Alzoc

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Alzoc

  1. In a way yes. It is what the Altay would have looked like if it had been based on the Leclerc instead of the K2.
  2. AFAIK it was Nexter's proposal when Turkey was looking for a base to produce the Altay. In the end the K2 won that competition.
  3. There's this sheet from the Saint-Louis Institute (Germano-French research institute): https://www.isl.eu/documents/flyers/FR/isl_MGCS_FR_nm.pdf It's broadly the same thing than the German presentation, though it doesn't go in as much details regarding the schedule.
  4. Ok so both the DOR and the DOC are documents, which mean that the DLR is probably one as well. DOR stands for Dossier d'orientation: The goal of said document is to list the options identified to fulfil an operational requirement DOC stands for Dossier de Choix: It weights the different options identified in the DOR and recommend one in particular based on various criteria. So basically it's just internal acronyms for project management.
  5. @SH_MM Here are the pictures in question (credits goes to @Gun Ready): I agree with MM there, the abbreviations still aren't ringing a bell, but it look a hell of a lot like stages/documents on the program.
  6. Afaik DLR is a German research institute: Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) As for the DOR and DOC I'm not familiar with those abbreviations. Would you mind telling me in what context you found them (if you have a link even better), might help me to answer your question?
  7. I doubt that the EMBT will ever become a serious product. At best when the Leclerc start being retired and turrets could be canibalized it could serve as the base for an upgrade for existing Leopard 2. It may also serve as a plateform to test some innovations that will go into the MGCS. As for the political side it was decided that the MGCS program would be German led, while the FCAS would be French led. It means that Germany might very well chose to award the MGCS contract to Rheinmetal with KNDS being only a sub-contractor, and as we discussed with @SH_MM given the respective size of the companies and their overall know how it is a likely outcome. Especially since Rhm is currently trying to consolidate it's position as the main European industrial by acquiring controlling interest in BAE and attempting to do the same with KNDS. Ultimately that would be a good thing to have one strong European industrial. On the other hand the FCAS will be led by Dassault with Thales providing most of the electronics, Safran leading on the engine in cooperation with MTU (an agreement has been signed recently). The spirit of both the MGCS and the FCAS is that the two defence agencies will define the requirements, the R&D is then done in cooperation and finally Germany will lead the industrial part on the MGCS with various French company working as sub-contractors and vice-versa for the FCAS. The articles below should give you a nice idea of how both programs are intended to run (at least from the French PoV): www.opex360.com/tag/mgcs/ http://www.opex360.com/tag/scaf/
  8. Well I'm not too worried about the MGCS, even if there are slight differences in the calendar and the usual problems working with Germany (ie they order a lot then reduce the order driving up the cost and being incredibly inconsistent on their export policy) the thing is that the Leopard 2 is at the end of it's upgrade potential and the Leclerc's production lines are closed. Both countries will need a new MBT so will most European nations operating the Leopard 2 in one form or another. Technically yes the Americans and the Israeli might come up with 4th gen MBT at the same time if the MGCS program runs late, but it is in my opinion unlikely given that neither of them have actually properly started a program yet. Add on top of that Nexter lost some key competences to design a new MBT (most notably on the heavy duty automotive involved) and the chances to end up with concurrent programs are IMO low. Sure we'll see some bickering on who does what but those will eventually be sorted out. Normally we should see the first design study out around mid 2019. I'm more worried about the FCAS since the needs are truly different here. France is going toward an all Rafale fleet with CATOBAR capability, while most other European nations operate a blend of various planes and have no short term interest in spending money on a naval plane and have already started replacing some of their older planes: It will be hard to agree on requirements (which is the reason why the program try to limit the number of participants as much as possible). Finally some members of the German parliament are already complaining that France took a share too big on this program (which is hypocrite given that just as we don't have all the know how to design an MBT, they lack the one necessary to build a fighter), so we might see a push for Airbus to take more responsibility on the program and personally I would like to avoid a repeat of the Eurofighter fiasco. The military branch of Airbus have a less than stellar track record on the management of recent programs.
  9. ELC EVEN There are quite a few different turret: Twin 30 mm: Smoothbore 90mm: Recoiless 120 mm: SS-11 and/or SS-12: They were the entry in competition with the AMX design for the ELC project:
  10. I'm not sure about rainbows though Gotta dig deeper in the interwebz...
  11. Mostly a political choice. Buying an American plane when you are trying to build a self reliant European defence industry send the wrong message, and currently the F-35 is the symbol of the American clutch on European defence. Also Germany being part of the SCAF program, should the program stay on track the F-35 would have a service life of around 10-15 years before starting to be replaced in the German army. On the other hand Germany still want to keep it's B61 (which is also purely symbolic given that those weapons are mostly outdated, and under a double key system), and since it would take between 7 and 10 years to green-light the the eurofighter to carry it, at this point the Super Hornet is almost guaranteed to win (yes it's also an American plane, but not as high profile as the F-35). Add on top of that the argument used to reject the F-35 was that you could "replace" stealth by escorting your bomber with a decent EW plane (whether or not this is a valid argument) and you have another point for the F/A-18 http://www.opex360.com/2019/02/02/lallemagne-ecarte-le-f-35a-et-le-f-15-pour-remplacer-ses-chasseurs-bombardiers-tornado/
  12. A good article in Mer et Marine on the CdG: https://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.meretmarine.com%2Ffr%2Fcontent%2Fle-porte-avions-charles-de-gaulle Contain a general description of the capability and the systems with interesting tidbits like the propulsion systems or the time when a Rafale blew up a tire on landing: The whole flavoured with some nice looking images
  13. https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4868-nexter-trials-leclerc.html Apart from the confirmation that the 140mm trials where to asses the capability to integrate a 140mm in a 50t tank, it was announced that at IDEX 2019, they'll present a Leclerc with a drone attached which main purpose would be reconnaissance and target designation. Qualification of a new programmable HE round called M3M (Impact, delay, airburst) will begin shortly. Nexter is also working on yet another APFSDS called SHARD (probable that it will never see service like it's predecessors) and apparently the Polynege guided ammunition is still on the table (which would work well with the new reconnaissance UAV)
  14. Probably the old one. Though AFAIK while the gun was tested on it's own, integrated to a turret to test the new autoloader, it has never been tested in a complete tank. So my guess is that the purpose of those test is to determine if a 140mm is much harder to integrate than a 130mm and if it would be interesting to makes provision for it. They probably already have all the ballistic data needed (unless they are testing new 140mm ammo).
  15. No you can only fit one per plane. Be it in a C-130H (with some preparation): Or in an A400M without preparation this time (and it theory it can also lift the uparmored 8x8 version): Not enough space to squeeze two of those in existing medium lift plane, in a C-17 maybe. On the other hand, maybe the Brutus is light enough to be lifted by helicopter?
  16. Apparently we'll get our very own terrible submarine movie: It will be out late february, and seeing the trailer it seem that it will follow the trend with French military movie: Terrible plot combined with great footage and kinda accurate depiction of the material (since the army is lending it's material and helping with the technical part). With a bit of luck it will be something like Les chevaliers du ciel, not a good movie in itself but nice images for those who have passing familiarity with the domain.
  17. Depends on what you consider live ammo. For law enforcement anything below the second line of this table is considered as it: It ranges from tear gas launched from a grenade launcher to 7,62mm so it's quite a wide definition. If we are only talking about bullets then definitively no. The only case when the law enforcement can use them (in the context of a protest) is when they are directly shot at with firearms, which is basically never. Otherwise they have access to a wide range of "stun" grenades which work either with sound, light, both, shock-waves and rubber projectiles. Those are supposed to be used when the crowd get too close allowing the law enforcement to retreat and reorganize. They are first to be rolled on the floor and if things get really out of hand launched from a hand held grenade launcher. Now some of those grenades contain a little amount of explosive, and regularly cause injury (launched to close, launched in a high arc against the procedure, idiot trying to pick up the nade blowing up his hand, etc). Needless to say they regularly pop up in the public debate because of the serious injury they can cause. One particular type of grenade was for example banned, after causing a death in 2014, the officer launched it in a high arc against procedure and it got stuck between the backpack and the back of a man, the blast killed him. We are one of the few country (if not the last one) in Europe which still use such a large panel of potentially dangerous grenades. Funny enough the use of the taser was banned for law enforcement as it was seen as dangerous for vulnerable peoples (elderly, pregnant women) but mainly that it was degrading and against human dignity. This article sums up what the law enforcement can and cannot do during a protest: https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fles-decodeurs%2Farticle%2F2016%2F05%2F03%2Fce-que-la-police-peut-et-ne-peut-pas-faire-pendant-une-manifestation_4913025_4355770.html
  18. With enough money and the full support of the state it's possible yes. For Israel I could see that happen since the country is still technically at war. For the US though the cold war is long finished and the tensions between them and the rest of the world haven't risen that high yet. They definitively can develop and produce a new MBT in a short time frame, but I don't think that there is the political will to spend the money doing it that fast ATM. American members may think differently though, and I would be glad to have their hindsight on this. But as I said we don't even have a letter of intent for now, so it's only speculation at this point.
  19. True but so far they don't include any development project of an MBT. My point is that there will probably be (assuming every program stay on schedule) at least 10 year between the time the MGCS enter service and the time when the MBTs of the American and Israeli programs enter service. I mean we haven't heard anything about the MBT part yet, let alone a date. I'm not sure that modernizing the Leopard 2 so that it can last until 2045-2050 is a sound decision (both from a military and economical PoV). So a lot of European country will need a new MBT around this time and during a short time window (5-10 years) the MGCS will most likely be the only 4th gen western MBT on the market. After that yes, the American and Israeli programs will be direct competitor, but at this point it is likely that a lot of country will have already bought (or developed in some cases) a new MBT. It could lead to a repeat of what happened with the Leo 2: everybody needing a new MBT at the same time, one model keep getting more and more order getting cheaper and cheaper until it completely saturate the market.
  20. The Leopard 2 will be phased out in 2035 (in the Bundeswehr) and the Leclerc in 2040, after that the overall number of those tanks in service will most likely go down. So after that, besides the MGCS, it will be either upgrading existing Leopard 2 or go for the EMBT (if it ever become a serious thing) but the Leo chassis is starting to show it's limits in term of weight. I don't know if the maximum load can be increased again, but this would drive the cost up to upgrade a design that start reaching it's limits. Basically if a western country want an up to date ground system it will be either the MGCS (probably: 3 man tank, unmanned turret and 130mm) or what the US and the Israeli are going for (upgraded gen 3 tank in combo with an UGV).
  21. Possible ongoing military coup in Gabon The army (or at least a part of it) took control of the national radio and television calling for the creation of a "national restoration council". To note that there is a French military base just at the outskirt of the capital hosting about a thousand men. 80 American soldiers also arrived in the country last Thursday. Edit: Apparently it's already over, it seem that it was a very small group and according to the local authority most of them have already been arrested.
  22. Massive leak of (rather) low confidentiality messages between EU diplomats: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/european-diplomats-cables-hacked.html Apparently, the hackers got in simply with pishing (which isn't surprising given that a lot of politicians aren't really aware of cybersecurity threats and how to deal with them). The US intelligence community had given repeated warnings that this network was particularly vulnerable and outdated. Fortunately the really sensitive stuff transit through more secure networks. The company which uncovered those leaks believe that Chinese services are behind it. Even if the extracted memo aren't really sensitive or their content all that surprising, they still give an interesting unfiltered insight on the position of EU diplomats on world events and threats. Some of the extracted messages: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/540-read-the-diplomatic-cables/27bc7c9cfe024869481d/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
  23. Japan intend to acquire 42 F-35B, 105 F-35A and to modify at least one of their Izumo class LHD to operate the F-35B
  24. True, especially since the investigation is already branching out toward Algeria (one of his brother, radicalized as well, has an arrest warrant on his name there), which mean that we'll have to work with the local authority. Nothing difficult but that takes times as well. So far, the reasons to think it was an opportunistic claim is that they waited for after the confirmation of his death and that they didn't gave him any "warrior" name (kunya) like they usually do. But those are only circumstantial evidences at best. He may had help before and/or after the attack, and that's on what the investigation is focusing right now.
×
×
  • Create New...