Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 7/4/2018 at 2:48 AM, DarkLabor said:


The turret (at the end of the production) is similar to a Leclerc serie 2 while the chassis is way more protected with the extended skirt armor.

Can you elaborate? Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Can you elaborate? Thanks. 

At the start of the production of the UAE tanks, the armor packages volumes were similar to the french série 1 :
36769014_10156416670803187_7153846606532

But at the end, they all ended up with the same armor packages volumes as our série 2 tanks :
36919665_10156416670818187_3355816926579

Even old ones were retrofitted (as you can see with the apparent gap between the storage boxes) :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLeT2-6VAAAgSPh.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My German friend was on Foerderkreis Deutsches Heer symposium at KMW on 7th November and told that German procurement agency is now forming with their French counterparts a MGCS common office. This is to be located somewhere in Germany. They defined five key technology domains calling them: effectors, mobility, survivability, SDRI & targeting and C3I. Hope to get more information on the individual domain content. Getting interesting now to see how slowly they are starting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rheinmetal tried to buy shares off KNDS yesterday which would de-facto give them control of KMW and of the whole MGCS program.

 

KMW rejected the offer on the basis that when they merged with Nexter, both party agreed not to attempt any other merge with a third party during a certain lapse of time.

 

Beside the obvious political implications (while KMW and Nexter were of roughly equivalent sizes, Rheinmetal is huge compared to  both of them), it would probably be a good idea for the consolidation of European defence industry in the long term.

Basically it would mean: leave the AFV and their ammunitions to the German (Rheinmetal-KMW-Nexter), the Planes to the French (Dassault-Thales-MBDA-Airbus) while the navy have yet to be consolidated between the French, Italians and the Spanish.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

PL-01, is that you?

 

Now you see ^_^

It will be PL-02 now :lol:

 

But for real it's very possible that this design line comes from the people who created PL-01...

BTW it's confirmed that is one of versions of the new Polish tank, on which Rheinmetall works with Bumar-Labedy. One of the lighter ones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow up on RhM wanting to buy shares of KNDS.

 

With this operation, RhM could control up to 75% of KNDS says UBS bank.

 

The French authority are apparently not opposed to the merge at the condition that a certain balance is being kept.

To that end the head of the French procurement agency met his German peer to discuss the different options.

3 scenarii are apparently on the table:

  • An Airbus like merge where there would be a parity between the shareholders regardless of the volume of activity they bring
  • RhM selling some of it's activities to shrink down before the merge
  • The French State buying KMW shares

In all cases, KNDS shares are frozen until the end of 2020 as both party initially agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Has any country actually expressed interest in this thing? Seems kinda unnecessary since most European countries seem to operate the Leopard 2.  

Norway, and maybe Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Norway, and maybe Poland.

 

Poland eh? I was under the impression they were gonna try to do their own indigenous design after that whole Leopard 2 deal fell through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

Poland eh? I was under the impression they were gonna try to do their own indigenous design after that whole Leopard 2 deal fell through. 

I remember some talk here on the forum about Poland being interested in the program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Has any country actually expressed interest in this thing? Seems kinda unnecessary since most European countries seem to operate the Leopard 2.  

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

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).

 

Neither Israel nor the USA are going for an upgraded 3rd gen tank in the long run. Both have programs for incremental upgrades to their tanks (ECP for Abrams, Barak for Merkava), just like KMW is putting out Leopard 2A7 upgrades and may even have a 2A8 in a couple years after enough countries bought the A7.

 

They both have programs for conceptual breakthroughs through current and maturing technologies. The NGCV and Carmel, two very similar programs, will eventually include an MBT project. Neither of them is a standalone vehicle.

Those MBTs should be the direct competitors to the MGCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

They both have programs for conceptual breakthroughs through current and maturing technologies. The NGCV and Carmel, two very similar programs, will eventually include an MBT project. Neither of them is a standalone vehicle.

Those MBTs should be the direct competitors to the MGCS. 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

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.

 

Deployment of the MGCS is scheduled for 2035.

Deployment of the first vehicles of the Carmel program is scheduled for 2027. That means the core technologies are ready at most in 2024, and development of an MBT can begin just shortly prior to that. MBT development, if fully funded, can take 5 years until deployment.

 

In the US the schedule is similar, and I don't think they'll wait 8 years after deploying an AFV based on the same technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Deployment of the MGCS is scheduled for 2035.

Deployment of the first vehicles of the Carmel program is scheduled for 2027. That means the core technologies are ready at most in 2024, and development of an MBT can begin just shortly prior to that. MBT development, if fully funded, can take 5 years until deployment.

 

In the US the schedule is similar, and I don't think they'll wait 8 years after deploying an AFV based on the same technologies.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/52476/german-army-receives-first-production-standard-puma-aifv
       
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
       
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Welcome to Mighty Zuk's place of mental rest and peace of mind. This is my realm. 
      I've decided it would be best to ditch the old Merkava thread for 2 reasons:
      1)It does not feature any bunched up information in its main post, and valuable information is scattered across different posts on different pages. 
      2)Many AFVs that are not related to the Merkava, or related but are not it, appear in that thread with improper representation. There are other AFVs than the Merkava, and it would be better to refer to them in a general way.
       
      As time will go by, I will arrange this thread into a sort of information center. 
       
      I will take up a few first comment spaces to make sure proper amount of information can be stacked up on the front page and for easier access for everyone.
       
      [Reserved for future posts - Merkava]
×