Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Militarysta said:

My all dear friends,

first of all - polish MoD mr Błaszczak is lying when he only open his mounth. The same PiS (Law and Justice party) goverment. This is faritails propose only by parlement election this outum in Poland. They will be no new tank in possible to recoginze future in Poland - 2PL, 2A5 after small upgrade and just refresh T-72M1 and thats all. Poland will take Finish 2A6 and Protugaleese if those countres will sell those tanks. And thats all. You must understand that this goverment is lying whole time and sucht "declaracton of interest" is only bubble talks to deluge all around - german partenrs, EU industry, polish soliders and...people before parlament election. Whole goverment narration is about "building strong army" whit 4th division, unit deploy to est, taking US forcet to Poland and tehnical modernisation of the Polish Army. Inn all aspect is low-cost shit. Sorry for talk this straight. In case tanks - all buble talk about "super duper IVgen German-French=Polish tank"  is only to deluge that will be done more then...to small refresh 230 T-72M1 and 148 Leopard 2PL (and this program is totall disaster right now). 

Comprehensive answer @Militarysta! Giving a credible picture what's going on in Polish MoD. Do they really have a chance to get 2A6 from Finland or Portugal and are they able to pay for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

 Do they really have a chance to get 2A6 from Finland or Portugal and are they able to pay for?

No idea :) There was a some talks on rather low level industry-industry and army-industry  but whole talk was rather "if we then you can..". More or les low level claimed that 2A7V will be more cost effective solution then upgrade 2A6 and possible both countries will sell their tanks if they will buy new Leopard 2A7. As I know they are some aditional law resons why both countries may be forced to sell 2A6 and buy new 2A7 but I don't know details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First concept works of MGCS will start soon. A total of nine parts of concept studies will be developed, three by Rheinmetall, three by KMW and three by Nexter. The will be managed by a 18 men project team, lead by Germany. A new company will be formed for the MGCS development, 50% owned by German companies (Rheinmetall and KMW by equal amounts), while the other 50% will be owned by Nexter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

First concept works of MGCS will start soon. A total of nine parts of concept studies will be developed, three by Rheinmetall, three by KMW and three by Nexter. The will be managed by a 18 men project team, lead by Germany. A new company will be formed for the MGCS development, 50% owned by German companies (Rheinmetall and KMW by equal amounts), while the other 50% will be owned by Nexter.

 

Damn was just about to post it^^

 

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/paris-et-berlin-proche-de-debloquer-le-programme-mgcs-char-du-futur-828951.html

 

On that note Rhm apparently officially presented it's 130mm as a part of the MGCS program at AUSA 2019:

 

http://forcesoperations.com/une-premiere-brique-identifiee-pour-le-mgcs/
 

Quote

Lighter than the 120mm L55 the 130mm L51 will use ammunitions a little over 30kg while providing a 50% increase in kinetic energy.

Rhm announced that they are working on an unmanned turret demonstrator using the 130mm and an associated autoloader.

 

Hard to tell what each of the 9 parts will hold precisely but looking at the strong points of each contractor it is likely that Rhm will take the turret, the gun, probably the APS and possibly the ammunitions (though each country might produce some specialized ammo independently).

Nexter likely has a claim on the FCS and the BMS possibly the propulsion if they haven't lost all know how since the V8X alternatively they might also work on the armor.

That would leave things like the general architecture, automotives in general and integration for KMW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only part of MGCS

 

Quote

Rheinmetall is also developing an unmanned 130mm demonstrator turret featuring automated ammunition flow. This system will be compatible with the European Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project and can serve as a combat performance upgrade to all Leopard 2 user nations. The development also matches key developmental priorities in the US Army NGCV program.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

New generation? K-2 isn´t enough?

 

Yes, Hyundai has realized that K2 is currently too cramped for Korean tankers. The last generation of Korean conscripts has grown a lot (circa 3 inches in 10 years) and now they need an interior space similar to one in European and American vehicles. AFAIK from people who were in K2 said the tank was similar in these terms to T-72.

 

And now they start working on XK3

 

Oh, and the proof of Korean 130mm.

CLMb8vj.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a German news article about the MGCS and possible European partners (it is mostly talking about Poland, but uses it as example for problems that can be found with most of Eastern Europe):

 

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/ruesten-fuer-europa-huerden-fuer-den-gemeinsamen-kampfpanzer-16439321.html

 

Interesting parts:

  • Poland backed an Italian alternative program to the MGCS, which then was apparently canceled - France has not forgotten that and thus doesn't like Poland as partner for the MGCS
  • Industrial capabilities of Eastern European countries are limited and often focused on upgrading old Soviet vehicles. Due to the fact that industry is often inter-woven with politics, they are considered unreliable (illustrated by Poland canceling a contract buyiing French helicopters in 2016 just because some politicans wanted to appease their American partners)
  • big holding companies like PGZ are deemed to be bad for innovation, making Poland a less attractive partner, as they lack competition while being state-owned/state-driven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:
  • big holding companies like PGZ are deemed to be bad for innovation, making Poland a less attractive partner, as they lack competition while being state-owned/state-driven

At this point it really amuses me this "free-enterprise creed". Because not only state owned monopolies have demonstrated that they can be superior both in development and mass production of military equipment  to whatever the "free enterprise" western countries had (USSR, anyone?). But also this "free enterprise" in reality is a mirage, private military manufacturers are critically reliant on state  support, to get public funds for R&D or to get critical intel, etc. There are truly no "free enterprises" in the military industry, only openly state-owned or  "covertly" state-funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Because not only state owned monopolies have demonstrated that they can be superior both in development and mass production of military equipment  to whatever the "free enterprise" western countries had (USSR, anyone?).

 

When and how did they demonstrate that?

 

Also note that the Soviets (whose military industry was did not demostrated to be superior than the free market) did have competitionm between the different design bureaus, while PGZ and other defence industries complexes owned by Eastern-European countries are not exactly competing against themselves.

Share this post


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

 

When and how did they demonstrate that?

 

Also note that the Soviets (whose military industry was did not demostrated to be superior than the free market) did have competitionm between the different design bureaus, while PGZ and other defence industries complexes owned by Eastern-European countries are not exactly competing against themselves.

Not saying that soviet industrial model was perfect, but the criticism based on the false opposition of public vs private has more of a political sense than actual interest into looking at which one would be the most efficient way to develop and produce military equipment. I mean, things like the EFV program, the Future Combat Systems program the F-35 program are all product of the private industry model and from whatever political or economic POV you have, those programs are a catastrophe (in terms of wasted time, public funds, etc.) and a much bigger one than the worst program ever undertaken by the USSR. And yes, the soviets had a higher production output while maintaining technological lead in several fields over NATO until the 80s while at the same time the USSR had a GDP far ,far, far smaller than NATO. The way i see it, thats efficiency. We could discuss about the effects of this model on the rest of the economy and society, but that is another question entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Not saying that soviet industrial model was perfect, but the criticism based on the false opposition of public vs private has more of a political sense than actual interest into looking at which one would be the most efficient way to develop and produce military equipment. I mean, things like the EFV program, the Future Combat Systems program the F-35 program are all product of the private industry model and from whatever political or economic POV you have, those programs are a catastrophe (in terms of wasted time, public funds, etc.) and a much bigger one than the worst program ever undertaken by the USSR.

 

The programs you mentioned are not failures because of them being handled by the private industry, but mismanagement on the government's side.

 

The negative difference between state-owned industry complexes and private industry can be summarized with one example: the army wants a new tank, so they tell the industry to design a new tank. In case of a state-owned industry complex, the tank designers will have to utilize components and technology from the state-owned industry complex - there are no alternatives and there is less technology available overall (why should the state-owned industrial complex design a second gunner's sight, when they just had designed a new one?). They end up with one offer and one component for every aspect.

A privatized military industry meanwhile competes against each itself; this forces innovation (evolution works just like that), every company tries to beat its competitors out in terms of technology, reliability or price. This means that there are multiple components or designs form which the military then can choose the best - whatever "best" means in that case. As there is no state-owned competitor, there is no benefit of choosing an inferior product just because it is made by a state-owned company (i.e. no money to gain from choosing worse parts). For the Leopard 2, competition of private companies meant that there four different FCS from which the military then could chose the one that best fits it needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 5:08 PM, SH_MM said:

 

The programs you mentioned are not failures because of them being handled by the private industry, but mismanagement on the government's side.

 

The negative difference between state-owned industry complexes and private industry can be summarized with one example: the army wants a new tank, so they tell the industry to design a new tank. In case of a state-owned industry complex, the tank designers will have to utilize components and technology from the state-owned industry complex - there are no alternatives and there is less technology available overall (why should the state-owned industrial complex design a second gunner's sight, when they just had designed a new one?). They end up with one offer and one component for every aspect.

I think its more complicated than that for USSR from what i read only monolists in Soviet Tank industry is ammo makers .For example when Soviets tested thermals for T-80U modified Agava and Nocturne from completely different NIIs are offered .Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 3km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

Share this post


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

I think its more complicated than that for USSR from what i read only monolists in Soviet Tank industry is ammo makers .For example when Soviets tested thermals for T-80U modified Agava and Nocturne from completely different NIIs are offered .Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 4km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

 

Well, I already mentioned that Soviets were a different case, because they actually encourage competition between different design bureaus (but then bought nearly all products, rather than choosing the best). I have seen conflicting data regarding the layout of Agava-1/Agava-2 and Avaga-M1, while there is little to none available on the Nocturne thermal imager. Nocturne was however developed as successor to Avaga-2, so it seems likely that it had a better sensor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with SH_MM.

 

Leo2 is in competition against other western MBT. So the industry has a will to improve which is not only forced by the current customers (that have an influence due to changed operational use of the leo2 as well). 

Further the Leo2 has competitors within 

Leo2A7 VS Leo2 Revolution

Wisent 2 VS Kodiac

Wisent 2 VS Buffalo

 

This gives constant improvements in a faster way than others do. 

 

So bringing MGCS to a similar situation should be the best for the end product.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 4km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

 

That's unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone explain this center plot to me again? I assumed that the different colors represented the KE protection coverage offered on the Leopard 2 using 5 different armor (wedge? / insert?) types (B, C, D1, D2, D3).

 

0zK5TH9.jpg

 

Looking at the T-80U front protection coverage:

 

820329_600.jpg

 

Overlaying the D1 frontal (0 degrees) plot with the T-80U plot, Leclerc plot of the Swedes and the Leclerc plot of my model i get the following results:

 

front_coverage

These results confuse me. I used to the plot below to generate the plot for my model above. The T80U offers better armor coverage and resistance compared to the "D1" Leopard 2 and my modeled Leclerc. The D1 armored Leopard 2 barely shows any significant improvements over the modeled Leclerc and  it is overall inferior to the T-80U in terms of KE resistance from the front.   

 

 

Here is the -20 degree plot:

 

-20_coverage

 

I tried to come as close as possible to the Swedish results when i did my calculations.  Both the Swedish model and my model of the Leclerc offer inferior KE protection coverage to the export M1A2 at -20 degrees from the front.

 

My questions:

 

1) What armor combination, wedge and insert type, was used to get the following results:

 

leopard+swedish+improvements+3.jpg

 

From what i have seen and read, I do not believe that the T-80U offers better KE resistance over the front, yet the D1 plot shows the Leo 2 (D1) to be inferior.  I believe that D2 ord D3 armor technology was used to generate the diagram above.

 

2) Do you think my Leclerc plot comes "close enough" to the Swedish (FMV) Leclerc plot?

 

I would appreciate your response and feedback.

Share this post


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

1) What armor combination, wedge and insert type, was used to get the following results:

 

The German Solution is based on the Type B integral armor and the Type D-2 add-on armor (see the first image posted by you). The Swedish model therefore has better armor; which one isn't exactly known. I believe that it has at least Type C base armor, potentially even Type D-1, but this is only speculation based on what it seems was used on the series production model of the German Leopard 2 (and this still isn't a 100% confirmed, because the words used by Rolf Hilmes when describing the armor solution aren't a 100% unambiguous). It is also possible that the Swedish model used some type of better wedge-armor (Type D-3?), but I personally do not consider that likely based on the visiual similarity of the Strdisvagn 122 and the Leopard 2A5 of the German Army.

 

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

From what i have seen and read, I do not believe that the T-80U offers better KE resistance over the front, yet the D1 plot shows the Leo 2 (D1) to be inferior.  I believe that D2 ord D3 armor technology was used to generate the diagram above.

 

I don't think that the graphs can be interpreted as easily as you seem to suggest, as there are more possible combinations. First of all it seems that the graphs are not only displaying turret armor, but apparently total armor along the profile (of the crew compartment?). This leads to questions if all Leopard 2 models displayed in the graph utilize both turret and hull add-on armor or if a solution like the actual Leopard 2A5 (strong turret armor, weak hull armor) fielded by Germany and the Netherlands is included. It is also questionable wether the graph only shows combinations of Type B armor with wedge-armor (as in case of the German Solution) or includes combinations like Type C/D-1 base armor with Type D-2/D-3 wedges etc.

 

What you are calling "D-1" in your graphs seems to be identical to the German Solution (with Type B integral armor and Type D-2 add-on armor) on the left of the first image posted by you (compare the coverage of the yellow graph with the coverage of the German Solution at 0° impact angle!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

The German Solution is based on the Type B integral armor and the Type D-2 add-on armor (see the first image posted by you). The Swedish model therefore has better armor; which one isn't exactly known. I believe that it has at least Type C base armor, potentially even Type D-1, but this is only speculation based on what it seems was used on the series production model of the German Leopard 2 (and this still isn't a 100% confirmed, because the words used by Rolf Hilmes when describing the armor solution aren't a 100% unambiguous). It is also possible that the Swedish model used some type of better wedge-armor (Type D-3?), but I personally do not consider that likely based on the visiual similarity of the Strdisvagn 122 and the Leopard 2A5 of the German Army.

 

 

I don't think that the graphs can be interpreted as easily as you seem to suggest, as there are more possible combinations. First of all it seems that the graphs are not only displaying turret armor, but apparently total armor along the profile (of the crew compartment?). This leads to questions if all Leopard 2 models displayed in the graph utilize both turret and hull add-on armor or if a solution like the actual Leopard 2A5 (strong turret armor, weak hull armor) fielded by Germany and the Netherlands is included. It is also questionable wether the graph only shows combinations of Type B armor with wedge-armor (as in case of the German Solution) or includes combinations like Type C/D-1 base armor with Type D-2/D-3 wedges etc.

 

What you are calling "D-1" in your graphs seems to be identical to the German Solution (with Type B integral armor and Type D-2 add-on armor) on the left of the first image posted by you (compare the coverage of the yellow graph with the coverage of the German Solution at 0° impact angle!).

Thank you for your response. The top diagrams seem to show the protection of the entire vehicle, not only the turret. As you pointed out, the magenta colored plot seems to correspond to the left diagram and the yellow  plot corresponds to the diagram on the right.

 

Here is my DM33 estimate on the Leclerc S1:

 

Lec_DM_KE

 

 

Share this post


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

 

That's unbelievable.

I think thats because ID range can interpreted vaguely.  And offcourse there is the question of the claimed performance like with MILAN maximum perforation in british tests .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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]
×
×
  • Create New...