Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*Damian on suicide watch*

https://ir.rheinmetall.com/download/companies/rheinmetall/Presentations/191120_CMD_2019_Unterluess_CEO_online.pdf

Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :   The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.  

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

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....

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.

 

 

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
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. 

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

What do we hear about LoI? The German and French authorities should hurry up. Otherwise the political intention will be lost and the companies involved at both sides of the Rhine will run side by side the same way with different products. Would not be the first time: AMX30 vs Leopard 1, Leclerc vs Leopard 2 ... What next? Leclerc Scorpion vs Leopard 2 A8. @Alzoc give me you opinion!

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

What do we hear about LoI? The German and French authorities should hurry up. Otherwise the political intention will be lost and the companies involved at both sides of the Rhine will run side by side the same way with different products. Would not be the first time: AMX30 vs Leopard 1, Leclerc vs Leopard 2 ... What next? Leclerc Scorpion vs Leopard 2 A8. @Alzoc give me you opinion!

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

Thanks for your quick assessment! Do you think that the EMBT presented at Eurosatory could be a starting point for MGCS? Nexter and KMW started "to train to work together" whatever this means. And the question will be what impression the procurement agencies (DGA and Beschaffungsamt) will get from the future "work together". The Germans might not be so happy as Rheinmetall will get than a minor role in this game. Let's see how the first design study will look like which you expect to show up mid 2019.

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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • 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.
       

×
×
  • Create New...