Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

The MBT-70 wasn’t in need when it was being designed? And after it died, both countries involved didn’t have to upgrade older tanks to stay competitive? 

 

It is the same scenario, just 50 years later. 

Less of a need than today, because the tanks they would replace would be only about a decade old when the program was already shut down.

The MBT-70 program began somewhere in the 60's and cancelled in 1971.

The M60, on the other hand, was introduced in early 60's. I think 1960 was first unit delivery.

Today you're looking at tanks whose core structure was designed close to 50 years ago, and their structural age is in the 20-40 years range on average.

 

The Cold War is not a serious factor here. An arms race exists even today, and the likelihood to use these tanks on the battlefield has remained high enough.

 

If neither Germany nor France field a production-ready tank by the set deadline, they are basically going to get a British castration for their armored forces.

Oh and that's not only going to be them, but all their other European allies, unless they in turn choose American tanks. In which case a huge economical loss in the defense market is to be expected.

 

Had they set a deployment date for 2025, and not 2035/2040, then I would totally agree with you that there is room for failure and reconsideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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.  

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Altay?

 

Licence production isn't the same thing as joint development - Altay, K-X and Merk all relied on external designs, but they were exclusively national programs (unless the US buys the K-X or merk, or SK buys the altay). This is a key distinction, because the infighting over workshare and who's requirements to design the vehicle to is generally fatal for a proper international program.

 

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Less of a need than today, because the tanks they would replace would be only about a decade old when the program was already shut down.

The MBT-70 program began somewhere in the 60's and cancelled in 1971.

The M60, on the other hand, was introduced in early 60's. I think 1960 was first unit delivery.

Today you're looking at tanks whose core structure was designed close to 50 years ago, and their structural age is in the 20-40 years range on average.

 

The Cold War is not a serious factor here. An arms race exists even today, and the likelihood to use these tanks on the battlefield has remained high enough.

 

If neither Germany nor France field a production-ready tank by the set deadline, they are basically going to get a British castration for their armored forces.

Oh and that's not only going to be them, but all their other European allies, unless they in turn choose American tanks. In which case a huge economical loss in the defense market is to be expected.

 

Had they set a deployment date for 2025, and not 2035/2040, then I would totally agree with you that there is room for failure and reconsideration.

 

With MBT-70, the threat was rapidly changing from T-55/62's (which M-60 was designed against, possibly not even considering the 115mm) to T-64/72/80 (along with big improvements in and proliferation of ATGMs). Leo 2 and Leclerc were designed against T-72's, and the threat is changing to T-72B3 mod 2016 mk53 (until we see volume production of the T-15)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 10:57 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I knew you would bring up the Euroturtle program, but I still insist that it is not an equivalent.

 

As I've said, it's about the timeline.

The MGCS deployment date is 2035 for Germany. 2040 for France.

If we are generous and pessimistic, it means development of the tank commences around 2025-2027. A more realistic option would be 2030.

I believe an accurate timeline was posted somewhere but can't find it.

 

That means that if the program is killed even at the earliest stage of development, both France and Germany, plus any country that depends on the program, will have to either buy competing designs off the shelf, or retire tanks without proper replacement, or keep tanks in service despite becoming nearly obsolete and beyond their projected end-of-life point.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

MGCS timeline https://imgur.com/gallery/sP8DRpK

This is the timeline they intend to use today. But note that they lost time and didn't even start the study program they are calling demonstrator phase. It's only a bunch of paper studies. The key issues are as seen at

MGCS timeline https://imgur.com/gallery/sP8DRpK

Which are in priority:

SDRI and target allocation

Effectors, 120mm+ caliber, could be 130 or 140 and HVM hyper velocity missile (IMO nobody knows for what target type that is necessary, may be against Führerbunker from a MBT type platform

C3I for command and control of UGVs and UAVs

Mobility issues for autonomous, robotic driving with some sort of Kinetic and artificial intelligence for hybrid drive with drive by wire, rubber track, semi-active suspension, and so on

And all packed in low weight protection, active, reactive and passive gaining highest survivability in a compact fighting compartment.

Greetings from starwars on earth in the next decade!!! Comments to this very welcome!!!

 

 

 

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

 

So the MGCS is targeting a weight of around 40 tons? That seems to be the limit for rubber band track.

 

Spoiler

4A02eQa.jpg

 

The way I understand this slide, the rubber track could be used for the Commando/Control-platform which may be lighter than the effector-platform carrying a main gun (thus maybe allowing it to be light enough to use rubber tracks)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

4A02eQa.jpg

 

The way I understand this slide, the rubber track could be used for the Commando/Control-platform which may be lighter than the effector-plattform with a main gun (thus maybe allowing it to be light enough to use rubber tracks)

@Alzoc fully agree! Could be a PUMA like vehicle with maybe 4 operators for UGV and UAV. Then the vehicle weight could be 40 tons.

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

 

targeting a weight of around 40 tons? That seems to be the limit for rubber band track.

There were news recently on US Army's market survey (Request For Information) on rubber/composite band tracks, preferably segmented, - 1) available now for 36 metric tons vehicle, and - 2) available in several years time if chosen for development, for 45-54 metric tons vehicle
No idea whether they've found anything, but it shows that at least some people do not see current weight limit for such tracks as one set in stone

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

There were news recently on US Army's market survey (Request For Information) on rubber/composite band tracks, preferably segmented, - 1) available now for 36 metric tons vehicle, and - 2) available in several years time if chosen for development, for 45-54 metric tons vehicle
No idea whether they've found anything, but it shows that at least some people do not see current weight limit for such tracks as one set in stone

And IIRC, the Lynx KF41 has a GVW of 50 tons with rubber band tracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SH_MM said:

The Lynx uses tracks from DST, not the ones from Soucy.

No doubt. But Soucy's current position is a good refernce point since they're one of the biggest names in rubber composite tracks.

All I needed apparently is a short google image search to see the steel tracks on the Lynx.

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

Well, there is some news that RLS wants to go ahead with the Lynx platform and create the MBT based on that. So 1 platform for IFV, MBT, support vehicles etc.

From my perspective this makes pretty much sense since it is the same idea for the boxer (everything modular but based on one platform).

But since KNDS wants to have some piece of the cake as well this is slowing down the whole project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynx platform can’t be used for the MGCS. The concept is not stabilised enough to quote anything. 

 

On the other hand :

- there is a place for an other solution than the MGCS ;

- there are opportunities for a « light » tank. Around 40t. This way, RLS can adapt its Lynx. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 4:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Lynx KF41 has only been showcased with lightweight metal tracks, but Lynx KF31 has also been showcased with DST's segmented rubber tracks.

 

Lynx.jpg

 

However weight limit seems to be 42 metric tons for their current rubber track system.

 

 

Why does it have that long rectangular casing around the gun? 

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...