Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
LostCosmonaut

The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

Recommended Posts

Quote
To my fairly great surprise it has come to my attention that the Leclerc is starting to emerge as a favorite among a majority faction of our (Swedish) tanker people for the likely coming acquisition of more MBTs.

I had thought the Leo2A7 would have been the prime candidate but it seems like that is not a given for a few reasons.
According to some tanker officers there’s a possibility that the Leclerc in its current form is a more modern candidate with greater upgradability, has performed well in Yemen so far in the war there, the smaller crew of three is a plus in a shortstaffed organization (despite the issues with being one less for maintenance, we made it work with the strv103), smaller profile and lighter so able to cross more bridges and the word seems to be that deliveries could be made at a speedier pace.

The word is also that the somewhat younger tankers are leaning more towards the Leclerc and the older officers are more sceptical.
Now, I imagine that most of you would probably deem the Leo2A7 the superior tank but what is the current view of the Leclerc in a general sense?

http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24582

Possible or complete BS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather Complete.
Why would you want to buy Leclercs when you can buys 2A7 fresh and hot from a running Production Line.
Also what alot of people miss is the cost of changing your whole Maintenance and Training. There are probably still changes from a Strv 122C/D to a Strv122E.
But not as many as switching to a whole new tank and i dont think Sweden would or could operate two different Tanks.
A CV 90 with a 120mm gun would make more sense than buying Leclercs.

Share this post


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

To add to the @Willy Brandtstatement, the Leclerc MBT production line is closed. It would take around three years to reactivate it.

This is why we weren’t able to answer Saoudi interest in Leclerc MBT.

But, theoretically, the Leclerc MBT interest makes more sense for Swedish ground than Leopard-2A7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

A CV 90 with a 120mm gun would make more sense than buying Leclercs.

Leclerc MBT and CV-90 like medium tanks solutions can’t be compared. 

There can be an interest in having a CV-90 based tank but this is an other type of need :

- an army still using a M48 fleet can chose such a solution if it doesn’t absolutely want armor ;

- The other option is a pressing need for « barrels » ;

- the third one is quality of the road infrastructure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

Leclerc MBT and CV-90 like medium tanks solutions can’t be compared. 

There can be an interest in having a CV-90 based tank but this is an other type of need :

- an army still using a M48 fleet can chose such a solution if it doesn’t absolutely want armor ;

- The other option is a pressing need for « barrels » ;

- the third one is quality of the road infrastructure. 

The pressing needs for barrels was my thinking.
Why would you want a second type of Tank if you have enough time to get more of the first type.
You would only introduce a second type/replace the first type if you can get alot of them rather quick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it doesnt make sense for Sweden to adopt somewhere in 2020 Leclercs when they already operate Strv 122,  and even more when both french and germans have embarked on devolpement of the ´Europanzer 2.0´ precisely to replace both Leo 2 and Leclercs. At this point if the Swedes have enough funds for making a big contract for newer tanks, they should just invest them into a propper replacement for Strv 122, whatever if they decide to bet on the ´Europanzer 2.0´ or develop a new national tank, for which case they already have conceptual work done for Strv 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

for which case they already have conceptual work done for Strv 2000.

Strv 2000 is entirely obsolete in the current year and would basically have to be restarted almost from scratch.

Remember, Strv 2000 was a project in the late 1980s, and it's been over 30 years since then. Other than broad layout and concepts (like modular armor), and any ballistic tests conducted at the time, everything involved in that project is obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More or less, but they are not starting from zero. They had already explored unmanned turrets or externally mounted main guns, and likely also had an autoloader for 140mm designed, and that is a direction they can choose.  I mean look at the russians and how they took advantage of the technology developed for Objects 187-195, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be not a good selection for the Swedish Army if they would go for Leclerc as it is not in production any more and according to @Serge would need three years for restart. I believe that no Swedish tank officer would like this tank as this army refused it in 1993. They love their Strv122. If they would have an actual need for barrels (what I cannot imagine BTW) they could do an upgrade of the Strv121 to Strv122 or something similar as a Leo 2A7V. They got originally 160 Leo 2A4 from the German Army. So they have enough to retrofit even if a few of them are used for conversion to bridgelayer tanks Leguan 2. If the procurement agency FMV is clever it should wait until there is a clear picture what is going on with MGCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if they want better agility/lower weight at the cost of armor, the CV90-120 does make more sense than the LeClerc or really any other vehicle - the CV90 is operated in large numbers throughout the force, and is a domestic product.

 

But other than that, the only hot lines are indeed the Leopard 2... and the M1, and I don't see any case where they decide to operate both.

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 don't know why, but in 1919 someone wrote a book about tanks in Swedish.  It's not in a format that allows me to run it through a translator.  Perhaps our resident Swedish tank expert can help us with this one?
       
      <iframe width="450" height="700" src="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/wu.89100067776?urlappend=%3Bui=embed"></iframe>
    • By Serge
      Lets start a thread about the CV-90. Past, present, futur. 
      Link to the Linström's page about the initial Stridsfordon-90 project :
      http://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm
       
      An interesting SH-MM post about evolution of CV-90 :
      And a summary about contenders for the forseen Czech IFV programme :
      http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.pt/2017/08/which-new-ifv-for-czech-army.html?m=1
       
      From a well known blog.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      I was originally going to post this in the J35 thread (since that's turned into the general Swedish aviation thread), but I felt that it'd get more visibility here.
       
      SAAB A36
       

      (via http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/55568/SAAB-A-36)
       
      During the 1950s, many nations sought to develop nuclear weapons. One of these was Sweden, who hoped that nuclear weapons could help maintain their neutrality during the Cold War. However, when developing nuclear weapons, a delivery system is also needed. For Sweden, that would have been the A 36, a dedicated nuclear strike aircraft and one of the "missing pieces" in the Swedish aircraft sequence (between the 35 and 37).
       
      Development of the A 36 began in 1952, as part of SAAB's 1300 series of projects (which included numerous other designs). The requirements for a Swedish nuclear strike aircraft were different from those of other major countries. The most likely opponent (the USSR) was less than 500 kilometers away across the Baltic, while American bombers would have to fly more than ten times as far to reach their targets. This was evident in designs such as the B-36 and B-52, which had very large wingspans and fuel capacities, as well as large payloads. Additionally, a Swedish nuclear bomber would have to be capable of operating from dispersed airfields, in accordance with Swedish doctrine. Obviously, the Swedish nuclear bomber would end up looking quite different from its American or Soviet counterparts.
       
      Numerous SAAB engineers were involved with the A36 development (quite an undertaking, as the company was developing the J35 at the same time while also producing the J32). Among them was Aarne Lakomaa, a transplanted Finn who had gained fame for developing the Morko-Morane fighter during the Continuation War.
       
      From the start, the Swedish bomber (at this point it had yet to be designated A 36) was designed for high speed. Numerous configurations were studied, with swept wings or delta wings on various designs. Top speed was planned to be around Mach 2, which would have made the A36 almost as fast the J35.
       

      SAAB 1323 (or 1300-23), an early step in the A36 development.
       

       
      SAAB 1371 (1300-71), a proposal which made it as far as wind tunnel testing.
       
      As can be seen from the previous drawings, many of the designs were planned to have two engines. As with other Swedish aircraft of the time, the A36 was planned to use license built British engines. Among the engines considered were the de Havilland Gyron and smaller Gyron junior. However, at some time early in the development of the program, it was decided that the aircraft would be powered by the Bristol Olympus turbojet, the same engine that powered the British Vulcan bomber. However, for use in a supersonic aircraft, it would have required modification, such as the fitting of an afterburner, and a new intake. (The Olympus was eventually developed for use in supersonic aircraft, such as the TSR-2 and Concorde.) With such a large and powerful engine, it became apparent that only a single engine would be needed in the A36.
       
      At such high speeds, the A36 would have experienced significant aerodynamic heating. This concerned Swedish engineers, who were afraid that the heat would damage contemporary nuclear weapons (or even lead to them detonating prematurely). As a result, it was decided that the payload would be carried within an internal weapons bay. This would reduce drag, improving performance, but it would also limit payload, while decreasing the internal volume available for fuel, avionics, and other systems. By the time the A36 design had progressed  to the 1376 and 1377 configurations, payload was determined to be a single 800 kilogram nuclear weapon, carried internally. This is roughly comparable in size to the American Mark 7 bomb, deployed tactically around the same time. As far as I know, no provision was ever made for the A36 to have air-to-air capabilities.
       
      By 1957, the design of the A36 (which had by now received a formal Swedish Air Force designation) was almost finalized.
       
      (SAAB 1376, with chin intake)

       

      (Drawing of SAAB 1377 with dorsal intake, similar to YF-107)
       
      Most documents show the 1376 as the chosen design. 1376 was a moderately sized aircraft, somewhat smaller than the American F-105 (which had a similar role to the A36). The wing was a conventional delta with 62 degree sweep, which would have given good performance in the supersonic regime. I am uncertain whether the A36 would have utilized a variable geometry inlet. A fixed inlet would have had to be optimized for a certain speed; this would mean that the A36 would have been inefficient at low Mach numbers, or been had it speed limited by the inlet design. (Read more about inlet design here).
       
       
      Although work on the A36 was progressing well, by 1957 it was apparent that Sweden could not afford to develop the A36, nuclear weapons, and other vital defense programs. As the A36 would have been relatively lacking in conventional capability, it was decided to cancel the program. (Ultimately, the nuclear weapons program would be shut down during the 1960s as well). Some of the money saved was used to develop the A37 Viggen, which proved to be a competent multirole aircraft during the 1970s and beyond. Ultimately, while it would have been interesting from a technological standpoint to see the A36 fly, its cancellation was probably the right choice.
       
      I have not found any documents showing that the A36 was ever given a name (such as 'Draken' for the J35). Occasionally references can be found to the A36 'Vargen' (Wolf) online, but it appears that these are the inventions of either modeling companies or someone with an overactive imagination.
       
      A36 (1376 design) specifications (approximate):
      Length: 17m
      Wingspan: 9.6m
      Height: 2.5m
      Wing Area: 54m2
      Empty Weight: 9000 kg
      Max Weight: 15000 kg
      Wing Loading at Max Weight: 280 kg/m2
      Payload: 800 kg
      Max Speed: Mach 2.1
      Ceiling: 18000m
      Combat Radius: 410km (?)
      Crew: 1
      Engine: 1x Bristol Olympus Turbojet
       
       
       
       
       
      Sources:
      http://u-fr.blogspot.com.br/2010/12/cancelled-saab-aircraft-projects.html
      http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,683.0.html
      http://forum.valka.cz/topic/view/55568/SAAB-A-36
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Numerous countries attempted to develop turbojet engines in the post-WW2 period. There were many failures: the J40, TR-1, and others. One of these unsuccessful engines was the Swedish STAL Dovern.
       

       
       
      Attempts to develop an indigenous jet engine began at STAL (Svenska Turbinfabriks AB) in the late 1940s. The first engine developed by STAL was the Skuten, in 1948. This was a small, axial flow turbojet with 6 combustion chambers producing roughly 6.2 kN of thrust. The Skuten was intended primarily as a ground-run technology demonstrator, I am not aware of any attempts or plans to fit it to an aircraft. In the meantime, the Swedes used British engine designs for their aircraft, such as the De Havilland Ghost on the J29.
       
      Work on the STAL Dovern began in the late 1940s, and from the start, the engine was intended for operational use. The intended recipient was the SAAB 32 (Lansen) attack aircraft, then under development. This would require a much more powerful engine than the Skuten, and so the Dovern was itself much larger. Like the smaller engine, the Dovern was built as an axial flow turbojet. However, additional combustion chambers were added, bringing the total to nine. This, along with a large increase in the dimensions of the engine, resulted in the Dovern having a design output of over 32 kN. This was significantly more than the De Havilland Ghost powering the J29 at the time.
       
      The STAL Dovern was first ground tested in February 1950, roughly two years after development began. By this time, the engine had matured into an axial flow design with a nine-stage compressor section, and nine combustion chambers arranged in a circular manner. Pressure ratio was about 5.2, superior to the Ghost, but inferior to the British Avon also under development in the same time period.
       
      (a picture from 1954 Flight Global magazine comparing the Dovern and Ghost)

       
      After about 3,000 hours of run time, a Dovern prototype was fitted to a Swedish Avro Lancaster (Tp 80) for further testing.
       

       
      Testing of the engine in this manner began in June 1951, and revealed some issues. At certain power settings, the engine would suffer compressor surging, causing a loss of power and potential damage to the engine. Numerous redesigns of the compressor section somewhat alleviated the problem, though did not manage to cure it entirely.
       
      By 1954, the Dovern had accumulated over 4,000 hours of runtime, including about 300 on the Lancaster testbed. An afterburning variant had also been developed, producing  45 kN. However, the engine was still not fully ready, and by this point the Lansen had already flown with an Avon engine fitted. As a result, it was decided to cancel the Dovern program, and instead use the Avon engine in both the Lansen and upcoming Draken (J35). (Some sources say that the Dovern was cancelled when it caught fire and destroyed the Lancaster test aircraft. However, this actually happened in 1956 while testing the RM-6/Avon, at which point the Dovern was already cancelled.) 16 units had been produced. An advanced version, called the Glan, had been under development for use in the Draken. It was also cancelled.
       
      From this point, Swedish aircraft designs would use foreign engines. Though the Dovern was not fully developed, it cannot be said to be a failure for the Swedish aerospace industry. Producing world-class jet engines is highly difficult, requiring large amounts of experience and supporting industry. Only a few nations are truly capable of doing so even now (US, UK, France, Russia, and arguably China). For a country as small as Sweden, having an indigenous jet engine industry would be a truly Herculean feat.
       
      Sources:
       
      https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%201015.html
      http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/reamotorer.html
      http://en.valka.cz/topic/view/184837/SWE-STAL-Dovern
×
×
  • Create New...