Laser Shark

Article and video here: https://www.tu.no/artikler/loddtrekning-avgjorde-forste-del-av-stridsvognkonkurransen/516865

Okay, so here’s the explanation from the news site that first reported on this:

“The explanation, as we have understood it, is that the carrier had applied for a dispensation of 95 tonnes ( as is well known, 100 tonnes is the limit for a much more advanced device around transport).

The vehicle combination was measured at 102 tonnes, which is only 7 tonnes over. The reason for the extra 8 tonnes over legal, ie a total of 15 tonnes, is that the ratio between weight of truck and trailer has been exceeded.”

https://www.tungt.no/article/view/829425/en_tanks_til_besvaer_noen_forklaringer?ref=rss

I guess I was half right. It was actually a bit of both.

2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

I doubt the trailer is 15 tons sans cargo, though… Leo2NO is probably overweight. 

I suspect it was considered too heavy with this particular type of transporter, seeing as they were able to pick it up with another transporter afterwards. This could mean that the transporter + cargo exceeded the 100 tonnes dispensation limit that applies to certain parts of the Norwegian road network or it could mean that the transporter itself didn’t meet the specific requirements to be granted such a dispensation. The latter seems more likely to me since a Norwegian Army Scania transporterr carrying a Leo 2A4NO apparently weighs 85 tonnes, and this doesn’t look like it should weigh 30 tonnes more than that.

Anywhere here is an interesting article about the subject (not this case specifically, but the issues that come with increasingly heavy AFVs as well as solutions) for those who are willing to make due with a translator.

26 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   For different tests, i guess?

I don’t think so. Both contestant were asked to bring two tanks for the trials, and KMW has brought two identical ones without Trophy (even though it's listed as an option on their promotional site), so it doesn't look like it was necessary for the tests. Of course, there is also the possibility that the Trophy here is simply a display model and not a functional system as some have suggested.

One with Trophy, one without:

Agreed. Just to add even more evidence, this more recent (if rather small) image shows that they aren't outfitted with PERI RTWL either, which is one of the changes that appears to be more or less confirmed for the A7NO :

So it turns out these two look pretty much identical to a tank that was on display in Hungary several months ago: 

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Looks like 2A7V.

Do you think these two may have been borrowed from the German Army? If so, that might explain the apparent lack of weight saving measures. Not an optimal solution in any case, but better than nothing I suppose.

2 Leopard 2A7/A7NO were recently spotted in Oslo:

@VoodooMany Tanks! It’s always great to hear from people who actually have some hands on experience with these systems, and/or have been more close to them than most people.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Well, the Leopard 2A4M CAN is still called 2A4, but it has not much in common with the old tank in terms of electronics, optics and protection. A new "A*" designation will only be awarded to a Leopard 2 variant once the BAAINBw has tested and qualified it.

I guess ymmv, but to me that redesigned turret is enough of a departure from the A7 to warrant a new designation. And even if they cannot grant it an “Ax” designation, they could always come up with something else entirely, like “Leopard 2 IT-NOR” (improved turret-Norway) to give an example (not a great one admittedly, but you get the idea).

But anyway, assuming I'm wrong, and KMW can convince FMA that they can deliver a reliable solution featuring this new turret by 2025 (or at least not much later), it certainly wouldn’t hurt their chances. That's for sure.

16 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

The direct firing tests were not done at 1400 m, more like 900, FYI.

Feel like sharing your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the PzH 2000 vs the K9?

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Interessting. They had no issues choosing Wisent 2 variants with unproven components and ordering the unproven G5 ACSV.

Different project, different time (the ACSV G5 is also a very curious case since that project originally called for elongated/welded together M113s, not completely new vehicles).

When it comes to the Norwegian tank replacement programme, there seems to be quite a bit of urgency, however, since they want to start fielding the new tanks from 2025. In order to make this possible, they’ve already had to accelerate certain parts of the programme rather than follow the usual procedure, f.i. accepting tenders and announcing the winter trials before the project & funding had even been approved by the Norwegian Parliament. This is also why there is a stated preference for solutions that can be gotten off-the-shelf and/or don't need a lot of development.

Now I do not know how far in the development process the 2Ax variant is, but considering that KMW’s offer is still called “A7NO”, I’m not holding my hopes up for something terribly exciting. This would also explain why the K2NO is based on the regular K2, and not the K2M.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Panzerhaubitze 2000 was eliminated from the Norwegian SPG competition for not mobile enough (and according to rumors for being too expensive). Initial trials with the vehicle revealed an issue while driving on frozen roads/ice. KMW's solution was to increase the number of snow grousers from 8 to something like 48. Installation took less than an hour and fixed the problems, but that's obviously only a workaround at the expense of the crew's time.

There were several reasons for why the PzH 2000 lost out to the K9, not just these two (and it was more the K9/K10 package being great value for money rather than the PzH 2000 being particularly expensive). Anyway, unless the test results are revealed to us at some point (unlikely, but who knows since there is a growing number of countries with access to a copy), this is a fairly fruitless discussion.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

KMW has proposed building new turrets for the German Leopard 2Ax project to reduce weight. Better materials and construction techniques allow reducing the weight of the turret without compromising protection. They also proposed replacing the optical gunner's sight with a purely electronic solution (akin to the Puma's WAO), again reducing weight and improving protection. If the Bundeswehr is really interesting in picking that up, it might enable KMW to make a very attractive offer to Norway aswell.

This is going to be a difficult pitch since the Norwegian Army has made it repeatedly clear that it wants mature and preferably off-the-shelf solutions.

If there are lessons to be learned from the self-propelled artillery trials, my answer would be that the importance of some of the more "unsexy" factors such as reliability, ease of use and ease of maintenance  should not be underestimated. Those are a boon to any army, of course, but they're especially important to one that still relies upon conscription to fill out its ranks.

Edit: Currently, Norwegian tank squadrons are mostly made up of enlisted troops, though, but this will likely not be the case with the new ones they’re planning to raise.

1 hour ago, Rico said:

I think KMW needs just to be pushed a lot to get straight but I think no matter what they do K2 will win.

 

Korea will do almost everything to get a step in NATO marked (which they did with K9 already) and will offer a huge industry cooperation for the launching customer.

My money is still on the Leo 2, but it certainly looks like it won’t be the easy victory I predicted a year or two ago. Ultimately, though, I think the risk of ending up as the sole K2 user in Europe is going to be too much to stomach for such a small country/army, so as long as KMW can manage to produce an acceptable offer that’s not too far behind Hyundai’s, they should be able to take this one home imo.

5 hours ago, Rico said:

 

I think the main reason why we haven't seen 2A7s yet is because KMW will need to reduce weight upfront significantly. 

This is something I have been wondering about as well. If Norway wants a tank with better protection than what an up-armored Leo 2A4 of the P 5050 programme could offer (one of the stated reasons for why it was cancelled), and it has to stay within a weight limit of 62.5 tonnes, then KMW certainly has their work cut out for them. Especially if all of these bell and whistles (RWS, APS, drone recce system etc.) are also wanted.

Interestingly, there was no Trophy to be seen on the K2NO that was offloaded yesterday. I’m not sure if this is because it will be added later or if what we saw in SK was just a mock-up and the real deal hasn’t been properly integrated yet. Or perhaps they’ve concluded that it might be better to remove the Israeli system now that Norway has a left wing coalition government with SV (Socialist Left Party) as supporting party...

It’s a shopped A7DK photo (they’ve added PERI RTWL and SAAB cameras), but it probably gives a reasonable impression of how an A7NO is going to look like.

Still no signs of the two Leo 2A7s (not sure if we’ll see the NO variant or if they’ll just bring a couple of German or Danish vehicles) that are supposed to take part in the winter trials a month from now, but in the meantime I can report that KMW have finally gotten around to update the Leo 2A7NO website that they took over earlier this year. It now matches the design and layout of their own website, but I'm not sure if there are other changes (corrected info etc.).

9 hours ago, Serge said:

Two of them. 

Quite likely since there's supposed to be two from each contender.

Canada

1 hour ago, Rico said:

 

I thought the AVLB might have a higher similarity with your Wisent 2s. Based on your picture they have an APU and 570 track instead of lithium pack and 571 track.  

The AVLBs won’t be transferred to the Army before 2023-24, so it’s possible that this won’t be it’s final configuration. That said, I do find it weird that it doesn’t have APB instead of APU already. Even if it wasn’t necessary to reduce the weight of this vehicle (???), you’d think it would still be a good idea to standardise on one solution.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

German and Dutch Leguan 2 bridge-layers are usually equipped with add-on armor. Interesting to see Norway not fielding it.

Likely a weight saving measure. A while back it was reported that the Norwegian Public Roads Administration have been unwilling to permit the use of tanks/AFVs that are heavier than 62.5 tonnes on our roads, so vehicles like the Wisent 2 and new AVLBs cannot be used in their heaviest configurations. I also suspect that we’ll see similar weight saving measures on the proposed A7NO when it's eventually revealed.

The first of six LEGUAN Leopard 2 AVLB have been delivered to Norway. Note that they will reuse the LEGUAN bridges of the current Leo 1 based NM190.

Source: https://forsvaretsforum.no/forsvarsmateriell-haeren/forsvarsmateriell-har-mottatt-den-symbolske-nokkelen-til-den-forste-bropanservognen-til-norge/223531

Some high-res K2NO photos:

Source: https://www.tu.no/artikler/slik-vil-nye-norske-stridsvogner-se-ut-dersom-de-bestilles-fra-sor-korea/514315#