Gun Ready

20 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

This isn't known (to the public at least). Rheinmetall claims that the Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution reaches a higher level of frontal armor protection than the Leopard 2A5 and would be on par with the Leopard 2A7 (at least this is what they told to Poland when competing against KMW for the Leopard 2PL program) - nobody knows if that is true.

 

The problem with Rheinmetall's upgrade is that the base armor of the Leopard 2 comes in different configurations and thus it depends on which variant is upgraded with Rheinmetall's solution.

 

The Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution comes with improved side armor, mine protection kit, roof armor, slat armor for the engine compartment and improved frontal armor, while weighing only 63-64 metric tons - meanwhile the Leopard 2A7 of the German army (no hull add-on armor,  no roof armor, but mine protection kit) weighs 63.9 metric tons. This means that either Rheinmetall's armor is a lot better than KMW's (which might be true to some extend, as it is thicker; when having two armor array of the same weight and similar technology, using more thickness can result in improved mass effectiveness) - or that Rheinmetall's claims are a bit too optimistic. It is probably a mix of both, at least in terms of multi-hit capability the AMAP package doesn't seem to perform too well.

 

If Rheinmetall's claims were correct, this would mean the Leopard 2 ATD/Revolution is much better protected than the Leopard 2A7 for the same weight.

 

 

Because these systems look good on paper, but perform bad in tests. Germany tested at least three types of APS for the Leopard 2A7V in the last few years and found all of them lacking (in the eyes of Germany, the development has not been finished yet). A small number of Trophy APS systems is being purchased for the Leopard 2 tanks meant to participate at the VJTF, but only as a stopgap measure.

One great disadvantage of the Leopard A4 revolution is that the gunner's sight is not raised and the ballistic gap closed by an additional armour package. This is pretty bad for gunner's and commander's survivability if getting a hit in this weak area.

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!!!

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.

18 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

Nothing public as of yet.

There have been some political bickering between French and German politicians both concerned that the other will get a bigger share than them, disagreement over the future export policy, etc, the usual in a binational project.

The first tidbits of information on it are due by June or July IIRC.

 

http://forcesoperations.com/mgcs-le-5050-a-vocation-a-demeurer-selon-florence-parly/

Very interesting description on the political situation. Many thanks for it. Hope that after that dispute an agreement is found where both sides of the Rhine can live  with!

Has anybody new of MGCS? It's so quiet and one may ask whether it's alive or not any more. Or do we hear more after European Election?

9 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

After seeing more photos and paying attention to more details, I'm absolutely sure that this is a Danish Leopard 2A5, which KMW has upgraded to the 2A7 configuration. There are numerous indicators:

• it is missing a lot of the optional features that KMW has been advertising for the Leopard 2A7+/2A7V, such as e.g. the SPECTUS driver's sight and the FLW 200 RWS
• it has the same storage boxes mounted on the hull, that are only used by the Danish military
• it also features the AMAP-M mine protection kit (which covers a larger section of the LFP and is held by two visible bolts) instead of the Mine-PRO kit installed on the normal Leopard 2A7(+)
• on top of the turret roof, next to the gun mantlet, an Israeli-made search light is installed, identical to the one adopted by the Danish army on the Leopard 2A5DK (and Leopard 2A7DK) for peace-keeping missions
• the turret bustle is extended due to the installation of a climate conditioning system
• the turret roof is not fitted with the bomblet protection kit installed on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A6HEL and Leopard 2A6E, yet the tank features the up-armored version of the PERI R17 - this is again a configuration unique to Denmark

 

 

Many thank for the photo. Now we are sure, Austria is forced to upgrade in the future, too ...

4 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

As far as I know that is the newest showcase tank of KMW having a lot of things proposed. On this basis the customers can do the selection of things they like to get and see it in hardware before, like touch it before get it!

. 

 

 

Would be great to so a photo of the Leo 2 A4 with the Identification plate. Cannot belief that the "kaiserlichen" Austrians showed their old stuff to the " königlichen" Hungarians. If so, what a shame for Austrian Army....

On 5/17/2019 at 1:25 PM, SH_MM said:

Said to be the first one for Hungary:

 

 

 

 

As far as I know that is the newest showcase tank of KMW having a lot of things proposed. On this basis the customers can do the selection of things they like to get and see it in hardware before, like touch it before get it!

. 

On 2/21/2019 at 7:33 PM, Laviduce said:

I used this image to get the lower boundary of the center hull cavities. For the the cavity thickness I used a prototype Leclerc diagram as a reference and two images of the Leclerc front hull under contruction. Using the two images I got a rough ballpark range  of around 590-690 mm using CAD and photomatching techniques. With the prototype diagram i got a thickness of about 620 mm. It seemed like a plausible number so I went with it.

 

 

 

I can provide some more detailed explanation including the sources if someone wants to know. I was very careful in my evaluation.

 

I will use this model to create a vulnerability map:

@Laviduce very good work so far, when can we expect your vulnerability map? What program did you use for creating this model?

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

In the early 1990s, Rheinmetall worked on intelligent munitions for its 105 mm rifled guns and 120 mm smoothbore guns, designed to deal more effectively with helicopters. Two types were in development: a saboted sensor-fuzed rounds with a range of up to 5,000 meters (in case of the version for the 120 mm smoothbore gun) and a muzzle velocity of 1,100 m/s. A second type of saboted ammunition relied on laser-guidance, also providing a range of 5,000 meters and a muzzle velocity of about 1,100 m/s. Both seemed to have HE/fragmentation warheads, but this isn't confirmed.

Is the right in the photo the laser guided one?

The interesting thing will be what is included in the technology demonstrator! May be it will be two or three in the end: one for command & control, one for effectors and one for sensors & target acquisition. And all should get different protection weight and  obility!? My fear is that it may become too close to Leopard 2, Leclerc or EMBT. But the time will show what is really needed in 2023! So only 4 years ahead not so many brand new technologies will be ready that time, I believe.

@Alzoc  Have you seen an equivalent French document for technologies or a time schedule?

@Alzoc  I found at the DGA homepage the following article for DOR: [La STAT] : Initialisation et orientation - L’expression du besoin

I got these photos from a friend participating at a symposium taking snapshots from slides presented by German army procurement officer. They identify the following technology study topics for survivability: active hard kill protection system, passive and reactive armour, combined protection system (whatever this means), and encapsulated crew compartment.

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

FFF and AWF are documents listing sets of requirements, they are not in control of anything, as they are not organizations.

But organisations like Amt für Heeresentwicklung are releasing them. Those guys have requirements how a future MGCS should look like!

39 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Afaik DLR is a German research institute:

 

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)

 

As for the DOR and DOC I'm not familiar with those abbreviations.

Would you mind telling me in what context you found them (if you have a link even better), might help me to answer your question?

 

No, DOR, DOC and DOR are French abbreviations from French DGA and / or MOD. FFF  means Fähigkeitslücke und funktionale Forderungen, AWF means abschliessende wehrtechnische Forderungen.

On 2/14/2019 at 11:39 PM, Alzoc said:

 

I doubt that the EMBT will ever become a serious product.

At best when the Leclerc start being retired and turrets could be canibalized it could serve as the base for an upgrade for existing Leopard 2.

It may also serve as a plateform to test some innovations that will go into the MGCS.

 

As for the political side it was decided that the MGCS program would be German led, while the FCAS would be French led.

It means that Germany might very well chose to award the MGCS contract to Rheinmetal with KNDS being only a sub-contractor, and as we discussed with @SH_MM given the respective size of the companies and their overall know how it is a likely outcome.

Especially since Rhm is currently trying to consolidate it's position as the main European industrial by acquiring controlling interest in BAE and attempting to do the same with KNDS. Ultimately that would be a good thing to have one strong European industrial.

 

On the other hand the FCAS will be led by Dassault with Thales providing most of the electronics, Safran leading on the engine in cooperation with MTU (an agreement has been signed recently).

 

The spirit of both the MGCS and the FCAS is that the two defence agencies will define the requirements, the R&D is then done in cooperation and finally Germany will lead the industrial part on the MGCS with various French company working as sub-contractors and vice-versa for the FCAS.

 

The articles below should give you a nice idea of how both programs are intended to run (at least from the French PoV):

 

www.opex360.com/tag/mgcs/

 

http://www.opex360.com/tag/scaf/

 

 

 

The time schedule requests for different phases: technology demonstrator phase till 2023 and then a total system demonstrator till 2027. This phases are controlled by the German FFF and AWF and the French DOR, DOC and DLR. @Alzoc  can you tell what the French agency abbreviations mean?

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.

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!

@SH_MM Sounds plausible! Thanks for your patent search.

I don't believe that KMW is really using "Schüttgut" like @SH_MM assumes. I think they are using classical NERA protection design against RPGs. This is also good against blast IED, EFPs and art frags as far as I learned. So I state that they are using the same tech as IBD but in there own design and own manufactured.

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.

@Renegade334  as you can see your EDIT hint is working, thanks a lot!

Its an impressive vehicle, isn't it?

Look to the front track skirts, they are not as with Leopard A7, they are more like Leopard A4M Canada, see pic above