Gun Ready

A few more photos from the winter trials:
The first two are definitely from the opening event, but they're nice shots that haven't been posted here before, so why not? The third is probably the most interesting shot. At first I thought it was from ADEX, but then I noticed that the RWS is not a Protector Nordic as was displayed there, but a CROWS-LP. In other words, it's probably a more recent shot, and it might also be an indicator that Norway is interested in keeping the profile as low as possible. Well, I don't see any other benefits since it's behind the commander anyway unlike on the Abrams where the normal CROWS got in the way of his vision.

Leopard 2A7V with SAAB Barracuda MCS:
 

 
And here's a neat top-down shot from the winter trials, which also brings me to my next question. Do the tanks of the German Army come with this large box on top? I haven't been able to find any photos of this, so I'm guessing it could be a minor addition for the sake of these trials?
 

Has somebody information on the Leopard 2 / K2 winter trials in Norway and how long they are going?

In mechanized units that already field the Lynx family, sure, it wouldn’t be too much of a burden, but there’s still the question of what's its role is going to be. It doesn't have the protection required to replace MBTs in tank units. There’s also cavalry units, but even these would be better off with MBTs imo (if you’re in a tank on a recce by force mission you’d want the better protection). That leaves tank destroyer units, where they actually make some sense even if they are on the heavier side, but this is also the sort of niche role that most countries won’t be able to afford. In other words, I doubt the Lynx 120 will be any more successful than the CV90120 before it.
 

Commonality is good but a dedicated rear engin Lynx chassis would have been far better. 
The legacy Lynx is too much high, too much heavy to carry such a turret. 

Yeah, I never quite understood the hype surrounding light tanks based on IFV hulls. if you want a tank in the 40-50 tonnes range, there are modernized T-72s, and the Type-10 looks like the better Western option. If you want an actual proper light tank, there is BAE’s MPF proposal and Sprut-SD/SDM1. If you want your tanks and IFVs to be on the same chassis, you either go heavy or you go home imo. The medium weight concept is not going to work out very well (this concept was looked at by the Norwegian Army a few years ago, and ultimately rejected in favour of acquiring new MBTs).

Just to keep it simple with the base K1 and K1A1 the whole family is:
K1: Base model, 105mm KM68A1 
K1A1: Base model, 120mm KM256, improved commander's sight the KCPS
K1E1: Upgraded K1, retains the KM68A1, "digital battlefield control system", improved IFF system with an IFF interrogator above the gun (though not always mounted), driver's front and rear cameras, driver's thermal camera (though not always mounted), GPS
K1A2: Upgraded K1A1, retains the KM256, "digital battlefield control system", improved IFF system with an IFF interrogator above the gun (though not always mounted), driver's front and rear cameras, driver's thermal camera (though not always mounted), GPS
 
There might be more I am missing but most of these features are visually identifiable. 
(https://kookbang.dema.mil.kr/newsWeb/20190104/1/BBSMSTR_000000010263/view.do 
https://post.naver.com/viewer/postView.nhn?volumeNo=17495759)

(https://kookbang.dema.mil.kr/newsWeb/20190201/2/BBSMSTR_000000010263/view.do
https://www.hyundai-rotem.co.kr/Eng/Business/Machine/Business_Record_View.asp?brid=33)

PRP-5 recon vehicle

 

 
 
https://oborona.ru/product/zhurnal-nacionalnaya-oborona/podvizhnyj-razvedyvatelnyj-punkt-pyatogo-pokoleniya-prp-5-43083.shtml
 
It have:
Optical station with TV and thermal imager, laser rangefinder Radar station for reconnaissance of ground moving targets with a phased antenna array emitting a continuous broadband low power signal. 6 km detection of a human, 15 km for a vehicle  Mast device with automatic leveling for lifting optical and radar facilities to a height of up to 6 meters, while providing for the possibility of conducting reconnaissance in the optical range without deploying the mast; -15/+15° depression/elevation, 360° rotation. A remote observation post, which includes the Strelets reconnaissance, control and communications complex, an all-day portable reconnaissance device, an aerial reconnaissance complex with short-range unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with video and thermal imaging cameras for surveillance in day and night conditions  12.7 mm HMG RCWS Navigation system, an information and computing system that processes intelligence from all sources and includes the workplaces of the commander, operator, gunner-radio operator Optoelectronic suppression system for warning of laser irradiation, protection against high-precision weapons by setting up aerosol smoke screens a set of means of communication and data transmission, allowing you to work in an automated control system    

The year is 2157: man has conquered the stars; hover tanks are being fielded by every major power and those who can afford to buy them; lazer and rail gun technologies have completely replaced chemical propelled weapons; nuclear fusion is a common and reliable power source; Britain is still looking to replace their aging fleet of Warrior IFVs. 

Any news from the Norwegian trial?

Some photos of Leo 2A7V in Norway:
 

 

This is from a 2013 even held by the Verein Schweizer Armeemuseum. The man in the photo is Walter Lanz, who some may know from the Lanz-Odermatt formula.
 
https://www.armeemuseum.ch/thuner-schiessplatz-anekdoten-rueckschau/

140mm

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

Just going through some older documentaries on the ROK Army Consolidated Maintenance Depot and discovered what I would consider some neat shots of the K1.
 
Something that you don't get to see clearly often is the hydropneumatic suspension on the K1.

 

If you want to read a really good article about Leopard 2 in Canadian Army then go to
Https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/mdn-dnd/D12-11-19-2-eng.pdf
LCol (ret.) Perry Wells gives a good overview about the Leopard Tank Replacement Project on pages 60 to 69

Chile

https://maavoimat.fi/en/-/firepower-and-interoperability-of-the-army-mbts-leopard-2-to-improve
 
The Ministry of Defence has authorised the Finnish Defence Forces to sign a contract on the firing control system ballistics upgrade for the Army main battle tanks Leopard 2 A4 and 2 A6. The procurement will upgrade the capability of the MBTs Leopard 2 A4 and 2 A6 originally procured from Germany and the Netherlands.
- The upgrade will incorporate into the Leopard MBT fleet the ability to fire new HE/FRAG projectiles in addition to the ammunition already in place. This will significantly improve the MBTs firepower, utilisation opportunities and ability to provide support to Army troops, Inspector of Infantry, Colonel Rainer Peltoniemi from the Army Command says.
 
https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-equipment-news/28776-imi-systems-m339-120mm-tank-ammo-for-finland
 
Press Release, Haifa, 13 January 2020: Elbit Systems announced today that its subsidiary, IMI Systems, was selected by the Finnish Ministry of Defence (Finnish MoD), following a competitive testing by the Finish Defence Forces (FDF), to provide the Finnish Army with the M339, a NATO compliant 120mm High Explosive Multi-Purpose ammunition, and Data Setting Units, for its Leopard 2 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

A render of the NGMBT from Hyundai Rotem's website
https://blog.hyundai-rotem.co.kr/616
 

Canada
 

Leopard 2A4M CAN
 

Based on what? Did South Korea somehow get access to better CPUs and circuit boards in 2008 than Germany did in 2014? Did they somehow produce better thermals years before Germany? How did they end up with a better BMS?
 
The Leopard 2 doesn't have one BMS, it has nearly a dozen. While the South Korean BMS might be better than 1990s IFIS and the old FüInfoSys Heer, there are many different types of BMS integrated into the Leopard 2. Greece uses Rheinmetall's INCHINOS on the Leopard 2A6 HEL, Sweden has the TCCS (Tank Command and Control System), Spain has LINCE integrated into the Leopardo 2E, the German-Dutch Panzerbataillon 414 has tanks capable of operating either with IFIS or with the Dutch ELIAS, Switzerland has a RUAG-made BMS integrated into the Panzer 87WE, Singapore has integrated an Elbit BMS into its Leopard 2SG... the list is long. For the VJTF 2023, Germany has purchased new software from SitaWare... AFAIK the same system is used on the Leopard 2A7DK.
 
 
In terms of technology, I don't see how KMW's offer should be inferior to what Hyundai-Rotem can offer. The Leopard 2A7 is fitted with a Centurion i7 and a KommServer by ATM Computer (a subsidiary of KMW)... that's already overkill for a BMS. Combined these two computers have basically 100 times (or more) the computational power found on M1A2 Abrams and Stridsvagn 122 (pre-upgrade), which already had working types of BMS.
 
Given that Norway was one of the backers of NGVA, they probably demand a solution compliant with STANAG 4754; this would mean that both hardware and software of the current Korean BMS would be incompatible with the Norwegian requirements, whereas KMW already has a fully compliant solution. Software-wise I am 90% sure, that Norway will demand the incorpation of its own Kongsberg ISC, that has already been fielded on the recently upgraded Norwegian CV9030s.
 
 
Two things would need to happen before that:
KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter production KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter service with the ROKA While KSTAM sounds cool, neither KSTAM I nor KSTAM II has evolved beyond the prototype stage. KSTAM II btw. was developed in cooperation with Diehl Defence of Germany, which would have offered the solution on the European market, if development had ever finished.
 
In terms of firepower, K2 is at a disadvantage. Four NATO countries have already committed to the improved L/55A1 smoothbore gun (with two having already taken delivery of tanks with it), the older L/55 gun of the K2 won't allow firing the same high pressure ammunition. The K2 also lacks an ammunition data link to fire programmable ammunition; currently the ROKA uses the K280 HEAT-MP-T round, a conceptual copy of the American M830A1 MPAT round. This cannot compete against the DM11 HE-ABM round.
 
 
That is true, but only if equate "future proofing" with "weight until the GVW is reached". In reality, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Who will pay for the development of upgrades for the K2NO, if it was selected by Norway? Thanks to the LEOBEN community and the shared IP, the Leopard 2 will see upgrade options even once phased out by Germany. Rheinmetall already has showcased a new turret design with 130 mm gun and autoloader, which Germany will not adopt. Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ATD and RUAG Leopard 2 MLU are great examples regarding how there will be upgrade options fo the Leopard 2, that haven't been paid by Germany or any other Leopard 2 user nation.
 
Growth potential will also be dependent on user base (a larger number of user is more likely to fund upgrades or to make the market attractive for third-party upgrade options like the Leopard 2 ATD and MLU) and on compability with the existing architecture. The NGVA is a big improvement for that.
 
In the end the weight will also depend on the configuration selected by Norway. Maybe they'll opt for a Swedish-style configuration with only a few tanks having mine protection kits (for use in peace-keeping missions) and the rest of them being 2-3 tonnes lighter.
 
 
A lot of claims, but many of them are hardly relevant. Radar/Laser warning systems are available for any tank as retro-fit option, most militaries however do not consider them cost-effective (I'd personally love to see them on every AFV). There are also RWS/LWS available for the Leopard 2.
 
Having a radar integrated into the turret has up- and downsides. A radar actively emitts radio waves that can be detected by the enemy from huge distances (depending on equipment) - that might be less relevant against North Korea, but against Russia Norway might be interested in a less emissive system.
 
The "better placement of the radar" is also a silly argument - then you are comparing a Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy APS to a K2 Black Panther - without any APS. KAPS is immature and unproven; it is still in the prototype stage. It also likely would fail to be fully compliant with NATO STANAG 4822 and STANG 4686.
 
Auto-tracking is being incorporated into the Leopard 2Ax's FCS (it is also already available on the Leopard 2 ATD), it will be available in time of the Norwegian tank procurement program. I doubt that the hydropneumatic suspension of the K2 offers better recoil dampening than the hydraulic shock-absorbers of the Leopard 2, specifically given that the latter tank has greater suspension travel.
 
The funny thing about the EuroPowerPack is that it might have "Euro" in its name, but it is not used in Europe. There are no spare parts for it in Europe, they would be build-to-order. The Merkava 4's EPP is built in the United States (so that it can be paid with the money of American tax payers), the UAE's Leclerc tanks (contract finished more than a decade ago) and the South Korean K2 tanks (contract handled by an Asian MTU subsidiary) do not warrant a production line of the EEP in Europe. The latest K2 batch still keeps a Renk transmission btw.
 
 
That is not true, electronic systems can have a massive impact on weight and system complexity, specifically given the usually small power budget available in AFVs. The K2 only has a - rather poor - softkill APS. KAPS development has never been finished, the system is not ready for production.
 
 
Because Trophy is mature and cheap.
 
 
You cannot simply look at total contract value and then assume that this is identical to vehicle price. Hungary pays a lot more money, because they also want training of their crews (something that would be cheaper when switching from Leopard 2A4 to 2A7+), spare parts (which in some regards already exist in Norway thanks to the Leopard 2A4, Wisent and Leguan Leopard 2), infrastructure (already existing in Norway), ammunition, technical documentation, used tanks for training, etc.
 
The real costs of a tank become apparent through its lifetime. Developing upgrades, ordering spare parts, training and exercies. The Leopard 2 is the king in this regard, specifically for a country like Norway, which is part of NATO and is located next to its closest - Leopard 2 operating - allies. It might not be common in Asia, but NATO countries have very deep cooperation. Spare parts, ammunition and even new vehicles are often ordered either through OCCAR (a NATO agency) or as part of bi-/multi-national procurement programs in order to drive down costs. Training together with foreign soldiers or even in different countries is common, just like exchanging knowledge and - if required - spare parts.
 
Buying the K2 would mean major disadvantages for Norway.
 
 
Aside of the fact that KSTAM II only exists as showcase models for old expositions, it would not be able to penetrate the roof armor of the T-14. The T-14 does not have "soft ERA" on the roof. SMArt 155 has a 155 mm diameter warhead and can only penetrate 120-150 mm of steel armor; many modern MBTs can be fitted with add-on armor to stop that (including the Leopard 2). KSTAM II with its even smaller warhead is easy to counter. Defeating TOW-2B is possible with light-weight add-on armor (Roof-PRO and AMAP-R).
 
The T-14 is probably the tank with the best roof armor available today.

Regretfully, I have not done a full CAD model on the Leo 2 (yet), so I can not tackle the volume/mass distribution from that angle in any meaningful way.
 
Here are numbers coming from German and Swiss sources/publications (some of them are somewhat contradictory):
 
This is for a Leopard 2 with B-Technology special armor, as far as i know:
 
Total Combat Weight: 55,15 t / max: 55,55 t
Hull without ammunition, equipment and crew: 37,80 t / max: 38,16 t
Hull Shell: 12,1 t
Turret with armament but without ammunition, equipment and crew: 16,0 t / max: 16,99 t
Turret Shell: 8,91 t
Main gun with breech: 1,97 t (1,995 t is also given)
Main gun without gun mantlet: 3,10 t
Main Gun Tube: 1,20 t
Engine (dry): 2,71 t (with air filters)
Transmission with cooling unit (wet): 2,97 t
Powerpack including cooling unit (wet/dry):  6,05 / 5,61 t
Tracks: 2,70 t
Mass of fuel: 1,03 t
 
Mass distribution in %:
 
Electronic Equipment, Equipment, etc: 7% --> 3,86 t
Armament and ammunition: 8% --> 4,41 t
Powerpack with fuel:15,5 % --> 8,55 t
Running gear/Suspension System/ tracks: 21, 5% --> 11,86 t
Turret and Hull Shell: 48% -->26,47 t   (this is odd)
 
For the Swiss Panzer 87:
 
Combat Weight: 56,5 t
Turret weight with gun: 16 t
Powerpack (wet/dry): 6,12 / 5,57 t
Engine: 2,86 t
Transmission (wet/dry): 2,45 / 2,17 t
Suspension arm with / without damper: 0,226 t / 0,182 t
Torsion bar: 0,059 t
Return Roller: 0,025 t
Idler Wheel: 0,034 t
Idler Wheel arm: 0,11 t
Bump Stop: 0,012 t
Track link mass: 0,033 t
Tracks: 2,75 t
 
More on the gun system:
 
With mantlet: 3,655 t (max 3,8 t)
Without mantlet: 3,015 t
Mantlet: 0,640 t
Gun, Total: 1,905 t
Gun Tube: 1,150-1,175 t
Gun breech: 0,683 t
Gun breech block: 0,110 t
Bore Evacuator: 0,0135 t
Thermal Shroud Front: 0,0135 t
Thermal Shroud Back: 0,0128 t
 
I might find more, but this is it for now.