Hal

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting/downplaying what was said in it. Here is a snippet.

 

The ISV is not operationally effective for employment in combat and ESD missions against a near-peer threat, as identified in the Validated Online Lifecycle Threat report. The vehicle lacks the capability to deliver effective fires, provide reliable communication, and force protection. The rifle company equipped with the ISVs did not successfully avoid enemy detection, ambushes, and engagements during a majority of their missions. In order to traverse cross country routes and wooded terrain, the unit was forced to reduce their speed, resulting in slowed movement, or maneuvered on improved routes, negating any element of surprise. During missions, the unit experienced numerous casualties, delaying mission accomplishment and degrading its combat power for follow-on missions. The unit concealed their ISVs and drivers close to the objective and dismounted eight soldiers per vehicle to accomplish missions before recovering their ISVs. This action reduced their combat force, exposed the ISVs and drivers to opposing force attacks, and increased the risk of additional combat losses.
During missions, personal weapons were not easily accessible on the move, degrading the ability of the squad to quickly react to enemy actions and ambushes. While the ISV can mount a swing arm for an M240 machine gun, the ability for the soldier to efficiently employ the weapon on the move was a challenge because the soldier’s field of fire was hindered by trees, foliage, and other obstructions when extending the swing mount. Protracting the swing mount also interfered with seated soldier egress from vehicle.

Communication between soldiers, squad leaders, and platoon leader were intermittent and not reliable on the move, degrading their ability to gain and maintain situational awareness at extended range mission between 62 to 300 miles. The ISV does not have a requirement for a mounted communication capability, so each platoon depended on their manpack and leader radios.

The ISV lacks the capability to carry the required mission equipment, supplies, and water for a unit to sustain itself within a 72-hour period. Units operating for longer durations will need to conduct mission planning, cross level-equipment across the unit, or may require additional ISVs to sustain operations.

Not downplaying anything. This is a truck with slightly better than average off road capability, at a relatively low price (because it was adapted from a civilian model). That all it is supposed to be, a truck, a replacement for walking. It does that.

13 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The FY2021 DOT&E annual report is out, the one for the ISV is reaaallllly not flattering.

If it's the report I read, they basically called it a failure because it could not transport a squad in perfect silence, with complete protection from any and all arms, at 100kph, with perfect reliability. I didn't notice if they thought it was over priced as well...

17 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

If they are okay with producing Leos in Spain and Greece, it’s hard to see why they wouldn’t approve of a factory in Poland too, especially if it means securing a contract for up to 800 Leo 2A7V and denying ground to competitors like Hyundai Rotem. Heck, even in Norway, where much less is at stake, it seems KMW are perfectly willing to let the local industry get a substantial share of the work if the reports are true.

But none of this has happened with Poland, even with the stated desire to acquire many more tanks than Spain and Greece combined. German government bias?

I think (and I could definitely be wrong) that the ship has sailed on any additional Leo2 sales to Poland...

4 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

Good statements! One question? Does anybody know whether Poland has a ban on use of Uranium? The latest protection versions of Abrams come with depleted uranium armour. For the delivery to Australia that had to be replaced by tungsten sheets!

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent question. The answer will greatly affect just how good a tank Poland gets - both armor and ammunition. I haven't heard that issue raised in any of the reporting...

I think this decision has a lot of different reasoning behind it. So in no particular order...

No reasonable source of more Leo2s to upgrade to get a uniform force.

Buy new Leo2s from the Germans? Get screwed on the price, no significant industrial bump, and it would still take as long or longer than the M1s. (No, no industrial bump from the Abrams deal either, they're in a hurry - see below)

Time. Leo2s would take longer to deliver in significant numbers and the best of them is arguably not at the level of the very latest M1s. (as long as the Poles are getting the newest armor package and ammunition) The MGCS isn't even planned to start deliveries until 2035 - 13 years after Poland plans to start taking delivery of the Abrams.

A very satisfying thumb in the eye of the Germans and the French (who doesn't like that?). Ignored by them even though the Polish market is at least as large as the planned combined fleets of those countries.

Diversity of suppliers. Despite the logistical challenges, changing political winds are less likely to cut you off from two sources of arms than from one.

The Wilk project doesn't seem on it's way to put tracks on the ground anytime soon.

More trust in the US/Polish relationship than the one that they have with the Germans (historically and currently). Also, a desire to cement that relationship even tighter.

The M1A2C is in production, it's real, it's having the final bugs worked out now. The MGCS is currently electrons and paper. Let's count how many multinational armor projects have failed to produce usable hardware. No, let's make it much easier and count how many have not failed. MGCS may be the best tank ever, it may never actually exist at all. Similar issues with the K2PL (though to a much lesser degree) a new, so far unbuilt, version of a design that still has at least a few issues.

Poland wants to replace most or all of their Soviet derived tank fleet. You might disagree on the need, but it's not your call. Replace the T-72s, then the upgraded T-72s, then the PT-91's - now your tank fleet is down to two types, both Western.

I'm sure I will think of more. That's what I have for now. Worth every penny you paid for it...

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Poland did not look to the K2PL; the K2PL was an unsolicited offer by H. CEGIELSKI-POZNAŃ S.A. (a company with no experiences in making tanks or other forms of AFV) and Hyundai-Rotem. It was not an initative of the Polish government/army.

Not an initiative from Poland, agreed. But, Poland had months to publicly swear that the K2PL was not an option. They never said that (that I am aware of). Doesn't really matter who initiated the offer, it was out there. The MGCS project/politicians ignored a threat to their stranglehold on the future European tank market. They just paid a price for that. Some part of this (not the determining factor obviously) was a public "F*** You, ignore us again at your peril" to the Western European "leaders".

 

It is by all measures a bad deal for Poland. The whole deal is contradictory to the previous decades of Polish defence spending/doctrine.

• total contract value is supposedly up to $6 billion USD or up to $24 million per tank. Obviously in reality it doesn't work like that, because the contract also contains lots of other items (training equipment, simulators, spare parts, technical documentation, etc.) - but the only reason all of that is needed is the fact that the Abrams is a new type of tank for the Polish Army
• Anything not a T-72 or Leopard2 derivative would be new, this was/is going to happen
• local industry involvement in M1A2 SEP v3 is apparently terribly low, at least according to Polish Twitter users. Currently it seems to be zero (all tanks refurbished and upgraded in the US with US standard parts, no "polonization"), but there is hope that support/maintenance contracts and production of spare parts could be taken over by Polish industry
• True, but Poland has decided that they are in a hurry. They get to do that. Poland wanted to be a partner in the MGCS, but the arrogance (possibly just greed) of the Franco/German team (and governments?) was obvious. So they lost a big chunk of the near-term MBT market.
• the M1A2 SEP v3's weight exceeds the maximum weight limit of many Polish bridges. Aside of the costs involved with fitting new torsion bars and running gear elements to the Leopard 2, the capacity of Polish bridges and AVLBs was cited by the Polish Army is a reason for the 60 tonnes weight limit of the Leopard 2PL tank.
• Any idea what the MGCS will weigh? Since it is currently Vaporware, I don't think anyone does. I don't think Polish infrastructure limits were/are a key design consideration
• Poland has reportedly ordered up to 250 tanks, which is enough for four tank bataillons (which in the Polish Army have 58 tanks each), but there is a declared need (based on Polish MoDs plan) for twelve tank bataillons (4 Leopard 2 + 8 other)
• Not "up to" according to my reading - "250 M1A2 SEP v3, along with support vehicles"
• the Polish Army already had a program for a new generation of MBT as part of the Wilk program. The Polish industry had been working on a new design with unmanned turret and autoloader (basically a Polish Armata-lite) to fulfill the requiremenet
• This program is officially continuing, who knows where it might lead, but it wasn't putting tracks on the ground anytime soon
• in previous tank procurement/upgrade programs such as the Leopard 2PL, Poland handicapped itself (paying more, demanding less) in order to involve the local industry in the program. That also includes the transfer-of-technology and rights to a certain degree. All of this was useless with Wilk being essentially canceled thanks to the Abrams purchase
• Officially not cancelled, in reality, who knows. Obviously Poland felt the need (for many reasons, I think) to gain a lot of capability, quickly. The Wilk program didn't seem to credibly offer that.
• the M1A2 SEP v3 is purchased using a "special budget" that is not part of the defence budget - where the money exactly comes remains unknown. There are rumors that PiS wants to use EU's Covid relief fund for the purchased, but that is tied to certain uses. There are also speculations that this special budget needs to be created by cutting other budgets
• Poland's choice. They seem to have decided to try a different path. They're calling it a "pilot programme", I guess we'll see how it goes
• the Polish military has a much more urgent need for other weapons than tanks
• Poland appears to disagree. If I lived in their neighborhood, I wouldn't take a chance on having inferior tanks
• the Polish MoD declared that Abrams tanks were needed to counter the T-14 Armata, which has yet to enter production
• And who knows if it ever will, but it might, and if it's many issues are resolved, production could ramp up quickly, too late then to "start" a program to counter it. Regardless, they need to replace their T-72s and eventually their PT-91s to potentially combat lots of T-72b3s and T-90s

With the $6 bn USD, Poland could have spent one billion on modernizing OBRUM's tank plant and buy the licence to make 250 Leopard 2A7+ tanks, which would have been brand new rather than refurbished, upgraded old tanks. They even could have saved some money, as they wouldn't have the need to set up a complete new infrastructure for a new Leopard 2 variant. Or - which would be even better - a lot of other military projects could have been funded.

Timing matters. They would start getting "new" Leo2s in about 2030

 

In terms of combat capabilities, the Abrams is obviously a lot better than the old T-72M1R and PT-91 - with the exception of the gunner's sight; even T-72M1R has third generation thermals by now.

 

 

Poland already has four tank batallions with Leopard 2 tanks; half of them have the Leopard 2A5 (which is/will be modernized with new third generation thermal imagers made by PCO S.A.) and the other half receiving the Leopard 2PL (which was delayed due to the wish for a greater involvement of the Polish industry). In total there are 249 Leopard 2 tanks in the Polish inventory of which 142 are going to be Leopard 2PLs; not sure where you got the "5 times the number".

 

As for the Polish tank force: it is too large. After the Cold War, Poland kept a huge tank force mostly for industry-political reasons - state-owned workers of OBRUM/Bumar-Łabędy needed to be kept employed. There also was the hope to gain a boost in foreign relations with the sale of Polish-made tanks. From a military perspective, this was a bad decision, as other - more important - capabalities received a lower priority or where even canceled.

Again, Poland disagrees. A survey of their geopolitical situation leads me to agree with them. The landscape has changed drastically since 2014, they are adapting to the changes

 

In reality the obsolete T-72s (and even the PT-91s) had extremely bad avialability rates, broke down often and costed more money than they were worth. Poland should have downsized its tank fleet to a "normal" level (by post-Cold War standards) and modernized the rest of its military. That would have been a lot more reasonable than replacing obsolete tanks that were never needed in the first place.

What's "normal"? They did downsize. The situation changed.

 

 

I didn't know that Greece operates the M1A2 SEP v3

39 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Actually it's also a message to Germany. 

Agreed. Don't involve Poland in MGCS, don't take the hint when they look to the K2PL... Okay, you get nothing.

On 7/13/2021 at 1:45 PM, alanch90 said:

Poland is like a kid on a toy store wanting to buy everything on sale. Next thing is gonna be a Cr2 just to complete the Western Tank Fanboy Collection, practicality be damned. 

Seriously, Abrams pretty much has zero commonality with Poland´s existing Leo 2 fleet. SEPv3 has an ADL which Leo 2 doesn´t feature, so those tanks may not even have ammunition commonality. I gotta wonder the point of this contract if Poland could have upgraded their Leopards to SEPv3-like levels by themselves or via de Germans. I guess this also means that the K2PL might be dead.

More like a guy at a gun shop, whose neighborhood has been overrun by crack dealers and gangs. He needs something good, fast.

Looks like it is back on... (maybe)

https://www.defence24.com/poland-goes-back-to-gepard-direct-fire-support-vehicle-schedule-announced