Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Rico

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rico

  1. There is no Leopard 2A7NO right now. This vinter a Leo 2A7 will compete against K2M in a qualification test which will lead to a purchase decision. Based on their AEV it was fitted for Tarian RPG protection and E-tech armor.
  2. There are a few things the Norwegians already use that are different to 2A7 right now regarding weight. I had a chance to see their WiSENT 2 AEV and saw that they use 571 instead of 570 track. This is 420 kg less. They use a Lithium battery pack instead of APU which is 120kg less. Side skirts are much lighter as well. So there are many ways to reduce weight.
  3. Depends. Qatar's 2A7+ has a RWS (FLW200) and SA cams. German 2A7 had a Front and rear camera when shown in Munich 2019 but never had a RWS.
  4. Looks pretty immature this K600 vehicle compared to known mine breacher vehicles with all that open cables and hydraulic hoses.
  5. As far as I remember WZM and FFG teamed to produce WiSENT at WZM. Not sure how the current status is but demonstration was done years ago in DK. https://www.defence24.com/polish-army-eyes-acquisition-of-heavy-armoured-recovery-vehicles
  6. Coming back to the topic. From a strategic points it is not bad to have Poland focussing on MBTs. I think from a NATO (or EU - to take Sweden and Finnland into account) perspective it makes actually sense that way. Sulwalki gab is our most important defence line which was not able to hold for more than a few days acc. to Polish simulations - which will significantly change based on that M1 deal. Whereas the Baltics have 0 chance to hold line in that scenario as well which is why their acquisitions focus on howitzers (K9, M109, PzH2k) which are used to delay enemy movements. Germany is in that role to bring in quick response forces (which is maybe not their key ability) but they are training that together with Poland and US (Noble Jump). Further this is a key element of every eFP rotation.
  7. In general I agree with many things you said especially regarding Polish industry and military losing a lot but I still think that we shouldn't see that negative. - US are the main eFP support in Poland. Means they are working together closely which will benefit if they share material usage (M1, M88 and other support vehicles that might be covered by this deal). US are spending a lot of money in Poland which is paid back in some way right now (Trump logic). - Poland gets some real security boot on short term (Leo 2A7 would mean 5-7 years until the first ones would have arrived - and PiS is doing politics against Germany for a long time so Leo2 wouldn't be an option until different party takes over). - Leo 2 wins against K2 because Poland and Norway will not acquire it (speculation I know) - MGCS wins because Italian initiative is losing speed if Poland goes for M1 and Italy/Spain might join (speculation I know)
  8. Relax guys. I do honestly think that it is something good for NATO and Europe as well. It is a clear statement towards Baltics and all neighbours and a clear message towards Russia. Doesn't't matter if EU partly paid for this (including myself) or not.
  9. Interesting discussion regarding K2/L2 but too much techical arguments. You need to see it that way. K2 is challenging L2 so it needs to be >way better< than L2 to win (not just a bit). Which is not the case Whereas - Leo 2A7V is available in numbers which has proven its capability. - K2NO isn't existing in hardware right now which is a very high risk (now that Poland left) to go with for a "small" user nation. - Topics like 130mm and APU are future music so far. -> Big point - K2 is not NATO whereas all neighbours are using Leo 2A7 or 2A6. -> Industry cooperation is the game winner in that acquisition (as Laser Shark already wrote -which KMW has already shown in Stridsvogn 122 project). = So as long as Leo 2A7 fulfills the requested requirements there is 0% chance for the K2 to win except K2 offeres extraordinary industry cooperation.
  10. Still I would like to see L2 and K2 being compared against each other to see what the K2 is like.
  11. Looks like a decision is likely to be influenced from the outside. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/07/09/poland-could-purchase-m1-abrams-tanks-from-us/
  12. Welcome to Rheinmetall lobbyism which will clearly end in Lynx being chosen. I am not saying it is a bad choice but if military aspects would count CV90 would be the way to go for.
  13. Is there any current feeling/rumours/in between statements how Redback and Lynx are doing and which one is doing better?
  14. Nothing strange about it. NATO is still using a lot of them - not MBTs but ARVs, BARV, AEVs, AVLBs etc. Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latwia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands and Germany have hundreds still in service (just to name a few countries I am certain about).
  15. Büffel is a Bergepanzer 3 (Leo2 chassis) but they got some Bergepanzer 2 (Leo1 chassis) for their Leo 2A4 (leasing to train Leo2 until Leo 2A7 arrive). Poland got 28 Bergepanzer 2 when they got Leo2A4 and 2A5 from Germany. Seems like they need some more power for those and upgrade them. Hungary indends to use Buffel for Lynx and Wisent 2 for Leopard 2A7. No idea why since Lynx has much lesser weight than Buffel/Wisent2. Assume they got the Buffels for free in the Lynx deal since Wisent 2 was ordered a year upfront.
  16. Let's wait and see then. I have been told that FFG is including lots of weight reduction measures and I guess that Leo 2 will do some sports to loose weight as well. Looking forward to hear the outcome of upcoming vintertests. So if K2 outperforms Leo 2 I will appologize for my critic but don't blame me for being the one joking if Norway is the only one operating a orphant tank in 2030.
  17. Hard to say anything in that context except that I don't get it. As far as I know Poland will aquire Leo 1 and Leo 2 vehicles this year with no sign of K1/K2. Maybe there will be a K2PL but it won't be fast. Even the Brits noticed that having their own single tank is not too smart and moved as close towards Leo 2 as they could (without doing political suicide).
  18. Industry reasons are relevant if you can produce all spare parts in Norway. As Hyundai says they will still produce the core components in Korea which means you can wait a lifetime for spares while waiting to get your powerpack maintained whereas you can do the same for your Leopard 2 engine at dozens of companies or ask your neighbors to borrow some spares. I think it is smart to push KMW into a position to do local work and involve local companies for assembly, cables and stuff like that. But in the end military reasons should be more important than industry support.
  19. I see this more as disadvantages. New stuff like APS, APU and GSE (RWS, ICS etc.) is already part of Leopard 2 design (no risk) but NOR would be first user if they go with K2 in that direction getting to know the child sicknesses. Biggest advantage is still lower weight for heavy snow.
  20. That is true indeed but it is fair to say that almost every user/customer is complaining about Rheinmetall grapping all coins they can get and doing quite hard sales practices.
  21. Well, Flensborg is Danmark's southernmost port that is located on the German borderside. If you be there you will understand - it is simply a mix of both countries and so is FFG on my opionion. It is true that M133 upgread led to G5 but G3 and G4 are/were used in DK as well. Wisent 1 and Wisent 2 have both lots of input from Danish user side in their veins and Bundeswehr rejected both (BPz2000 and Wisent 2 AEV) for a worse technical solution.
  22. Well, FFG is partly more a Danish company than a German one as I see it. At least the northen axis is much stronger in its relationship than down south incl. German Bundeswehr. That might be why their products are seen in a different way from Danish perspective. Personally I think that the G5 was/is very good in performance but the prototype production quality could not reach quality of CV90. But that might be prototype VS series. Lets wait and see when the ACSV gets a chance to show some muscles.
  23. Love to see old Leopard 1 vehicles getting what they deserve. Easy and smart to do some enhancements and they still do a very good job. I would guess that additional Leo 2 support will mean that the 2A4 hulls will be used for that since there is almost nothing else available. But most interesting part will be to see if there will be some K2NO.
  24. No problem with promoted information but am I the only one not liking that trashy looking red/white webside? Doesn't look very professional to me.
×
×
  • Create New...