Rico
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Rico
-
-
Is that standard Leopard 2 testing?
-
14 hours ago, Laser Shark said:
...
That should mean some work for Ritek in the next years.
Is Hägglunds Moelv still alive for NM189 and NM217 ?
-
Well, Leguan and Wisent 2 are both based on Norwegian Leo 2A4 and are reworked. Same could be done for the MBT.
Leo 2A7 are old hulls with new stuff inside as well (for DK and GER at least).
So I don't see why an upgrade should be deemed.
The prices that I have seen for Wisent 2 in Norway (documents from NDMA) are ~6.5 mio €/vehicle which is much less compared to a brand new MBT (I think a new 2A7 is ~11 mio. €). That seems quite a good reason for an upgrade.
-
Yes, FFG is doing a lot in Norway:
Wisent 2
ACSV
Pasi XA-203N
But do you think they could/would do a Leo 2 upgrade?
-
Norway has clearly stated to go for 2% NATO goal which means there will be more money available (currently 1,7%).
The Leo 2A4NOR is much too old to cancel that program.
I don't think that EMBT is an option since this is has no launching customer yet (and smaller NATO countries always try to avoid that risk) which is true for CV90 with 105mm as well. It will be K2 or Leo2 for sure.
-
Well they bought Leguan, Wisent 2 ARV and Wisent 2 AEV. It seems a bit stupid to complain about "being too focused on the German alternative" If all support vehicles are based on Leopard 2.
One main point I see why 2A7V could not be an option is weight. Driving in heavy snow with ~70t could be tricky (not mentioning transport on roads).
Besides that I do pretty much agree Mogens Mogenssens article.
-
11 hours ago, Rike1985 said:
Does anyone have confirmed info that is there new flat screen(s ) (thermal image display) for commander in the latest Leo 2A7V? There is some picture on the internet from the commander station of the first Leo 2A7 variant where there is old CRT still there? Some new display on the right, but thermal imager screen is still old CRT? And some BMS display between that thermal imager screen and some new display?
Edit also same question concerning driver CRT display
German Leo2A7 are part of the DLBO (Digital Landbased Operations). For that the vehicles will get new displays (to show the BMS) I assume that it will be this display (but this project is still in progress so the first 2A7 might not have it yet):
https://www.atm-computer.de/19758-ZG9tPWRvbTEmbD1lbiZzdGFydD0x-/products/VistaMaster.html
Further the Leo2A7 has the Spectus thermal imager in front and rear
https://www.hensoldt.net/products/optronics/spectus-drivers-sight-system/
This requires a new display as well.
-
university for defence technology
lol... as if such thing would exist in Germany...
-
I don't see a real interest for that.
So far most customers that had Leo2 in service are going for Upgrade to 2A7 or some parts of the upgrade package.
Others that want to get rid of their cold war equipment aim for K2.
France and Britons upgrade their own MBT.
Nobody seems even a bit interested in the EMBT.
-
Leo2 was sold to QAT by KMW. Why should Rheinmetall cause trouble in that case?
-
11 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:
@Laser Shark With all the news of new Leos being upgraded and bought: Any news on Norway upgrading their Leo2A4s?
On the same note there are talks in Austria of upgrading their A4s and the czech are also looking to replace their T-72s.
Poland is probably also in the upgrade market with their A5s and A4s.
Its probably getting very busy for KMW and RHM
Well, there is a strong claim from Chief of the Army to have more MBTs.
I think the aim is to have 5 MBT Batallions but there is not much ressources available right now since KMW is pretty overbooked with Leo2 DK, HUN, GER.
Leguan production is on max load as well.
Regarding Rheinmetall - hard to say. Based on what can be read the Leo2 PL project is running quite bad so I don't know if other Leo2A4 nations are looking for this option to upgrade their fleets. But this seems to be the only valid option if NOR, AUT whats to improve something in the next 5 years.
If its just about maintaining the current systems for NOR, AUT - I don't know if FFG is an option as well. The Wisent Platform is on Leo2A7 level (drive line) and they are doing maintenance for the Leo2 of GER.
-
I agree with SH_MM.
Leo2 is in competition against other western MBT. So the industry has a will to improve which is not only forced by the current customers (that have an influence due to changed operational use of the leo2 as well).
Further the Leo2 has competitors within
Leo2A7 VS Leo2 Revolution
Wisent 2 VS Kodiac
Wisent 2 VS Buffalo
This gives constant improvements in a faster way than others do.
So bringing MGCS to a similar situation should be the best for the end product.
-
As far as I know the version 2A7V has the new German C4I and can fire a new ammunition type but it is intended to replace the naming 2A7V by 2A7 once all German vehicles have the same configuration.
Right now they have 20 2A7 and a total of 104 (some A4, A6, A7) will be brought to 2A7V. After that all will be named 2A7.
-
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:
There is the results of the Swedish trials:
Leclerc
Leopard 2 Imp
M1A2
Körd sträcka
3.000 km
3.730 km
3.800 km
Använt bränsle
41.400 liter
26.874 liter
56.488 liter
Bränsleförbrukning
138 liter/10 km
72 liter/10 km
148 liter/10 km
Avlossade skott
235
271
289
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm
So the answer is a lot more than a classic diesel but not much more than a turbocharged engine.
Very nice report for reading. That gives quite some input.
Besides that shows that the examinors from Sweden think that the Leo2A6 seems bit better than M1A2 (regarding the discussion above).
-
On 10/27/2019 at 10:24 AM, DIADES said:
I am certainly not any king of expert on US fuel logistics. I do know a little about that particular topic as it applies to the ADF. I can assure you that if our Abrams were ever deployed that we could not keep them fueled.
The total fuel required by an army is important but it is critical that any particular element, MBT for example, has the fuel needed as and when and where needed. In the case of an armored advance, it is very easy for MBTs to out run fuel supply - as history shows us, over and over. AFV fuel consumption is a tactical limit that translates directly into a strategic limit. An Abrams burns more fuel per tactical track kilometer than a Leopard or a T90 or anything else Diesel powered.
Just to get a feeling how much fuel does the M1A2 consume?
I know this is difficult to answer since this based on terrain but the Leo2 consumes around 10-12l Diesel when the Engine is running but the vehicle is not moving (this should be comparable independent of the terrain).
-
This sign indicates the Military Load Classification. Leopard 2A7 is ranked with 70. This doesn't have mean that they weight that much (real weight might be around ~66t) but a bridge that such a vehicle needs to cross needs to be built up for the number of tons that is written on the sign.
-
I think the turret can be turned 180° around to get out. In addition through the floor (if they don't have mine protection).
-
-
23 hours ago, heretic88 said:
In this video it is clearly seen that the ABV is struggling with pushing only a few m3 of soil, this is absolutely nothing for a D9/D275, which have the blade capacity of around 16-17m3.
Well the ABV is not really an optimized engineer vehicle.
But you are right D9 looks very nice if it comes to earth moving. Sadly I haven't found any data regarding the earth moving capacity of the D9. I think a large blade gives a good hint but volume /weight per hour would be nice to compare it.
Terrier CEV has 300t/h
Wisent 2 AEV has 600t/h (~1m3 = 1,5t)
http://www.military-today.com/engineering/wisent_2.htm
Nevertheless, the D9 has less speed, protection and no mine plow or excavator. So it has lots of missing engineer functions if you want to use it in combination with other military vehicles.
-
I don't think that wheeled AEV with a functions like Mine Breaching will work. The Plow requires much more traction on the ground than a wheel vehicle can generate.
Dozer in heavy terrain (mud, clay/rocks mix, ice/rocks mix etc.) has the same issue.
UAE uses Leclerc MBT+ARV but Wisent 2 AEV due to the mentioned reasons.
-
https://www.janes.com/article/90049/france-to-seek-new-engineer-vehicle
I have seen Leclerc ARVs but no AEVs so far. Is the idea of the request to put that dozer on Leclerc chassis?
-
Besides there is a guy on youtube telling some news about is but I won't call it a source worth to trust.
-
Well, there is some news that RLS wants to go ahead with the Lynx platform and create the MBT based on that. So 1 platform for IFV, MBT, support vehicles etc.
From my perspective this makes pretty much sense since it is the same idea for the boxer (everything modular but based on one platform).
But since KNDS wants to have some piece of the cake as well this is slowing down the whole project.
-
Looks quite like a flag of Russia on it... (exchange green by blue).
Great military tactics. Hiding under the cloak of the enemy so this is how the EU tries to improve its defence skills.
French flair
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
It simply >looks< like French engineering...