BaronTibere

I wouldn't be surprised if GDLS wants to develop the AbramsX demonstrator turret into something for this.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/verteidigung-deutschland-startet-neuen-anlauf-fuer-kampfpanzer-allianz/29374860.html

Paywalled article:

Quote

Germany launches new attempt for battle tank alliance

 

Germany, Italy, Sweden and Spain want to develop a new main battle tank. The project competes with the ongoing cooperation between Berlin and Paris.

Berlin, Brussels, Paris    Germany is making a new attempt to develop a successor to the Leopard 2. Led by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall, a new main battle tank is to be designed with partners from Italy, Spain and Sweden, industry and political sources told Handelsblatt. The contracts for the alliance were signed a few days ago, and together the partners now want to apply for funding from the European Defence Fund (EDF). A three-digit million sum is at stake.

The alliance comes as a surprise, as Germany has already signed a cooperation agreement with France. In 2017, the governments agreed on a main battle tank project called Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) to replace the Leopard 2 and the French Leclerc tank from the middle of the next decade. The two countries entrusted the project to KMW and French tank builder Nexter, which have since merged through the joint holding company KNDS. Germany also involved the Düsseldorf-based arms manufacturer Rheinmetall - but this caused resentment in France. The dispute over the division of labor blocked the armaments project. Against this backdrop, the German government is likely to have stepped up planning for the new venture with Spain, Sweden and Italy. With KMW and Rheinmetall, the two heavyweights from Germany are already involved in MGCS. The situation at KMW is particularly critical because of its link with Nexter to KNDS. The German government has put pressure on KMW to be included as a purely German player, it is now said. Sister Nexter is out of the picture, said a person familiar with the plans, "at least for now."

Officially, Germany and France are holding on to MGCS. French government circles would not comment on the German joining forces with other European partners, referring to ongoing talks between Defense Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD) and his French counterpart Sébastien Lecornu. The tank project will be discussed at the planned Franco-German government retreat in early October, the statement said. A spokesman for the German Defense Ministry confirmed in Berlin on Monday that there were delays in the MGCS project. But no decisions had yet been made for or against a continuation, he said. Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit, when asked if he still believed the Franco-German tank project would succeed, said, "Hope always dies last."

KNDS and Nexter would not comment on the new development. "There's still too much in flux," said a person familiar with the proceedings. However, even if MGCS continues to operate alongside the new four-nation alliance, the development is a setback for Franco-German defense cooperation. Already on the Future Combat Aircraft System (FCAS), the governments could only laboriously agree on further elaboration with the participating companies Airbus and Dassault. When it came to the modernization of the joint Tiger combat helicopter, Berlin rejected the idea altogether. Germany and France cooperate on many defense projects. But the cooperation is not easy. The Élysée Palace does its best to promote the French defense industry and also helps with exports in order to strengthen its foreign policy. The federal government, on the other hand, has kept the industry at arm's length for many years and has increasingly restricted the sale of weapons systems abroad. Scholz wants to strengthen the arms industry. It was not until Russia's invasion of Ukraine that Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) gave defense companies a higher priority. The industry is to be strengthened in order to increase the country's defense capability, according to political circles. The German armed forces are to be equipped with new equipment with investments worth billions. Berlin wants to take a leading position in land-based systems in particular. KMW and Rheinmetall are central to this. In addition to the political dimension, there are also other problems. For example, the countries cannot agree on technological elements of the MGCS. France wants a tank that is as light as possible, along the lines of the Leclerc, they say. The vehicle would thus be easier to transport, but the soldiers would be less well protected than in the Leopard 2. The Bundeswehr, on the other hand, traditionally relies on heavy armor, which makes the tanks heavier and bulkier. Brussels officials confirmed the new tank initiative, which also involves Sweden's Saab and Italy's Leonardo Group. The business alliance hopes to receive funding from the European Defense Fund. This is endowed with a total of eight billion euros, of which 5.3 billion is available to support cross-border defense projects. 

 

The grants are intended to help bring Europe's fractured defense sector closer together and develop military capabilities "crucial to the strategic autonomy and resilience of the Union and its member states."
In preparing for the EU's new "Strategic Compass," which member states adopted last March, the European Defense Agency (EDA) had identified six fields with the greatest potential for joint development and procurement projects: Main Battle Tanks, Soldier Battle Systems, Airspace Defense, Improved Deployment Capability, Space Defense and Patrol Vessels. If several countries develop a tank jointly, this has the advantage, in addition to lower costs, of reducing the variety of types in European armies, which makes logistics and spare parts supply easier. In the meantime, other countries such as Poland had also signaled their interest in participating in MGCS. But nothing came of it. In Brussels, it is an open secret that Chancellor Scholz is skeptical about defense cooperation with France. Diplomats report that Germany is frustrated by the fact that economic benefits from these projects in the past have mainly gone to the French. Scholz now wants to prioritize German interests, even if Franco-German relations suffer as a result. Warning against small-scale statehood,
critics fear that the disagreements between Berlin and Paris will thwart efforts to Europeanize the defense industry. "The nation-state small-scale structure of the European defense industries is and remains a problem. This leads to higher unit prices and an unfortunate lack of compatibility in our national capabilities," said David McAllister (CDU), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the EU Parliament. The idea of pulling together across Europe to develop a next-generation battle tank should therefore not be abandoned, he said. "The different ideas must be harmonized without delay," McAllister demanded. "An end to the Franco-German partnership on this major project would have a devastating external effect - within the European Union and beyond."
 

I've heard rumors the UK is going to retain the warrior now into the 2030s, hence the reverse camera upgrade.

Turret looks like the early Shir 2 type that was fitted to the Chieftain PIP

Comparing end weights between SepV2 and V3 is also a bit short sighted, wasn't there significant weight savings inside on things like wiring?

30x173 is also a NATO standard, the only part I could see being incompatible with other manufacturers might be the datalink for the airburst rounds.

3 hours ago, Korvette said:

I believe Trojan was on 8a beforehand already.

Titan and Trojan are on 8A with the Omani style cooling, CRARRV is an older vehicle and is on the 6A standard along with the CR2.

The CRARRV is currently on the 6A so its possible those are being brought to 8A while the CR3 will alone have the 9A. If you consider that contract is from before the CR3 was decided on its entirely possible its been superseded. And afaik the TN-54 was always rated to a max of 1500hp, and the website for it currently says that's an option.

I think its best to wait for more specific information on the CR3 but I thought this was an interesting bit of information.

Comments on a facebook group from someone claiming to work for babcock doing engine rebuilds, apparently the CR3 will use the CV12 9a spec, not the 8a previously assumed.

I've seen posted elsewhere that poland is severely lacking in transports for heavier tanks, and garages for even the existing leopard fleet.

24 minutes ago, Korvette said:

If for some reason the L94 magically had a 1000mm barrel then you might as well have fitted a 50 cal in there. Half of all the measurements are entirely unfounded. The only thing I'd agree with is the measurements of the yellow pieces, both of which are incredibly inefficient usages of space due to the design.

He's said in the past that the L94 on the CR2 is slightly longer and posted this image a while back (horrible quality)

I don't particularly trust this source either but he does have access to the actual vehicle so its very possible and i dare say likely that at least some of these numbers are from actual measurements, and not scaled from the drawing. That said I wouldn't trust them without seeing his actual measurements.

This should really shake up UK procurement.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The Leopard 2's turret ring diameter is stated to be 2,200 mm in Paul-Werner Krapke's book. That would be slightly more than 85 inches.

Good to know, I was using Ogorkiewicz who gives the leo 1 and 2 at 1980mm and the M60/M1/Chief/CR1/CR2 at 2159mm.

10 hours ago, Korvette said:

Nobody said he's not a lunatic that he's a reliable source but he said something rather important that can't just be dismissed.

I'm neither dismissing what he's said (entirely) or making any predictions on how the CR3 will look, but I am actually reading what he writes and identifying the rather obvious errors. There's no evidence that the CR3 turret construction will be based on the Revolution (aside from the bustle ammo storage, which does seem leopard-like), which is an upgrade for a 2A4 turret. If Rh was given the go ahead for a new turret design without constraints to the dimensions like LEP was, you're correct that retaining the CR2 geometry would not be ideal (and I never claimed this) but it would be equally silly to adopt a the geometry and construction from an unrelated tank and it certainly has nothing to do with the turret ring size.

You're giving Drummond far too much credit.

Drummond has been repeating this line about the revolution lately and this tweet really drives it home. Now the CR2 inherited its turret ring size from the CR1, who inherited it from Cheiftain. The turret ring size of chieftain is, afaik, identical to that of the M60 because in the 50s and 60s the US and UK thought it would be a great idea if their new tanks could swap turrets. Why they thought that I don't know, however what it means is that the Abrams and CR2 should in theory have the same size turret rings. Both of which are slightly larger than that of Leopard 2, as Leopard 2 inherited it's turret ring size from Leopard 1 - presumably owing to the origins of the Leopard 2 program. So why he thinks that it's smaller is beyond me. I do believe the original LEP requirement was to maintain the existing turret dimensions, as the original requirement didn't call for a new gun or additional armour, which is presumably why Rheinmetall's LEP proposal looks fundamentally the same as a CR2 turret.

I think he was told or read something along the lines of Rheinmetall basing it off the revolution and he's taken that at face value and assumed it meant the physical turret. While the rear end of the LEP/CR3 probably shares leopard 2 physical features I don't believe this relation really has anything to do with the turret shell. Have a read over Rh's page on the revolution and you'll see that the entire point was about the guts of the turret, the systems and is described as a modular upgrade suite. If anything on the CR3 is going to be based on the Revolution, my money would be on everything but the turret shell. I think LEP/CR3 is the systems of the Revolution with some adaptation to more agreeable MoD suppliers (namely Thales) and compatibility with the UK's GVA.

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/detail_1408.php

Drummond, works for KMW, and still thinks the leopard 2 turret ring is larger than a Challenger 2's.

12 hours ago, David Moyes said:

CR3 turret is apparently just Rheinmetall's Revolution turret:

Drummond might be the worst possible source for this. I believe the relation to the revolution is about the internal layout and stations (although even then the exact equipment is not the same) including the gun and ammo storage, not the physical turret construction. Drummond is either senile or just spreading misinformation these days.

10 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that DU can not be used as a structural material welded together with steel. I may have read an outdated info but I found only a diffusion welding with vanadium filler as a possible way how to weld DU and steel together (in relatively small thickness). I doubt it can be used for any large structures such as tank hulls or turrets. 

Doesn't the NRC license for the M1A2 DU mention it being encased in stainless steel? I would assume it needs to be insulated from other metals to avoid any galvanic action.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf

I also grabbed the wrong image earlier with the CR2 mantlet description. The side triangles, "envelopes", were described separately:

He also gave this description which matches the images seen above:

Quote

The mantlet envelopes though (the triangular shaped bits either side of the barrel and TISH barbette are 250mm thick (LOS) and hollow in the rear/lower corner (when viewed from the front) which is where the TISH cables feed through into the turret through the same aperture as the GAS.

On 5/23/2021 at 3:18 PM, David Moyes said:

I had a catalogue that listed available products through Thales UK but can't find it now.
 

This was shown to me recently:

http://www.physics.gsu.edu/qwip2006/Presentations/Thales Long Wave QWIP - Eric Costard.pdf

Namely pages 9 and 10. It lists the locations for each sight and the detector (both are french). Previously I assumed that Catherine was basically a rebrand of the Stairs C developed for the UK BGTI program but it would seem not!

There was a certain member of a certain game related forum who was leaking like a broken faucet and provided this text excerpt from the challenger 2 aesp in regards to the mantlet armour. Can't say anything about its authenticity but it would suggest the use of higher grade metals was indeed part of challenger 2

[image removed]

Interesting information on Nexter's 120 SHARD ammo:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions

Redesigned sabot to use part of the barrel forward of the breech to hold more propellant.

38 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

Catherine range is British.

IIRC the MP is made in Glasgow but the XP is made in France, and both use French detectors. But I guess its less french than say SAFRAN.