Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

So should these projects be added under “failed French-German cooperation projects: part 2: revengance!”? 

 

I think the main problems is there are too many paralell R&D capacities, and both countries want to retain it' capabilites in certain areas. I mean if the 130mm gun will be accept for the MGCS the development of the 140mm gun will be sunk cost for the Nexter and it very probably means the end of large caliber gun development at the Nexter.

If we look at the Fremm frigates we can see that more or less just the ships' bodies are common. The sensor suits, weapons differs significantly on the french and italian ships. In the case of MGCS in theory it can design to it can use both the Nexter' and RM' IT architect and Thales/Hensoldt sensorsuits. Indeed, this solution will rise the costs significantly. But to design a turret which can fit to both the 130 and 140mm gun and the different autoloaders...uhhh...

IMHO french are a bit cheeky as they are the leaders of the FCAS but in the case of MGCS (which is lead by - in theory - the Germans) they want it will be made by the KNDS in which the Nexter has a higher share

another problem is that the industrial partners participating in MGCS and FCAS are different, so it is not very possible to come up with some kind of compensation: if I get less work from FCAS, I ask for more from MGCS

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, after a lot of thought on the subject (and absolutely 0 research :D), I see 2 ways this could still work out for them. I will clarify that this is a pragmatic approach where both parties benefit insomuch that they still have an MBT industry after this takes place. 
 

  1. Both nations build the tank with their respective industries. I was generally under the impression that the companies were arguing over who’s ideas the other would have to build, like “one nation proposes one thing. The other: another; and they would bid between those options”, or something sensible like that. Now? I don’t know what they’re doing. 
     
  2. If the situation is only one nation should build the new euro tank (as hilariously retarded as that would be, but is what I’m understanding from that article alzoc posted), the industry should obviously go to France. Germany already has the massively successful leopard 2 which will keep their industry alive and busy for another 2 decades. The leclerc is not as successful, and although the Caesar is an export success, that won’t replace the jobs and whatnot required by the industry. 
     

I know I’m missing some context, and I know I could very well have this whole situation backwards and nothing I said makes any sense, but I (possibly deludedly) think it’s a good idea to have an idiots opinion on the subject. After all, if you can’t effectively explain something to an idiot, how could it possibly be explained to a politician :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, speziale said:

I think the main problems is there are too many paralell R&D capacities, and both countries want to retain it' capabilites in certain areas. I mean if the 130mm gun will be accept for the MGCS the development of the 140mm gun will be sunk cost for the Nexter and it very probably means the end of large caliber gun development at the Nexter.

If we look at the Fremm frigates we can see that more or less just the ships' bodies are common. The sensor suits, weapons differs significantly on the french and italian ships. In the case of MGCS in theory it can design to it can use both the Nexter' and RM' IT architect and Thales/Hensoldt sensorsuits. Indeed, this solution will rise the costs significantly. But to design a turret which can fit to both the 130 and 140mm gun and the different autoloaders...uhhh...

this hits the nail on the head. i think the French position is understandable when you consider that German companies (KMW, Renk, MTU, DST) will almost certainly get the lead role in designing the automotive components for the tank. Nexters capabilities for heavy tracked vehicle mobility were severely reduced  by the end of Leclerc manufacturing. So France was hoping to get the lead on the turret and armament, arguing that they had the superior technology based on the Leclerc. From the german perspective, most innovation in MGCS will be in the Turret and weapon system (see Panther, EMBT) so as the lead on MGCS the want the biggest share. But that would leave only electronics for France and even there a possible entry of Italy and Leonardo into MGCS could mean giving up even more workshare.

Imo the French complaints about MGCS mirror the german ones about FCAS and so the German desire to link these 2 together makes sense even, bith that makes both programs an organisational nightmare.

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:
  • Both nations build the tank with their respective industries. I was generally under the impression that the companies were arguing over who’s ideas the other would have to build, like “one nation proposes one thing. The other: another; and they would bid between those options”, or something sensible like that. Now? I don’t know what they’re doing. 
     
  • If the situation is only one nation should build the new euro tank (as hilariously retarded as that would be, but is what I’m understanding from that article alzoc posted), the industry should obviously go to France. Germany already has the massively successful leopard 2 which will keep their industry alive and busy for another 2 decades. The leclerc is not as successful, and although the Caesar is an export success, that won’t replace the jobs and whatnot required by the industry. 

i think everyone agrees that most or all components should be single-source

My preferred solution, even if its not very realistic, is to let Dassault build the Plane, KMW the Tankhull and Rheinmetall the Turret while Airbus and Nexter only act as subcontractor. To make up for that both companies could get the lead on projects that are not essential to the main platform. So a MGCS equivlent of Airbus getting the ucav lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
On 4/4/2023 at 5:12 AM, alanch90 said:

This was bound to happen. French politicians started talking about replacing the Leclerc not with the MGCS but by something developed on the basis of EMBT. And yes, it makes a lot of sense.

https://www.opex360.com/2023/04/02/un-depute-suggere-de-remplacer-le-char-leclerc-par-lebmt-de-nexter-et-de-krauss-maffei-wegmann/

This could allow them to get something mutch faster and could make use of Leopard 2A7+, 2S8 and AX production because if i remember it right all have the same hull

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 11:25 AM, SnakeKqcke said:

This could allow them to get something mutch faster and could make use of Leopard 2A7+, 2S8 and AX production because if i remember it right all have the same hull

There are many factors working against MGCS right now and that stem from the slow pace of development, estimating an IOC by 2040. 2040 is a very long time, not only France and Germany might not want to wait that much (and hence suffer a capability gap) but the world weapons market (more urgently, the European) might not want to wait either. If any other "next generation" tank becomes available during that time gap, then it will swallow up a potentially huge share of the market that MGCS was projecting to get. This is why the South Koreans and Rheinmetall are moving faster with things such as KF-51 (it is marketed as a "next generation tank") or the "K3", they are smelling blood on the water.

So, what options does France have? After all, Leclerc got a few customers. I think the best option (for KNDS interests) is to further develop the EMBT, incorporating as many MGCS technologies and requirements as possible while avoiding the "blanck sheet design curse", and offer it as an upgrade kit for existing Leopard 2 and Leclerc hulls. That way they can engage the existing market and offer something faster than the competition. This is also the same strategy that Rheinmetall is using with the Panther, but they are in a more vulnerable position because at present they lack the manufacturing facilities to work on Panther orders (they want to set up a factory in Ukraine but that will depend on what will happen with that country in the near future). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Europe will end up on M1 as most of Euro tanks will end up being scraped in Ukraine . No one is going to be buying Leclerc or Leopard after Ukraine and honestly manufacturing in Europe is getting killed by green new deal being showed down every ones throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

Looks like Europe will end up on M1 as most of Euro tanks will end up being scraped in Ukraine . No one is going to be buying Leclerc or Leopard after Ukraine and honestly manufacturing in Europe is getting killed by green new deal being showed down every ones throats.

 

KMW is getting more orders for Leopard 2 tanks (and negotiating with further potential customers) than before the Russian attempt to invade Ukraine. So it is quite the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mr.T said:

Looks like Europe will end up on M1 as most of Euro tanks will end up being scraped in Ukraine . No one is going to be buying Leclerc or Leopard after Ukraine and honestly manufacturing in Europe is getting killed by green new deal being showed down every ones throats.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

KMW is getting more orders for Leopard 2 tanks (and negotiating with further potential customers) than before the Russian attempt to invade Ukraine. So it is quite the opposite.

 

 

If more European countries other than Poland end up choosing platforms other than Leo 2 it will depend mostly on urgency of costumers to get new things and the production rate that KMW can achieve. IIRC the production rate for Leo 2 was extremely low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/17/2023 at 7:58 PM, alanch90 said:

There are many factors working against MGCS right now and that stem from the slow pace of development, estimating an IOC by 2040. 2040 is a very long time, not only France and Germany might not want to wait that much (and hence suffer a capability gap) but the world weapons market (more urgently, the European) might not want to wait either. If any other "next generation" tank becomes available during that time gap, then it will swallow up a potentially huge share of the market that MGCS was projecting to get. This is why the South Koreans and Rheinmetall are moving faster with things such as KF-51 (it is marketed as a "next generation tank") or the "K3", they are smelling blood on the water.

So, what options does France have? After all, Leclerc got a few customers. I think the best option (for KNDS interests) is to further develop the EMBT, incorporating as many MGCS technologies and requirements as possible while avoiding the "blanck sheet design curse", and offer it as an upgrade kit for existing Leopard 2 and Leclerc hulls. That way they can engage the existing market and offer something faster than the competition. This is also the same strategy that Rheinmetall is using with the Panther, but they are in a more vulnerable position because at present they lack the manufacturing facilities to work on Panther orders (they want to set up a factory in Ukraine but that will depend on what will happen with that country in the near future). 

I also thought one could scrap MGCS in the sense of a new  new plattform new hull and instead use E-MBT right now. It has many benefits and as long they make it modular enough for ease of future upgrades with enough space and weight too it could be a mutch faster alternativ. Also one doesnt have to use E-MBT turret but could instead chose if diffrent if the customer wants that like rct 120 just with an L/55A1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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."
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 4/28/2022 at 4:40 PM, SH_MM said:

As for FCAS, this is not Airbus randomly trying to get IP "for free". It has been contractucally agreed by Germany and France that the results of the development - which are also funded with German money - would be shared. That is the understanding of the contract by German officials. Germany just wants to get what it is paying for; Airbus' developments are also being handed over the France. Dassault only wants to get a competitve advantage over Airbus for the future. The French senate (supporting Dassault) wants Germany and Spain to sacrifice their respective jet fighter industries for the sake of Dassault.

 

Since it's been a while, I do wonder if perchance you may be willing to provide commentary on this article by Dassault, to me it reads like "yep, we're not sharing anything" and frankly I find it hard to believe that both Airbus & the Bundestag would just allow this.

 

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/news/dassault-aviation-and-airbus-reach-agreement-on-future-combat-aircraft/

 

To be more precise, this quote "We have been confirmed in our role as prime contractor and architect of the aircraft, and we have obtained protection for our industrial know-how and technologies"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...