Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)

[Alzoc]

26 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

Thanks for your quick assessment! Do you think that the EMBT presented at Eurosatory could be a starting point for MGCS? Nexter and KMW started "to train to work together" whatever this means. And the question will be what impression the procurement agencies (DGA and Beschaffungsamt) will get from the future "work together". The Germans might not be so happy as Rheinmetall will get than a minor role in this game. Let's see how the first design study will look like which you expect to show up mid 2019.

 

I doubt that the EMBT will ever become a serious product.

At best when the Leclerc start being retired and turrets could be canibalized it could serve as the base for an upgrade for existing Leopard 2.

It may also serve as a plateform to test some innovations that will go into the MGCS.

 

As for the political side it was decided that the MGCS program would be German led, while the FCAS would be French led.

It means that Germany might very well chose to award the MGCS contract to Rheinmetal with KNDS being only a sub-contractor, and as we discussed with @SH_MM given the respective size of the companies and their overall know how it is a likely outcome.

Especially since Rhm is currently trying to consolidate it's position as the main European industrial by acquiring controlling interest in BAE and attempting to do the same with KNDS. Ultimately that would be a good thing to have one strong European industrial.

 

On the other hand the FCAS will be led by Dassault with Thales providing most of the electronics, Safran leading on the engine in cooperation with MTU (an agreement has been signed recently).

 

The spirit of both the MGCS and the FCAS is that the two defence agencies will define the requirements, the R&D is then done in cooperation and finally Germany will lead the industrial part on the MGCS with various French company working as sub-contractors and vice-versa for the FCAS.

 

The articles below should give you a nice idea of how both programs are intended to run (at least from the French PoV):

 

www.opex360.com/tag/mgcs/

 

http://www.opex360.com/tag/scaf/

 

 

 

[Gun Ready]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:39 PM, Alzoc said:

 

I doubt that the EMBT will ever become a serious product.

At best when the Leclerc start being retired and turrets could be canibalized it could serve as the base for an upgrade for existing Leopard 2.

It may also serve as a plateform to test some innovations that will go into the MGCS.

 

As for the political side it was decided that the MGCS program would be German led, while the FCAS would be French led.

It means that Germany might very well chose to award the MGCS contract to Rheinmetal with KNDS being only a sub-contractor, and as we discussed with @SH_MM given the respective size of the companies and their overall know how it is a likely outcome.

Especially since Rhm is currently trying to consolidate it's position as the main European industrial by acquiring controlling interest in BAE and attempting to do the same with KNDS. Ultimately that would be a good thing to have one strong European industrial.

 

On the other hand the FCAS will be led by Dassault with Thales providing most of the electronics, Safran leading on the engine in cooperation with MTU (an agreement has been signed recently).

 

The spirit of both the MGCS and the FCAS is that the two defence agencies will define the requirements, the R&D is then done in cooperation and finally Germany will lead the industrial part on the MGCS with various French company working as sub-contractors and vice-versa for the FCAS.

 

The articles below should give you a nice idea of how both programs are intended to run (at least from the French PoV):

 

www.opex360.com/tag/mgcs/

 

http://www.opex360.com/tag/scaf/

 

 

 

 

The time schedule requests for different phases: technology demonstrator phase till 2023 and then a total system demonstrator till 2027. This phases are controlled by the German FFF and AWF and the French DOR, DOC and DLR. @Alzoc  can you tell what the French agency abbreviations mean?

[Alzoc]

16 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

The time schedule requests for different phases: technology demonstrator phase till 2023 and then a total system demonstrator till 2027. This phases are controlled by the German FFF and AWF and the French DOR, DOC and DLR. @Alzoc  can you tell what the French agency abbreviations mean? 

 

Afaik DLR is a German research institute:

 

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)

 

As for the DOR and DOC I'm not familiar with those abbreviations.

Would you mind telling me in what context you found them (if you have a link even better), might help me to answer your question?

 

[Gun Ready]

39 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Afaik DLR is a German research institute:

 

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)

 

As for the DOR and DOC I'm not familiar with those abbreviations.

Would you mind telling me in what context you found them (if you have a link even better), might help me to answer your question?

 

 

No, DOR, DOC and DOR are French abbreviations from French DGA and / or MOD. FFF  means Fähigkeitslücke und funktionale Forderungen, AWF means abschliessende wehrtechnische Forderungen.

[SH_MM]

FFF and AWF are documents listing sets of requirements, they are not in control of anything, as they are not organizations.

[Gun Ready]

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

FFF and AWF are documents listing sets of requirements, they are not in control of anything, as they are not organizations.

But organisations like Amt für Heeresentwicklung are releasing them. Those guys have requirements how a future MGCS should look like!

[Alzoc]

@SH_MM

 

Here are the pictures in question (credits goes to @Gun Ready):

 

 

I agree with MM there, the abbreviations still aren't ringing a bell, but it look a hell of a lot like stages/documents on the program.

 

[Gun Ready]

I got these photos from a friend participating at a symposium taking snapshots from slides presented by German army procurement officer. They identify the following technology study topics for survivability: active hard kill protection system, passive and reactive armour, combined protection system (whatever this means), and encapsulated crew compartment.

[Gun Ready]

@Alzoc  I found at the DGA homepage the following article for DOR: [La STAT] : Initialisation et orientation - L’expression du besoin

 

 

[Alzoc]

7 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

@Alzoc  I found at the DGA homepage the following article for DOR: [La STAT] : Initialisation et orientation - L’expression du besoin 

 

Ok so both the DOR and the DOC are documents, which mean that the DLR is probably one as well.

 

DOR stands for Dossier d'orientation: The goal of said document is to list the options identified to fulfil an operational requirement

DOC stands for Dossier de Choix: It weights the different options identified in the DOR and recommend one in particular based on various criteria.

 

So basically it's just internal acronyms for project management.

[Gun Ready]

@Alzoc  Have you seen an equivalent French document for technologies or a time schedule?

 

 

[Alzoc]

8 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

@Alzoc  Have you seen an equivalent French document for technologies or a time schedule?

 

There's this sheet from the Saint-Louis Institute (Germano-French research institute):

 

https://www.isl.eu/documents/flyers/FR/isl_MGCS_FR_nm.pdf

 

It's broadly the same thing than the German presentation, though it doesn't go in as much details regarding the schedule.

 

 

[Gun Ready]

The interesting thing will be what is included in the technology demonstrator! May be it will be two or three in the end: one for command & control, one for effectors and one for sensors & target acquisition. And all should get different protection weight and  obility!? My fear is that it may become too close to Leopard 2, Leclerc or EMBT. But the time will show what is really needed in 2023! So only 4 years ahead not so many brand new technologies will be ready that time, I believe.

[Mighty_Zuk]

12 years between the final demonstration of technologies to fielding the first tank is quite a lot of time. That's about 30% of the life expectancy of a tank.

[Serge]

An opinion piece published in the Revue de La Défense Nationale from Marc Chassillan : 130 or 140mm for the future ?

http://www.defnat.com/e-RDN/vue-tribune.php?ctribune=1161

In French. 

[Gun Ready]

Has anybody new of MGCS? It's so quiet and one may ask whether it's alive or not any more. Or do we hear more after European Election?

[Alzoc]

22 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

Has anybody new of MGCS? It's so quiet and one may ask whether it's alive or not any more. Or do we hear more after European Election? 

 

Nothing public as of yet.

There have been some political bickering between French and German politicians both concerned that the other will get a bigger share than them, disagreement over the future export policy, etc, the usual in a binational project.

The first tidbits of information on it are due by June or July IIRC.

 

http://forcesoperations.com/mgcs-le-5050-a-vocation-a-demeurer-selon-florence-parly/

[Gun Ready]

18 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

Nothing public as of yet.

There have been some political bickering between French and German politicians both concerned that the other will get a bigger share than them, disagreement over the future export policy, etc, the usual in a binational project.

The first tidbits of information on it are due by June or July IIRC.

 

http://forcesoperations.com/mgcs-le-5050-a-vocation-a-demeurer-selon-florence-parly/

Very interesting description on the political situation. Many thanks for it. Hope that after that dispute an agreement is found where both sides of the Rhine can live  with!

[Mighty_Zuk]

Because of the timeline set for it, this program is inherently too big to kill. Therefore any political meddling will be of minor effect.

[Lord_James]

On 5/24/2019 at 11:00 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Because of the timeline set for it, this program is inherently too big to kill. Therefore any political meddling will be of minoe effect.

 

I never did respond to this, despite my vehement disagreement, but how the program is “too big to kill” is not valid: 

 

 

research and development programs, no matter how much of a need, or how much money and political backing they have, can fail very spectacularly. This new ‘Europanzer’ is no exception, and I have reservations that it will actually bare fruit, considering how well past international tank development programs have gone. 

[Xlucine]

Can anyone name an international tank programme that was big enough to not be killed? The first europanzer, MBT-70, MBT-80... and I'm drawing a blank

[SH_MM]

4 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Can anyone name an international tank programme that was big enough to not be killed? The first europanzer, MBT-70, MBT-80... and I'm drawing a blank

 

Altay?

[Mighty_Zuk]

Also some more successful programs like Merkava - eventually it became profitable with a high return (at one time reported 3:1 return on investment) that any benefit in buying Abrams was gone.

 

The K-series tanks as well. Despite common issues along the way, including recent engine issues, they kept going with the program and were not tempted with direct Abrams imports.

 

In both cases, the creator and chief user are facing some of the world's most volatile and dangerous environments at their doorstep, so they must have the ability to quickly customize and upgrade their tanks and other gear.

 

Of course, these aren't international, but they're relevant. Because none in South Korea or Israel would even dare propose shutting down tank production or R&D.

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

I never did respond to this, despite my vehement disagreement, but how the program is “too big to kill” is not valid: 

 

 

research and development programs, no matter how much of a need, or how much money and political backing they have, can fail very spectacularly. This new ‘Europanzer’ is no exception, and I have reservations that it will actually bare fruit, considering how well past international tank development programs have gone. 

I knew you would bring up the Euroturtle program, but I still insist that it is not an equivalent.

 

As I've said, it's about the timeline.

The MGCS deployment date is 2035 for Germany. 2040 for France.

If we are generous and pessimistic, it means development of the tank commences around 2025-2027. A more realistic option would be 2030.

I believe an accurate timeline was posted somewhere but can't find it.

 

That means that if the program is killed even at the earliest stage of development, both France and Germany, plus any country that depends on the program, will have to either buy competing designs off the shelf, or retire tanks without proper replacement, or keep tanks in service despite becoming nearly obsolete and beyond their projected end-of-life point.

[Lord_James]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I knew you would bring up the Euroturtle program, but I still insist that it is not an equivalent.

 

As I've said, it's about the timeline.

The MGCS deployment date is 2035 for Germany. 2040 for France.

If we are generous and pessimistic, it means development of the tank commences around 2025-2027. A more realistic option would be 2030.

I believe an accurate timeline was posted somewhere but can't find it.

 

That means that if the program is killed even at the earliest stage of development, both France and Germany, plus any country that depends on the program, will have to either buy competing designs off the shelf, or retire tanks without proper replacement, or keep tanks in service despite becoming nearly obsolete and beyond their projected end-of-life point.

 

The MBT-70 wasn’t in need when it was being designed? And after it died, both countries involved didn’t have to upgrade older tanks to stay competitive? 

 

It is the same scenario, just 50 years later.