Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

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/

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*Damian on suicide watch*

https://ir.rheinmetall.com/download/companies/rheinmetall/Presentations/191120_CMD_2019_Unterluess_CEO_online.pdf

Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :   The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.  

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
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/

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
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: 

 

MBT-70_american_version_front.jpg

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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: 

 

MBT-70_american_version_front.jpg

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       


×
×
  • Create New...