Leopard 2A6M CAN revealed

[swerve]

The Swiss bought ca 370 Pz87, & have offered ca 100 for sale. AFAIK the Pz87 is more or less up to A5 standard, with the upgrades they've applied.

IIRC they're turning some of their surplus into engineering vehicles.

The Swedes put their 160 A4 into reserve when the new-build Strv122 entered service, & they may be available for sale.

Plus any more the Dutch don't want (they're cutting to the bone!), & any remaining German surplus (depending on whether Germany keeps a reserve stock), makes up to 500 still potentially buyable.

 

[Waylander]

Not to forget that there is still the possibility to produce new Leos like done with the Strv122, Leopard IIE and Leopard IIHEL.

 

[kato]

I really wonder what is thought to be a critical number of stocked Leos for us.

*cough*zero*cough*?



Nah. I'd say 80-100. Including the 50 Leopard 2A4 currently still in active service. A 25% reserve isn't that bad. Especially now that we don't have "inactive battalions" any more. Including a few for attrition issues, but i doubt that out of the batch 1-8 vehicles we'll see much more than those 100 in stocks. We'd sooner see a batch 9 (2A6M, PSO, 2A7?), i'd guess.

Maybe a little contract for some ... 75 Leo 2A6M, for an active force of 200 Leo 2A6M, 200 Leo 2A5, and a 150-tank reserve of 125 Leo 2A4 + 25 Leo 2A5. Maybe reconfigure the 25 reserve 2A5 into PSO, and attach them as heavy 7-tank MOUT tank platoons somewhere in the active force (similar to the old M48A3G or KanJgPz light inf fire support units). Would be nice. And not even too pricey.

What i really wonder is how many Leopard 1 there are still in stocks (i.e. not earmarked for scrapping, but in reserve). I mean, we still had about 400 or so active in 2003.
GoogleEarth pics from 2004/05 or so show about 50 Leopard 1A5 (and a couple Leo 2, plus maybe two dozen other armoured vehicles) parked out in the open at the only remaining major SKB tank maintenance facility south of Darmstadt btw.

 

[Waylander]

*cough*zero*cough*?

I didn't mean the number wanted by many of our politicians.

Seriously, I agree with your numbers.

I have the fear that IF (fingers crossed) we get a PSO package for some of the A5s they are implemented into normal companies of some bns and not as a possible replacement for tank bns going into oversea urban environments.

I also do wonder about possible numbers of AFVs ( and other vehicles) in stocks in germany.
I have even seen several numbers of Jaguar II tank hunters floating around in the Munster/Bergen area.
I am especially sceptical about vehicles which are phased out and are not intended to be used in any active or reserve units (Like the mentioned Leopard 1, Jaguars, or M113s).
Add to that the usual number of vehicles which are not part of a units official TO&E but are still standing in the barracks...

 

[kato]

I also do wonder about possible numbers of AFVs ( and other vehicles) in stocks in germany.
I have even seen several numbers of Jaguar II tank hunters floating around in the Munster/Bergen area.

Well, at the very least the equipment taken from active service in the last 3-5 years (and not sold) should still be in stocks. That alone would be:

• 1,800 M113, M114, M548...
• 1,000 Marder
• 500 M109A3
• 400 Leopard 1A5 (700 since 1994)
• 200 Bergepanzer 1 (based on Leopard 1 chassis)
• 200 Jaguar 1 HOT and Jaguar 2 TOW
• 200 Luchs
• 180 Roland (130 Roland Kette + 50 Roland LKW)
• 150 Fuchs TPz of all variants
• 90 Gepard
• 80 MARS (+40 LARS since 2000)

That list would make a really decent-sized army just by itself...

Add to that the usual number of vehicles which are not part of a units official TO&E but are still standing in the barracks...

True. I remember a certain maintenance company that had three Wiesel 1 (fully active, weapons supposedly stored), one Marder (rusted, non-movable, no gun), two Luchs (somewhat rebuilt, one with either a 81mm mortar or 84mm RR, used for illumination), two KanJgPz (one rebuilt to BeobJgPz configuration, the other just missing the gun).


Some of the LARS and other vehicles seem to float around WTDs btw, for testing other equipment (e.g. a LARS and some Mortar-carrier M113 were used in Putlos for attacks to test Rheinmetall's new base-defence-CIWS).

 

[riksavage]

The Canadian’s have just awarded a contract to take 33 LAV-III chassis originally fitted with TOW and convert them to infantry carriers. Rheinmetall Canada will supply Remote Weapon Station’s capable of mounting 5.56, 7.62 and 12.7 mm armaments and a cooled thermal sight system. According to http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ “mobility and 25mm auto-cannon offered by the LAV-III has proven useful on the roads and in cities, but the vehicle is unable to handle significant swathes of Afghan terrain, and is prone to high wear if used off-road.” With Leopard purchase the need for a TOW fleet is reduced particulalry in an environment such as Afghanistan where the threat is epresented by light-forces / small arms / RPG's.

A classic example of theoretical doctrine (original plan to switch to an all wheeled AFV fleet) being overtaken by reality - Leopard 2A4/2A6 tank purchased, LAV-III Mobile Gun System scrapped.

I wonder if the Canadian’s would now stretch their purse strings and consider buying tracked IFV‘s to compliment the Leopard 2A6’s, at least enough to equip a single battalion. It would be great if they reached into their pockets an opted for the latest German Puma, or leased / bought surplus Bradley’s.

 

[Waylander]

So much for the people arguing that wheeled vehicles are nearly equal in cross country performance...

Are there even surplus Bradleys available?
If the purchase of a tracked IFV would be urgent I would think that Puma is not the best option because it is not available immediately.

CV90 or Ulan/ASCOD seem to be a good option (I doubt the canadians would opt for any eastern design).

 

[riksavage]

With the introduction of Pumas I'm sure the German Government can throw in a job lot of Marder's. Old yes, but a step up from M113's. Fitted with air-con, reactive and bar-armor upgrades - just the ticket for Afghanistan.

The German government must have at least 600 plus surpless stock?

 

[Waylander]

2136 Marder 1 have been produced.
2097 have been upgraded to A3 or A4 (command vehicle for bn commanders).

75 Marder have been upgraded to A5 (Improved IED/mine protection).

With the introduction of the Puma all Marder will be removed from service.

And with the canceling of the contract with Greece I know of no surplus Marders being sold to other countries.

The problem is I doubt that there is that much life left in them without a complete rebuild.

But yeah, in theory we could sell hundreds of Marders.

I would still prefer a modern IFV.
The Marder might be better than a M113 but it suffers from many problems.

Still not able to follow the Leo II.
No stabilization.
Small gun (20mm).
Whored down from years of service.
The TI is really outdated.

 

[Waylander]

The first Leo II arrived in Kandahar.

Amazing in what a short time Canada leased the Leos, modified them a bit, trained the crews and deployed them.

 

[eckherl]

The first Leo II arrived in Kandahar.

Amazing in what a short time Canada leased the Leos, modified them a bit, trained the crews and deployed them.

Do you have a better shot of the front side skirts, they look different from the traditional ballistic skirts used in this area of the vehicle.

 

[Manfred2]

THanks for the info on HE amo, Waylander.

I noticed that it was a Russian cargo plane that brought them in. What air-route does Canada use... that was the first thing I wondered. The second thing was; strange that they would prefer Rusian transport to American, but not very surprising.

 

[Grand Danois]

THanks for the info on HE amo, Waylander.

I noticed that it was a Russian cargo plane that brought them in. What air-route does Canada use... that was the first thing I wondered. The second thing was; strange that they would prefer Rusian transport to American, but not very surprising.

Probably chartered through SALIS (NATO) from Ukraine.

 

[kato]

Probably chartered through SALIS (NATO) from Ukraine.

Pet peeve: SALIS is not really a generic joint NATO programme. NATO is split on this issue.

The list of 16 SALIS signatories does not include all NATO countries (Canada is on it though), and also includes non-NATO-members (Sweden). The NATO agency NAMSA ("Maintenance & Supply") manages the contract for these signatories.

There's actually sort of a "competing" concept (NSAC/NAMO), which interestingly mostly involves NATO members that haven't signed up to SALIS (yes, including the US), and uses C-17. The NATO agency NPLO ("Procurement & Logistics") manages this contract (see the difference?).

This is also exactly why Canada uses An-124, and not C-17: They're members of SALIS, but not NSAC.

 

[Grand Danois]

Pet peeve: SALIS is not really a generic joint NATO programme. NATO is split on this issue.

The list of 16 SALIS signatories does not include all NATO countries (Canada is on it though), and also includes non-NATO-members (Sweden). The NATO agency NAMSA ("Maintenance & Supply") manages the contract for these signatories.

There's actually sort of a "competing" concept (NSAC/NAMO), which interestingly mostly involves NATO members that haven't signed up to SALIS (yes, including the US), and uses C-17. The NATO agency NPLO ("Procurement & Logistics") manages this contract (see the difference?).

This is also exactly why Canada uses An-124, and not C-17: They're members of SALIS, but not NSAC.

It is a definite must to have pet peeves. Was aware of the first paragraph, but not the second. Interesting. Do you know how the disagreement over the procurement of C-17 versus A400 to SALIS is linked to this?

 

[kato]

It is a definite must to have pet peeves. Was aware of the first paragraph, but not the second. Interesting. Do you know how the disagreement over the procurement of C-17 versus A400 to SALIS is linked to this?

Afaik, NSAC intends to buy both over the long-term, while SALIS is not really interested in C-17 for now; SALIS after all was originally intended to only fill the gap until A400M arrive.

The lists of signatories to both contracts are actually rather mixed - but NSAC makes for an "interesting" list when regarding some old stuff in US-European relations ("New Europe" really hits it there). A few of these mostly Eastern-European nations (Poland, Slovakia and such) are members in both.

NSAC is also far smaller btw; SALIS buys a minimum of 2,000 flight hours on the machines per year, NSAC only "expects over 500" flight hours, despite using aircraft with a considerably smaller payload.

 

[Grand Danois]

Afaik, NSAC intends to buy both over the long-term, while SALIS is not really interested in C-17 for now; SALIS after all was originally intended to only fill the gap until A400M arrive.

Hmm. I thought SALIS had signed up for 3 C-17 plus 1 on option. The A400 NATO members tried to throw a spanner in that project, or so I read from the press reports.

 

[kato]

Hmm. I thought SALIS had signed up for 3 C-17 plus 1 on option. The A400 NATO members tried to throw a spanner in that project, or so I read from the press reports.

Afaik, the 3+1 C-17 are for NSAC (aka "NATO's C-17 pool"). SALIS retains its charter for up to six An-124-100, with two of them on immediate availability. A lot of (important) SALIS members are not part of NSAC however, and therefore won't have access to the C-17. The same goes for NSAC-only members not having access to SALIS' Antonovs.
NATO, in its political correctness, says that SALIS and NSAC complement each other.

• SALIS-only members: Germany, UK, France, Canada, Portugal, Luxembourg
• NSAC-only members: USA, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania (last two with original LoI to join SALIS)
• SALIS+NSAC members: Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, Norway, Finland, Sweden

Additionally, i think Belgium acceeded NSAC (only), but can't find that press release again right now. Noteworthy: Belgium would be the only member of the A400M consortium to join NSAC - all others are SALIS-only.

Relevant NATO.int links here, here and here.

 

[DavidDCM]

Do you have a better shot of the front side skirts, they look different from the traditional ballistic skirts used in this area of the vehicle.

No, that are the ordinary heavy side skirts used since late A4-versions. They only look different because they are "flipped down" for the transport.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/294/kettenblendenev3.jpg

 

[Waylander]

And don't wonder if you see the old ones on A5s and A6s.
They are used during normal duty due to them being easier to handle.