Will we see future tank projects such as the Leopard 3 emerging?

[Onkel]

You think Germany will be the sole MBT producer for European NATO members? That would be interesting to see. It would give them a major built-in market, the equivalent of a national procurement program for a country like the US or Russia. And with those numbers, export orders would be much easier to secure. With the M1 not seeing a replacement anytime soon, it could corner the heavy end of the MBT market (assuming the current Armata project doesn't turn out to be closer to a western-style MBT then to a T-series one).

Challi 2 and Leclerc, both beeing formidable tanks without any doubt, entered service too late. In the 90s, when they were brandnew, Germany, the Nederlands and Switzerland had nearly 3.000 Leos in their stocks, with still more to come. After the successes in several more european countries followed by defence budget cuts nowadays lots of formidable second hand Leos were and still will be sold and upgraded. Currently 18 countries are using Leo 2. That gives Germany a distinctive advantage over France and GB for further developments and exports of MBT. So Waylander may be right.

 

[Waylander]

@The Concerned
There is no Type 95 in China. They either have a Type 85 or a Type 96 (which is a heavily upgraded Type 85 IIRC). Which kind of information about these tanks do you have that you can so securely assess their capabilities?

As for the future MBT development in Europe. The UK managed to kill their ground vehicle competence all by themselves. Although France and Germany also face similar economic problems they managed to keep their vehicle competence alive and relatively healthy while the UK sunk billions of pounds into projects without actually getting new vehicles apart from some MRAPs and Hägglunds (I know they are not built by Hägglunds) out of UOR procurements.

I can see the merits of some of the big players merging their money to get a big new MBT procurement program on tracks but I also don't see why it shouldn't be possible for Germany or France to go that route alone if they have to. They may even come out with some healthy profit if they play the export card right.

You are focused too much on the UK. Somebody building a new ground force from scratch could basically go to Germany or France and get nearly all of his new vehicles from one of these country and they would be top notch. If the same one goes to the UK it would be hard to get much more than a warm and friendly handshake these days.

 

[swerve]

You think Germany will be the sole MBT producer for European NATO members? .

It's pretty close to it now. The UK & Italy have their own tanks but no longer make them, & as far as I can see would have to rebuild the facilities to make them before building a new tank. France retains the ability, but has no customers. Germany has supplied tanks to 10 European NATO countries (Leopard 2 to 9), 3 non-NATO EU members, & one other European country. The only MBT in production in Europe west of Ukraine is the Leopard 2. Since the delivery of Leclercs to the UAE was completed (When? Must be almost ten years ago), every tank built in W. Europe has been a Leopard 2. There are about three Leopard 2s in existence for each Leclerc, Challenger 2 or Ariete.

 

[swerve]

The UK managed to kill their ground vehicle competence all by themselves.

.. the UK sunk billions of pounds into projects without actually getting new vehicles apart from some MRAPs and Hägglunds (I know they are not built by Hägglunds) out of UOR procurements.

Sadly true.

 

[Feanor]

It's pretty close to it now. The UK & Italy have their own tanks but no longer make them, & as far as I can see would have to rebuild the facilities to make them before building a new tank. France retains the ability, but has no customers. Germany has supplied tanks to 10 European NATO countries (Leopard 2 to 9), 3 non-NATO EU members, & one other European country. The only MBT in production in Europe west of Ukraine is the Leopard 2. Since the delivery of Leclercs to the UAE was completed (When? Must be almost ten years ago), every tank built in W. Europe has been a Leopard 2. There are about three Leopard 2s in existence for each Leclerc, Challenger 2 or Ariete.

So no international project necessary. Germany has the market cornered anyways. Do you think this will open up additional room for non EU MBTs, like the Abrams or even perspective Russian tanks? After all as is Russia is trying to use diplomatic channels to acquire some contracts among NATO member states (the attempt to sell Be-200s to France is a prime example). And the M1 could certainly benefit from additional sales. After all you can only sell so many over-priced rebuild kits to countries receiving US military aid...

 

[Belesari]

First I don't think that UK, French and German needs differ that much. It's not like the three current MBTs differ that much to not being interchangeable.

IMHO everybody in europe would want to go with an autoloader and a three men crew as manning costs are a serious problem for every EU country out there. The same applies to the idea of keeping the weight low by trimming the hull (like with the Leclerc).

What I don't see is that a joint development will automatically end up running smoother and being cheaper than a national solution. Recent joint projects are not that stellar in comparison. The muddling of so many different interests tends to eat up the proposed advantages of big joint programs.

During the height of cold war with the Sovjets breathing into NATO's neck neither the US and Germany nor the UK and Germany could get their acts together to produce a joint MBT...

Maybe it is even more desirable for Germany to wait a little bit more until others, like the UK, eliminate themselves from the competition...

There are alot of problems with smaller crews. Maintanence etc.....less hands to do the jobs. I've asked why before and it was explained pretty well. Seems alot of new urban enviroments would help with a 2nd pair of eyes, ears, and hands.

 

[Waylander]

True, even with an autoloader present a 4th crewmember would be usefull for operating a weapon station, adding a second pair of Mk.1 eyeballs, helping with maintenance and security and replacing wounded crewmembers for emergency procedures. Nevertheless I would happil give up all that in order to get some more tanks into active service due to high personal costs. Not even privates are cheap in western europe and operating heavy armour is expensive enough all by itself.

As for Russia getting a foot into europe. IMHO if the Armata project runa well and results in a good design at least some of the smaller european countries could have a look at it. Nevertheless I doubt major countries are going to buy russian stuff. Has something to do with pride and shame (without judging this by myself). A Russsian MBT running around in major western countries would IMHO be like flying Russian fighters...highly unlikely.

 

[Firn]

Personal cost are indeed a big problem for any Western country. The days of accounting-wise 'cheap' young males, or conscripts have for the while being gone. The Italian armed forces, which certainly are not the a great model of overall efficiency and effectivness spend 70% of the budget on staff. We have a percentage of NCOs and officers, especially generals which stuns believe. In the last ten years the volunteers have mostly come from the poor southern regions, while the amount from the richer North has been very small. All in all it is quite a challenge to switch from a conscript army to a professional one. Besides massive changes in organisations some are also due in the weapon and support systems.


Considering the financial and economical situation of Italy I don't believe we will see a project for a new MBT for quite some time. Upgrades for the Ariete are sporadic and small, sadly the price for little available money for investments and the high costs due to the low number of tanks here and abroad. Overall I agree that in Europe Germany is positioned best when it comes to those sectors of the defense industry. France is also offering a wide array of military vehicles and surprisingly Italy is also positioned rather well, arguably better then the UK. To some extent this reflects the industrial and technological base.

I can not imagine that Russia will be able to capture even a small segment of the Western/NATO defense market. Even the poorer nations, or especially those since they are mostly Eastern ones will continue to switch over to Western equipment for a couple of important reasons.

 

[Waylander]

70% on staff? Holy sh**.

Just checked wiki (yeah, I know) and even our lazy club spends "only" 52% on staff. Unless your figure also includes general administration costs (13% in Germany) this is pretty high.

Ok, when I look at what your parlamentarians get...
(Sorry, but couldn't resist )

 

[Firn]

70% on staff? Holy sh**.

Just checked wiki (yeah, I know) and even our lazy club spends "only" 52% on staff. Unless your figure also includes general administration costs (13% in Germany) this is pretty high.

Ok, when I look at what your parlamentarians get...
(Sorry, but couldn't resist )

A chi lo dici...

From the Sole 24

Via libera ai tagli alla Difesa

Dal Governo è poi arrivato il via libera al progetto di revisione strutturale del ministro della Difesa Di Paola sulle Forze Armate. La riforma della divisa «oggi condivisa dal Cdm punta a riequilibrare i livelli di spesa del personale, di esercizio e di investimenti per garantire in futuro la sostenibilità finanziaria e l'efficacia operativa delle Forze Armate in chiave europea e Nato. Vale a dire, coprire con il 50% del bilancio assegnato la spesa del personale; la parte restante sarà divisa a metà tra addestramento e investimenti».

Queste scelte comporteranno anche una contrazione della presenza territoriale. Con «il risultato di una Struttura Difesa ridimensionata nei numeri, ma in grado di esprimere un'operatività all'altezza delle aspettative dell'Unione europea e della Nato». Il progetto di revisione verrà illustrato in Parlamento in coerenza con l'impegno assunto dal Governo innanzi alle Camere nei giorni scorsi e sulla base degli indirizzi decisi dal recente Consiglio supremo di Difesa.

Spesa in linea con la media europea

Oggi, l'Italia ha una spesa per la Difesa, in rapporto al Pil, più bassa d'Europa (0,9% contro una media Ue dell'1,61%) ma ha una spesa percentuale per il personale, rispetto al bilancio assegnato, ampiamente superiore alla media Ue (70% quella italiana, 51% quella europea). Per contro - sottolinea il Cdm - la spesa d'investimento per ogni militare è ferma a 16.424 euro, contro una media europea di 26.458 euro.

In short staff makes up for 70% vs the a EU average of 50%, a very high amount for a small slice (0,9%) of the GDP. The investment per soldier is very low compared to the European average, 16,424 vs 26,458 €, especially for a relative rich and large European nation like Italy.

Divisi per gradi, i militari contano 22.900 ufficiali di cui 1.900 colonnelli e 425 generali. Poi ci sono 71.500 sottufficiali, di cui 56.600 marescialli e 14.900 sergenti, mentre la truppa, i soldati che vanno in missione all'estero, fa affidamento su circa 90 mila militari. Questi ultimi sono operativi e quindi intoccabili. «I sacrifici - secondo il ministro Di Paola - servono all'Italia per essere più europea». A sostegno della sua affermazione cita la frase di uno dei padri del Partito comunista, ricordando che «una volta Antonio Gramsci disse: per essere cosmopoliti bisogna prima avere una patria».

Currently we have out of roughly 185,000 men nothing less then 22,900 officers and 71,500 NCOs, outnumbering the common soldiers, which make up around 90,000....


To get more efficient and effective armed forces we would have to cut drastically number of officials and NCOs, close down some regiments/units with a long tradition, eliminate a lot of small bases, train better, more often and harder, etc, etc .....

 

[Beatmaster]

@The Concerned
There is no Type 95 in China. They either have a Type 85 or a Type 96 (which is a heavily upgraded Type 85 IIRC). Which kind of information about these tanks do you have that you can so securely assess their capabilities?

As for the future MBT development in Europe. The UK managed to kill their ground vehicle competence all by themselves. Although France and Germany also face similar economic problems they managed to keep their vehicle competence alive and relatively healthy while the UK sunk billions of pounds into projects without actually getting new vehicles apart from some MRAPs and Hägglunds (I know they are not built by Hägglunds) out of UOR procurements.

I can see the merits of some of the big players merging their money to get a big new MBT procurement program on tracks but I also don't see why it shouldn't be possible for Germany or France to go that route alone if they have to. They may even come out with some healthy profit if they play the export card right.

You are focused too much on the UK. Somebody building a new ground force from scratch could basically go to Germany or France and get nearly all of his new vehicles from one of these country and they would be top notch. If the same one goes to the UK it would be hard to get much more than a warm and friendly handshake these days.

The Type 99, also known as ZTZ-99 and WZ-123, developed from the Type 98G (in turn, a development of the Type 98), is a third generation main battle tank (MBT) fielded by the Chinese People's Liberation Army. It is made to compete with other modern tanks. Although not expected to be acquired in large numbers due to its high cost compared to the more economical Type 96, it is currently the most advanced MBT fielded by China. The ZTZ99 MBT is a successor to the Type 98G tank manufactured for the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Waylander is correct.


In regards to heavy armor formations like we did see them during the cold war and some large scale conflicts i personally believe that the MBT still will play a vital role.
However due budget cuts trough out the world you will see that much lighter variants are gaining ground.
Having that said the IFV (And other types) platforms have not the amount of protection that a MBT offers but they are highly mobile alot cheaper and in terms of firepower they are not bad at all and their internal electronics match that of a MBT.
So even if there will be a need for MBT's i believe that a small nation can do just as well with Light and Medium armor.

Germany has always been known for their solid armor designs and i believe that the Leo will be around for many years to come.
It does not have the long standing record like the bram but it is in terms of specifications pretty much equal.
And on those few situations that the Leo was put into action it did perform flawless like you would expect from a top class MBT and did proof that it matches the technical specifications on paper in a actual combat situation.
Which is a serious point as the Leo 2 does lack ALOT of combat exp, so having it perform flawless on those few situations does indicate that it is a good system right?
The US will probably eventually upgrade their current Brams and rumors on the Internet have said that the Leo 3 is on the drawing board.

But my question is with all the new lighter IFV models and more advanced smaller weapons that can be installed on a IFV like platform will there be a real need for a massive MBT like the Bram 3 and the Leo 3.
As lighter Armor is very able to take on even the heaviest MBT, either with missiles or fast anti armor rounds.
I am not sure about the France and UK counter parts (They are great tanks btw) but i believe that within the current situation in the world you will see that if a nation wants to upgrade their outdated / aging MBT's that the Leo 2 is a serious option.
In that regard i believe the Germans have a rock solid product and enough costumers, either buying them new or buying them from a nation who sells them due budget cuts.

Back in the day the European nations did not buy the Abrams and they did not buy the UK and France versions either (Why i do not know) I believe Greece bought 400 M1's if i do not mistake?
Anyway the German industry has made Leopard 1/2 a succes so i do not see why that would change specially because both the Abram and the Leo are pretty much on the same page and the prize of a very modular tank like the Leo 2 aint that big either US$4.5 million for a 2A6 and US$6.21 million for a M1A2 if i do not mistake.
So given the modular design of the Leo 2 it does offer a full package for less then a standard M1A2..
Just saying in a economic situation like we have right now the Leo 2 offers a serious package for a good prize thus making it a serious option for replacing a aging army.

Offtopic question:
I did see some pictures of the 2 PSO/2A7+ it looks like a monster.
But was this version not designed for urban situations?
Picture

 

[Feanor]

Waylander what do you think of the Ukranian BMPT-64? It's an HIFV on the T-64 chassis. 3 man crew, up to 12 dismounts, reportedly 350mm RHA across the frontal arc. Turret carries a 30mm auto cannon, a Ukranian ATGM, and a pintle-mounted HMG.

Gur Khan attacks!:

 

[Waylander]

Looks fine. But 12 dismounts? In full battle kit? Sounds a bit much to me. I mean, most current IFVs carry 6 and the Namer manages to get 9 dismounts into the hot zone. I doubt that it is possible. Not with the amount of stuff infantrymen carry these days.

@Beastmaster
Everything smaller than a 120/125mm smoothbore is seriously underpowered against modern MBTs. And missile systems are not the final answer against tanks either. As soon as active and passive protection systems get more widespread we might very well see the AT ability of ATGM equipped infantry and vehicles to be seriously dimished with large calibre high pressure guns remaining a serious threat to enemy vehicles.

It is also not completely true that lighter vehicles are more mobile. Apart from bridges or restricted environments modern MBTs are the most cross country capable vehicles one finds in an army.

Lighter vehicles offer better strategic mobility but have close to no advantages in the tactical cross country environment.

 

[Feanor]

You have a point. The BMP series carry only 7 dismounts. The same goes for the BMO-T, which is an H-APC on the T-72 chassis. I wonder what they had to compromise to get those numbers...

 

[Waylander]

Maybe they wanted to say 12 crewmembers. Sounds more like the real deal, although still hard to believe with a traditional penetrating turret design.

The basic chassis of the T-64 is roughly 30cm less wide and nearly a meter shorter than the Puma. Makes one really wonder how that many people should fit into it. The all around protection against handheld AT weapons as well as the mine protection are also questionable.

After the russians as well as the west having their fare share of. Lose quarter combat as well as assymetric conflicts one would think that such stuff is looked at more closely. But maybe that's the best they could come up with without having to design somethin completely new. Highlights some of the problems when one uses a traditional MBT chassis as a base for a IFV or (H)APC.

 

[Feanor]

Maybe they wanted to say 12 crewmembers. Sounds more like the real deal, although still hard to believe with a traditional penetrating turret design.

The basic chassis of the T-64 is roughly 30cm less wide and nearly a meter shorter than the Puma. Makes one really wonder how that many people should fit into it. The all around protection against handheld AT weapons as well as the mine protection are also questionable.

After the russians as well as the west having their fare share of. Lose quarter combat as well as assymetric conflicts one would think that such stuff is looked at more closely. But maybe that's the best they could come up with without having to design somethin completely new. Highlights some of the problems when one uses a traditional MBT chassis as a base for a IFV or (H)APC.

If you look at the photos in the link, one of them shows a bit of the interior. It doesn't look like there's a penetrating turret. The article also says that the turret is uninhabited.

As far as protection, it does have built in ERA, the Ukranian Nozh, and some sort of increased anti-landmine protection. Supposedly it can withstand a TM-57 landmine.

TM-57 mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The side armor is supposedly rated at 82mm RHA, with the Nozh era being able to stop a PG-7VM RPG round. Rear is 40mm RHA, rated to withstand a 14.5mm round. The rear armor doesn't have ERA.

It does very clearly say 12 dismounts, and 3 crew. It might be optimistic, a number given for advertising purposes. For example without gear, flak, kevlar, etc. it can hold 12. However with full PPEs, and a combat load, 6-8 might be more realistic.

 

[Firn]

About the 4 men crew:

It might be worth out to point that with the trends towards radar hard-kill & soft-kill systems and remote weapon stations an MBT crew will get access to far more sensors and thus information then it used to be.

With a RWS you potentially have a hunter-hunter-killer system with the gunner, loader and the commander having both almost 360° thermal sights and LRF at their disposal.

I wonder to which degree the radar for the hard-kill systems will get used to acquire a picture or possibly targets. The should operate on a relative short wavelenght to be able to track missiles, giving it good resolution and creating a relative fine radarscape. Suspect movements could be easily geo-located and a thermal sight slanted on it.

Of course one should be careful to point out the disadvantage of an MBT driving around as a radar beacon, but things will become rather interesting technology wise. But it seems like a 4th pair of eyes coul be get put to an ever better use, as it will be difficult to avoid an overload of information for the TC.

 

[My2Cents]

About the 4 men crew:

It might be worth out to point that with the trends towards radar hard-kill & soft-kill systems and remote weapon stations an MBT crew will get access to far more sensors and thus information then it used to be.

With a RWS you potentially have a hunter-hunter-killer system with the gunner, loader and the commander having both almost 360° thermal sights and LRF at their disposal.

The crew will drop to 3, but the tank will effectively become a robot guided by an onboard crew operating in a virtual reality theatre that integrates all available data, optimized for each user. The commander will be responsible for refining the sensor feed and data integration including off platform data as well as monitoring the situation. The ‘gunner’ will be the actual tank commander who prioritizes targets for the tank AI and directs the driver. And the driver will still have his job, because that is a wholly different decision set.

Fully robotic un-crewed tanks will not be practical for a long time because of the need to be fully autonomous. Partially to avoid the potential for hacking from an outside source taking over your tanks, but mainly due to total bandwidth limitations. The way around both problems is an onboard crew and a minimum of communications.

 

[Waylander]

This future scenario is IMHO still relatively far away. Getting a clear sensor picture out on the ground is difficult at best. Might be easier to achieve in a very flat desert like terrain but as soon as vegetation and urban structure enter the picture it becomes much harder. And one also doesn't want to emit all the time.

Additionally one may very well have to operate in a hard ECM environment.

 

[Waylander]

If you look at the photos in the link, one of them shows a bit of the interior. It doesn't look like there's a penetrating turret. The article also says that the turret is uninhabited.

As far as protection, it does have built in ERA, the Ukranian Nozh, and some sort of increased anti-landmine protection. Supposedly it can withstand a TM-57 landmine.

TM-57 mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The side armor is supposedly rated at 82mm RHA, with the Nozh era being able to stop a PG-7VM RPG round. Rear is 40mm RHA, rated to withstand a 14.5mm round. The rear armor doesn't have ERA.

It does very clearly say 12 dismounts, and 3 crew. It might be optimistic, a number given for advertising purposes. For example without gear, flak, kevlar, etc. it can hold 12. However with full PPEs, and a combat load, 6-8 might be more realistic.

Well, at a second glance it really looks like the turret is not protruding into the crew compartment.

Defenitely an interesting concept and i think I would prefer to ride this and not in a BMP...