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

[Feanor]

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...

Well clearly. It's much more heavily armored. What really gives me pause is the T-64 chassis. The tank is out of production (the Ukranian Bulat is an upgrade of existing vehicles, not scratch-builds), and isn't that great of a tank to begin with. Competing Soviet tank lobbies aside, at this point it's a rather old and not very common design. Russia has recently retired and reportedly utilized (recycled/melted down) their T-64 hulls. This means the supply of T-64s isn't that large. The Ukranian armed forces don't have the budget to procure significant numbers of this vehicle, and there are no other major T-64 operators to my knowledge. However it does indicate an interesting direction to go in. Something similar on the more common T-72/T-90 chassis would be interesting to see. Presumably the Armata-based IFV/APC concepts could end up following the Ukranian design, similar to the way the T-90MS had many of the features of the Oplot-M.

 

[Firn]

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.

The interesting bit is the ability to track movement, intrinsic to that sort of radar needed for most types of hard-kill systems. I guess once such systems get fielded on a bigger scale much thought will go into the use of the already existing and expensive radar.

And one also doesn't want to emit all the time.

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

I raised that point quite early and it is indeed a problem against capable 'conventional' enemy forces.

 

[Feanor]

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...

Waylander, to go in line with your previous point, and with what I said about the T-90 serving as a universal chassis, here's a project along those exact lines from Yekaterinburg - E300. It's suitable for SAMs, C4I vehicles, SP Arty, and has high commonality with the T-90S MBT. It can carry up to 25.5 tons of extra weights, with the chassis weight being 24.5 tons.

Gur Khan attacks!:

They don't advertise HIFVs or HAPCs, but those should be easily derived from the BMO-T, using a T-90 base. Same for the BREM-1, MTU-72, etc.

 

[RobWilliams]

Severe thread-necro, but it fits very well!

The German Parliament has apparently approved the development of the next generation of tanks, the article goes on to talk about German/French cooperation.

German Parliament Approved a Proposal to Develop a Next Generation Tank | Defence blog

I'd very much be keen for the UK to try get involved, our tank numbers aren't big enough nor do we have the infrastructure for a solo build. Plus, the Germans are pretty badass at armoured fighting vehicle design.

2030 is also around the OSD of our Challenger II fleet too.

 

[Ananda]

How I got the feeling this turn out to be Leo 2A8 instead Leo 3 ? Ukrainian crisis seems being used for new development project initiative reasons, still with that time frame, as usual politicians will found quick resolve on fund new development of proven design.

 

[Waylander]

At some point you just can't upgrade existing designs anymore. The Leopard will be 50+ years in service by 2030. Well, one could always go the Super Hornet route and build new hulls and turrets and call it an upgrade...

I for one am not sure if I am supportive of a multinational endeavour with the UK and France. The joint MBT programs of the past weren't all that successfull. Or let's have a look at the Boxer program. The UK left the party due to their US influenced dream of common light FRES platforms. And they have nothing to show for it while searching for a wheeled, modular and well protected platform till today...

I say we design the thing and the rest of europe just buys it.

 

[kato]

It's interesting to track that blog post a bit.

Apparently he got it from a Romanian defence blog (with a somewhat patriotic adage), who themselves got it from a Polish defense news website, who apparently cobbled it together from two separate articles in German tabloid Welt surrounding the Bundestag vote on November 26th regarding the national budget for 2015.

The original decision says:

XII. Antrag der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und SPD im Verteidigungsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages
Einzelplan 14 Bundesministerium der Verteidigung
Kapitel 1416 Militärische Beschaffungen

Die deutsche Panzertruppe besteht künftig aus lediglich 225 Kampfpanzern Leopard 2. Die gestiegenen sicherheitspolitischen Risiken erfordern sowohl eine Überprüfung dieser Stückzahl wie auch die weitere Modernisierung vorhandener Systeme, bis hin zu einem Entwicklungsprogramm Leopard 3. Das Bundesministerium der Verteidigung wird gebeten dies in die mittelfristige Finanzplanung aufzunehmen.

Begründung:
1.
Die weltweite sicherheitspolitische Lage hat sich deutlich verschärft. In diesem Zuge legt die NATO verstärktes Augenmerk auf die Kernaufgabe Bündnisverteidigung. Auch Deutschland ist hierbei besonders gefordert. Die Bundeswehr ist vor allem bei den landbasierten Kräften leistungsfähig, insbesondere bei den gepanzerten Kräften. Der bisher ausgeplante Kräfteansatz von 225 Kampfpanzern Leopard 2 ist den neuen Entwicklungen nicht mehr angemessen.
2.
Die Bundeswehr als Erst- und Hauptnutzer des Leopard 2 hat den Anspruch, bei diesem Waffensystem technologisch weltweit an der Spitze zu stehen. Derzeit gibt es jedoch andere Nutzerstaaten, die über moderne Versionen des Leopard 2 verfügen. Dieses Missverhältnis gilt es zu beseitigen.
3.
Mittel-und langfristig ist dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die Zukunftsfähigkeit des Kampfpanzers durch ein Programm „Leopard 3“ gewahrt bleibt. Die deutsche
Landsystemindustrie ist bereits heute darauf vorzubereiten.

Der Antrag wurde mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und SPD gegen die Stimmen der Fraktionen DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN angenommen.

Source: Drucksache 18/2525, Page 15.

Translation for significant bolded part:

The German Armoured Forces will in the future only consist of 225 Main Battle Tanks Leopard 2. The increased security politics risks require reviewing this number and the further modernization of present systems, including up to a development program Leopard 3. The Ministry of Defense is being asked to accomodate this in its medium term financial planning.

This was not passed by parliament but by the defense committee. Parliament simply voted to include this recommendation in the 2015 budget document.

Similar recommendations passed by the defense committee were eg. a call for a system decision on TLVS (MEADS successor), a recommendation to procure more air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions to accomodate current use scenarios, a general call for more GTK Boxer, a call to go over the equipment delivered to the Peshmerga and where taken from active troops replace it, a recommendation to institute a program that'd take care of the investment problems with military housing and bases (which has been a topic for two decades), and a couple calls for certain particular R&D projects (mostly classified) to either go further along the introduction process (e.g. for IDZ-ES) or to not have their funding cancelled as part of the general budget cuts.

 

[CB90]

225 MBT's total? Seriously?

So is Poland going to be the new "standing army" for NATO then?

 

[kato]

Better than the zero some other European countries have (such as the Netherlands).

225 Leo 2 in active units, there's around 500 Leo 2 and 100 Leo 1 sitting in depots right now.

 

[Waylander]

The projected numbers for France and the UK look similar. At least we are not cutting up nearly new MBTs like the UK...

 

[Feanor]

225 MBT's total? Seriously?

So is Poland going to be the new "standing army" for NATO then?

Well all of this could change over the next decade, depending on how aggressive Russia is.

The projected numbers for France and the UK look similar. At least we are not cutting up nearly new MBTs like the UK...

Why are they cutting them up? Why not just put them in storage?

Better than the zero some other European countries have (such as the Netherlands).

225 Leo 2 in active units, there's around 500 Leo 2 and 100 Leo 1 sitting in depots right now.

Come on, comparing Germany and the Netherlands is like comparing Russia and Belarus. Not to mention that just because other European countries are making the same mistake, doesn't make it less of a mistake.

 

[Feanor]

At some point you just can't upgrade existing designs anymore. The Leopard will be 50+ years in service by 2030. Well, one could always go the Super Hornet route and build new hulls and turrets and call it an upgrade...

I for one am not sure if I am supportive of a multinational endeavour with the UK and France. The joint MBT programs of the past weren't all that successfull. Or let's have a look at the Boxer program. The UK left the party due to their US influenced dream of common light FRES platforms. And they have nothing to show for it while searching for a wheeled, modular and well protected platform till today...

I say we design the thing and the rest of europe just buys it.

Is there any material on Germany concepts for a next-gen MBT? That would be interesting reading. Since the cold war ended Soviet progarms (OKR Bokser, Molot, Object 640, 195, 477, etc.) have mostly become known. I know there was a project for a 140mm gun for the Abrams.

 

[RobWilliams]

First time I've read the UK are cutting up Challenger II's, everything else I've read points to storage in climate controlled units.

 

[Waylander]

AFAIK they are really cutting at least parts of the mothballed Challi 2 fleet up in order to save storage costs and gain additional spare parts. I've read it over on TankNet. Have to search for a link though.

As for future MBT concepts, Germany as well as Switzerland had 140mm gun programs. The idea of unmanned turrets also floated around and with the Puma the army can evaluate if it likes such a setup or not.

The more modern transmission of the Puma is also a candidate for getting upscaled to tank weights.

 

[RobWilliams]

Well that's depressing

But not totally unexpected. 2010 reduced us from 386 to 227 tanks in service. Cutting a bunch of the spare hulls to become sources of spares seems a reasonable idea if it means we can deploy a 56 strong tank brigade (even perhaps a strengthened brigade if needed) with a proper spares pool.

The last tank was built over a decade ago, the first rolled out over two decades ago. Considering there's a CR2 combat lethality improvement program either underway or starting to begin relatively soon, I suspect it was the more shagged out hulls which were to be cut open.

At least, that would be the better solution than 'that one'.

 

[Waylander]

That's not a brigade, that's a bataillon...

The UK put a mixed division into the field in 2003. 1/3 16th Air Assault, 1/3 3rd Commandos and 1/3 7th Armoured.

The Paras captured some oil fields next to Basra and sat there holding them for the rest of the operation. The Royal Marines assaulted the southern marshes but got bogged down because of some armoured elements of the Iraqi Army with T-55s and BMPs. Only an armoured attack by the Royal Scots Dragoons (IIRC) could free them from their stalemate.

The brunt of the attack up to and into Basra was carried by the 7th Armoured with it's ca. 120 Challis, 150 Warriors and assorted heavy support.

That none of the major european countries will be able to put only one single armoured brigade into the field in any operation further away from the barracks is frightening.

 

[RobWilliams]

True, I mixed up the names, it's an armoured regiment within an armoured brigade

That's the same planned by FF2020, 3Cdo rotates 3 battalions to provide very high readiness amphib battle group, 16AAB rotates 2 battalions to provide VHR para battle group and 3rd Div rotates 3 brigades which in turn provide a lead armoured battle group.

Those are the 'immediate' response units from the reactive force, more time = more force elements.

The actions of SCOTS DG in Iraq is actually the subject of a book im reading through right now (Main Battle Tank). Heh, now an armoured brigade is scheduled to have 56 CR2 and 84 Warriors.

It's characteristic of leaning on Uncle Sam IMO, that they'll *always* be there to do the heavy lifting. It is also a stupid theory IMO. I suppose it's also down to an idea that as things are tending towards 'expeditionary' against irregular elements or weaker state players that armoured forces are becoming irrelevant.

 

[Waylander]

I doubt that one could muster an armoured element for an overseas deployment like we've seen during Op Telic with some 200+ active tanks.

An Armoured Brigade with 56 MBTs and 84 IFVs is more of a MechInf Brigade with another name and defenitely on the lower limit of an effective mobile ground combat element. As good and important light infantry like Paras and Royal Marines are, they lack protection, persistence, mobility and firepower for anything more than assaults on ill equipped and training and rather static enemies (excluding difficult terrain like urban areas, heavy mountains, etc.)

I don't get how the idea of heavy forces being only a sideshow took hold in some circles. In the past 20 years MBTs were the premier UK ground combat element during to big conventional wars (ODS and OIF) and played an important supporting role during the assymetric phase of Iraq and Afghanistan with UK forces gettig MBT support by the Danish and Canadian battlegroups.

The same applies to the US with the USMC getting them to Afghanistan.

Just imagine Lybia would have progressed into a ground campaign (not all that far fetched a possibility). The mission of going after Gaddhafis troops further than just holding Bengazi would have fallen to armoured/mechanized formations.

Three to four companies (or squadrons...) of MBTs won't give you mich of a frontline with the need to rotate units in and out of combat.

I don't even want to start to think about a real conventional war against an even halfway competent enemy (cough...Russians...cough). When a badly mauled battalion (or Regiment...) of tanks means you loose roughly a quarter of your maximum active combat strength than our whole idea of a serious conventional option is rather questionable.

 

[CB90]

Three to four companies (or squadrons...) of MBTs won't give you mich of a frontline with the need to rotate units in and out of combat.

I don't even want to start to think about a real conventional war against an even halfway competent enemy (cough...Russians...cough). When a badly mauled battalion (or Regiment...) of tanks means you loose roughly a quarter of your maximum active combat strength than our whole idea of a serious conventional option is rather questionable.

Let's hope we never have to test out NATO airpower's ability to operate against a modern Russian IADS with Russian operators and the VVS.

Not sure that particular time-distance problem is on NATO's side though.

It's characteristic of leaning on Uncle Sam IMO, that they'll *always* be there to do the heavy lifting. It is also a stupid theory IMO. I suppose it's also down to an idea that as things are tending towards 'expeditionary' against irregular elements or weaker state players that armoured forces are becoming irrelevant.

Yeah...it would make sense if the US actually maintained large armored formations in Europe. Since we don't, they're not going to be there in a rapidly developing crisis. Might as well count them out. Airpower is the best NATO's likely to get from the US.
I'm not even sure how quickly we could actually mobilize and deploy effective armored formations from stateside in a true crisis. No idea if the current Army organization structure supports that without some handwaving and improvisation.

 

[Waylander]

IMHO Airpower is the one field were NATO as a whole has the most advantages. The same applies to our navys which should be able to keep all important seaways open and the Russians confined to their home waters.

But airpower alone won't stop a Russian aggression against one of our eastern members nor will it allow us to counterattack. In any case of conventional conflict the Russians won't get stopped on NATO's borders but well past them. Pushing them out again with what NATO can mobilize has to be taken into account.

And if anything light forces will not counterattack against Russian heavy formations, even with (probably hard pressed) air superiority.

I am not sure about the US Army's ability to rapidly deploy heavy forces. Shouldn't one HBCT be on high readiness status?