Saudi considers T-95 MBTs?

[Izzy1]

September 11th, 2006, 12:37
Saudi in talks with Russia over weapons sales: Diplomat (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/../news/publish/Saudi_in_talks_with_Russia_over_weapons_sales_2006 0911.php)
Saudi Arabia is in talks with Russia over the possible purchase of Russian weapons for the first time by the oil-rich kingdom, which has traditionally used Western defense systems, a Western diplomat said yesterday. Read More... (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/../news/publish/Saudi_in_talks_with_Russia_over_weapons_sales_2006 0911.php)

So far this year, Royal Saudi Land Forces has looked at Al Khalid, Le Clerc and now the T-95. My money is still on the Le Clerc.

Possibility of Saudi National Guard developing its own armoured formations. Thus it would not surprise me if the SANG bought a completely different system to the army.

[merocaine]

The Saudi goverment is really divesifying its weapons procurement, This T95 manover looks like a ploy to drive down the price of the LeClerc.

You wonder what this arms build up is about? they are not threatened by any external enemies. America can do the job of external defence quite well.
My money is on the fear of internal revolt, which would make sense if there equiping the national guard with tanks.

[duplex]

Any particular reason why the Saudis are interested in Leclerc instead of Challenger 2? Leclerc is not combat proven!

[.pt]

Don´t know much about the Saudi internal situation, but i gather you mean, equiping the SANG with tanks to check the regular army armor?
.pt

[merocaine]

Don´t know much about the Saudi internal situation, but i gather you mean, equiping the SANG with tanks to check the regular army armor?
.pt

yeah possibly, but more just to park on street corners if there is a Islamic uprising.
Their procurment policy is a bit odd, considering there external situation.

[swerve]

Any particular reason why the Saudis are interested in Leclerc instead of Challenger 2? Leclerc is not combat proven!

That's an argument for never buying anything new. "Don't buy these newfangled tank things - they aren't combat proven. Stick with horses!". I don't want to be rude, but it's a non-argument.

[duplex]

<<I don't want to be rude, >>

So don't !! I still can't figure out why they are interested in Leclerc?
Leclers came fourth and the last in an extensive MBT evaluation carrıed out two years ago by Turkish Armed Forces .

1-M1 Abrahms ( The best but not suitable ,extremely high fuel consumtion)
2-LEO 2
3-Challenger 2
4-Leclerc

[jogi]

Indications are that they might go for small numbers of AL-khalids and some other tanks. Alkhalids will be manned by Pakistani armoured brigade to be posted in Saudi Arabia, replacing american armour regiments. Already HIT-Taxila folks are talking about an order to the tune of 600 million $.


September 11th, 2006, 12:37
Saudi in talks with Russia over weapons sales: Diplomat (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/../news/publish/Saudi_in_talks_with_Russia_over_weapons_sales_2006 0911.php)
Saudi Arabia is in talks with Russia over the possible purchase of Russian weapons for the first time by the oil-rich kingdom, which has traditionally used Western defense systems, a Western diplomat said yesterday. Read More... (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/../news/publish/Saudi_in_talks_with_Russia_over_weapons_sales_2006 0911.php)

So far this year, Royal Saudi Land Forces has looked at Al Khalid, Le Clerc and now the T-95. My money is still on the Le Clerc.

Possibility of Saudi National Guard developing its own armoured formations. Thus it would not surprise me if the SANG bought a completely different system to the army.

[jogi]

The real aim of these purchases are not defence. They have huge foreign reserves, and with it they keep americans , british and french at reasonable bay, or pay them back ( maintaining jobs in defence industry )or kick backs as well).

The recent purchase of Typhoons is an ample example of this. Just helping the euro defence industry.

French have been left out , so lets c.

[merocaine]

The real aim of these purchases are not defence. They have huge foreign reserves, and with it they keep americans , british and french at reasonable bay, or pay them back ( maintaining jobs in defence industry )or kick backs as well).

The recent purchase of Typhoons is an ample example of this. Just helping the euro defence industry.

French have been left out , so lets c.

What a mess! you'd think they'd spend the money on something there people actully need.

On the Le Clerc, the French have already supplied a tropicalised version to the UAE. Maybe this is part of the reason its being considered.

Its also one of the fastest and lightest around which probobly helps on sand.

So don't !! I still can't figure out why they are interested in Leclerc?
Leclers came fourth and the last in an extensive MBT evaluation carrıed out two years ago by Turkish Armed Forces .

1-M1 Abrahms ( The best but not suitable ,extremely high fuel consumtion)
2-LEO 2
3-Challenger 2
4-Leclerc

Turkey is not a 50 degree desert! what works for turkey doesent mean it will work for everyone.

What the hell is a T-95 anyway!? I thought it was just a development model anyway.

[Waylander]

Do you have sources for the tests in turkey?

[duplex]

<Do you have sources for the tests in turkey?>


I had read it in Turkish Daily news in English but as I said was some two years ago.The race between M1 and Leo 2 was very very tight.

In the end ,Leo 2 was chosen, but the order hasn't been placed yet for 1000 MBT..At least I didn't hear anything about that yet.

[Waylander]

Aha, ok.

[fylr71]

What the hell is a T-95 anyway!? I thought it was just a development model anyway.

Good point. I believe T-95 was in competition with Black Eagle for Russia's next generation tank. Last I heard Black Eagle had won out because it is a major upgrade of the T-80 rather than a completely new design. It is kind of suprising that Russia is already looking at next generation tanks when they only have about 150 T-90s. As for the Saudis why begin purchasing T-95s when they already have M1A2s and could certainly get them upgraded to the M1A2 SEP? Doing that would be like France suddenly wanting to buy MIG-1.42:rolleyes:

[Balin]

What the hell is a T-95 anyway!? I thought it was just a development model anyway.

MX-30 is 3,40 m toll, t72 is 2.19 m, t95 lower.

Even on my modification t172b1 I could easy shotdown any the best NATO tank. :el with uncomaparable price and relaibility.

I could agree thay not going to buy tanks it's a just price gambling

[swerve]

As for the Saudis why begin purchasing T-95s when they already have M1A2s and could certainly get them upgraded to the M1A2 SEP? Doing that would be like France suddenly wanting to buy MIG-1.42:rolleyes:

No it wouldn't. France has its own combat aircraft. Saudi Arabia imports all its tanks, so it's a choice of foreign tank A or foreign tank B, not domestic vs foreign.

As has been said before, Saudi Arabia uses multiple suppliers both to reduce the risk of a cut-off of support, & to play off one against another to get better deals - by which I don't mean necessarily price, but, e.g., a class of weapon which the USA might refuse to sell if it was sole supplier. Like Taiwan buying Mirage 2000 & Mica when the USA refused to sell AIM-120.

[Big-E]

Did they scrap plans for the Al-Khalid?

[Izzy1]

Did they scrap plans for the Al-Khalid?


The RSLF has been quite vocal in opposing any Al Khalid procurement. The Ministry of Defence & Aviation however is still flirting with the idea and their introduction into the National Guard could be a possibility.

As for why they are interested in Le Clerc over Challenger 2, as Jogi says, its mainly down to politics more than anything else. A large Le Clerc order will placate a French Government that is still a bit sore about Saudi opting for Typhoon and not buying Rafale.

I've pasted below Jane's Armour and Artillery section on the T-95. Sounds like a radical change from previous Russian MBT.


MBTs AND MEDIUM TANKS, Russian Federation

Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006

Jane's Armour And Artillery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T-95 MBT
Development
Description
Status
Contractor

Development TOP

In early 2000, the then Russian Defence Minister, Marshal Igor Sergeyev announced that a radically new Main Battle Tank (MBT) designated the T-95 had been developed in Russia.

Sergeyev made his statement after visiting defence industry facilities in Nizhnii Tagil and Yekaterinburg in the Ural region. During the visit to the Uralvagonzavod plant the Minister looked over a full-scale prototype of the new vehicle.

The fact that he named it T-95 suggests possible fielding of the new tank. It is known that such designations are given to operational vehicles such as the T-80 and T-90. Russian pilot and developmental vehicles are usually designated by the word 'Obiekt' with a number given to it.

As of early 2006, the T-95 MBT had not been seen in production and it probably still remains at the prototype stage.

Recent information has stated that the T-95 has the development designation of the Obiekt 775. Trials of the prototype vehicle started at the Kubinka proving ground outside of Moscow in the second half of 1998.

In the Description, the main armament is described as a 135 mm gun but some sources have also stated that it is armed with a 152 mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader located below the turret. In addition to firing conventional natures of ammunition it can also fire missiles.

It is considered that the crew compartment is of the citadel-type with a high level of protection. The tank will also have a high level automated command and control system integrated into it and be fitted with a land navigation system as well as a diagnostic system.

Combat weight of the T-95 is now being quoted as 50 tonnes and it is powered by a 1,500 hp gas turbine or diesel coupled to an automatic transmission.

The design of the chassis will allow it to be used for a wide range of other applications.

Description TOP

Full technical data, outline and configuration features of the new T-95 MBT are not available. At the same time, a representative of Uralvagonzavod said the tank has a whole new design, rather than a modification of an existing vehicle.

It is claimed that the new T-95 MBT weighs 50 tons, its length and width would be likely about the same as the current T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs.

But the main feature of the new tank lies in its radically new configuration. Its gun is now mounted on a small, unmanned turret. A recently designed automatic loader, typical of the Russian MBTs, is located below the turret which first loads the projectile and then the charge.

The three-man crew consisting of driver mechanic, gunner and commander are seated in a special armoured capsule, separated by an armoured bulkhead from the automatic loader and turret with externally mounted main armament.

This design feature makes it possible not only to reduce the silhouette of the MBT and therefore make it less observable on the battlefield, but also considerably enhance crew safety and survivability. Combat experience has shown that one of the main weaknesses of Russian MBTs has been that when the hull is penetrated near the 125 mm automatic loader the ammunition often explodes, so blowing off the complete turret and destroying the whole vehicle.

It is believed that the T-95 MBT is armed with a 135 mm gun which is believed to be of the smoothbore type and is fitted with a new Fire-Control System (FCS).

Target information comes via optical, thermal imaging and IR channels. The FCS will also include a laser range-finder and possibly a radar. It is expected that it will feature a hunter/killer capability. In this role the target is first detected by the commander, who then hands over to the gunner to carry out the actual target engagement.

It should be noted that the new configuration places very strict demands to the FCS, as the crew is prevented from using traditional optical devices.

In the past one of the major weakness of Russian MBTs, when compared to their western counterparts, has been in the area of fire control and night vision optics and it is only recently that Russian MBTs have started to be fitted with thermal vision devices.

The new T-95 MBT is not the sole domestic new-generation MBT. In 1999, at the arms exposition in Omsk, Siberia, there was displayed the 'object 640' (named Black Eagle), developed at the Omsk-based Design Bureau of Transport Machine-building who also build the T-80.

Black Eagle also features a wholly new chassis and turret. Available details are given in a separate entry. Black Eagle retains a conventional turret with seats for the commander and gunner with the automatic loader and a part of the 125 mm ammunition load being placed in a spacious housing located in a rear part of turret.

Nizhnii Tagil is where the T-72 and T-90 MBTs are built with Omsk producing the T-80 MBT. Both facilities have been struggling to keep their research, development and production facilities alive against the background of reduced orders from the Russian Army and small export orders. The Omsk facility recently had a major boost when India ordered 310 of the export T-90S series MBTs early in 2001. The first of these were delivered late in 2001 and some will also be manufactured under licence in India.

It is known that OAO Spetsmash Design Bureau in St Petersburg has been working on a two-person MBT fitted with an externally mounted large calibre gun.

Status TOP

Prototype. No firm details of this have yet been released.

Contractor TOP


Uralvagonzavod (Nizhnii Tagil). UPDATED



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 Jane's Information Group

[duplex]

<<A large Le Clerc order will placate a French Government that is still a bit sore about Saudi opting for Typhoon and not buying Rafale>>


The Saudis are under no obligation to placate any French government under any circumstances. I believe that they will not order the Leclerc..

[merocaine]

<<A large Le Clerc order will placate a French Government that is still a bit sore about Saudi opting for Typhoon and not buying Rafale>>

Rubbish, the Leclerc is in use with the UAE, who seem quite happy with it, thats why the saudi's are considering it! Its a good desert tank plain and simple.

Has anyone bought the challanger 2?

[Izzy1]

The Saudis are under no obligation to placate any French government under any circumstances.

On the contrary, France is a critical element in Saudi's economic, foreign and security policy. The Typhoon contract and the opening up to international tender of the MIKSA border defence system - a contract that Thales thought it had won - as well as several other matters have led to strains between the two countries. Avoiding such strained relations with Paris is in Riyadh's best ineterests, thus the latest round of arms deals that Saudi and France are now exploring (Ceaser 155mm, FREMM Frigates, Scorpene/Marlin SSKs, A330 Tanker/Transports, Cougar CSAR).

In regards to an MBT, whatever they buy, they will have to do it soon. 4th Armoured Brigade deseprately needs new equipment to replace its AMX-30s. The M60A3s are due an upgrade as well.

[Scorpius]

Has anyone bought the challanger 2?
Oman I think.

[duplex]

<<On the contrary, France is a critical element in Saudi's economic, foreign and security policy. The Typhoon contract and the opening up to international tender of the MIKSA border defence system - a contract that Thales thought it had won - as well as several other matters have led to strains between the two countries.>>

It doesn't matter, France,unlike Britain and the USA is not commited to defend Saudi Regime and the Royal family against threats from outside.This is a very important consideration.Regarding the 8 Billion € border defence system ,Thales has lost this tender because the Saudis have recognized that the French offer was not the best for money. Bea Systems and especially Raytheon can offer systems that are superior to French.I still believe that the French won't get this MBT order in the end..My personal opinion needless to say.

[Izzy1]

Rubbish, the Leclerc is in use with the UAE, who seem quite happy with it, thats why the saudi's are considering it! Its a good desert tank plain and simple.


I don't dispute the merits of Le Clerc, it is a high quality platform that certainly offers greater capability than some other MBT systems Saudi has been linked with. The UAE has had some major problems maintaining their Tropicalised Le Clerc, but I would guess this may not be the fault of the vehicle itself. Also from the logistical stand point, Le Clerc makes more sense than introducing a Russian or Chinese sourced MBT into Saudi service - where western (NATO esp.) systems and logistics predominate.

But as usual in regards Saudi procurement, the actual military capability of a system is not necessarily the motivation behind the purchase. Indeed, whether the armed forces 'need' the system sometimes doesn't even come into play. For example - why does the Saudi Navy need 12 FREMM Frigates?
The RSNF struggles manning the 3 Al Riyadh FFGs already in service. We have over 1000 MBTs on paper, yet more than half of them have been in long-term storage because there aren't enough trained crews to operate them nor actual units to deploy them too.

Saudi simply buys for reasons other than whether the system is good in the desert or not. Prestige, power and politics.

[Scorpius]

^their management sucks.when oil will run out...

[radiosilence]

it basically comes down to them wanting to buy "friends" internationally which becomes a logistical nightmare for their military. hence, the need for so many foreigners for support and maintance.

[Waylander]

I'm not a friend of unmanned turrets for MBTs.
It makes you depended purely on techincal observation.
The eyeball mark 1 is one of the best friends you have while commanding a tank.
There is a reason for tank commanders to look out of their hatchet as often as they can.

[merocaine]

But as usual in regards Saudi procurement, the actual military capability of a system is not necessarily the motivation behind the purchase. Indeed, whether the armed forces 'need' the system sometimes doesn't even come into play. For example - why does the Saudi Navy need 12 FREMM Frigates?
The RSNF struggles manning the 3 Al Riyadh FFGs already in service. We have over 1000 MBTs on paper, yet more than half of them have been in long-term storage because there aren't enough trained crews to operate them nor actual units to deploy them too.

Saudi simply buys for reasons other than whether the system is good in the desert or not. Prestige, power and politics.
[QUOTE]

yeah that 12 frigates thing is unbelievible. I dont understand why they dont just cut a deal to have this stuff built in saudi, like the egyptians did with abram.

[QUOTE]It makes you depended purely on techincal observation.
The eyeball mark 1 is one of the best friends you have while commanding a tank.
There is a reason for tank commanders to look out of their hatchet as often as they can.

good point, what happens when your optics are knocked out/fail?
could be a classic case of over compensation after years of making tommy boiliers

[mikehotwheelz]

I'm not a friend of unmanned turrets for MBTs.
It makes you depended purely on techincal observation.
The eyeball mark 1 is one of the best friends you have while commanding a tank.
There is a reason for tank commanders to look out of their hatchet as often as they can.

I know it's an IFV, not a tank but doesn't the new German Puma have an unmanned turret? Just a query, I know its off topic, sorry :confused:

[Waylander]

Jup, and I also don't like it there but the benefits you get on an IFV are bigger than on an MBT.
The Puma has an armor against 30mm over the frontal arc and RPG all around with a 6 men group inside.
And some of these men are still able to look out.
It's a compromise.

With an unmanned MBT turret you just gain a smaller height.
The problem with the autoloader has nothing to do with the turret being manned or unmanned.
I don't see why you have to do such a compromise there.

BTW, why should the Saudis want to buy a tank which is not even near to serial production?

[Apocalypse]

The real aim of these purchases are not defence. They have huge foreign reserves, and with it they keep americans , british and french at reasonable bay, or pay them back ( maintaining jobs in defence industry )or kick backs as well).

The recent purchase of Typhoons is an ample example of this. Just helping the euro defence industry.

French have been left out , so lets c.
I think they are trying to counterweight the Iranians in Mid-East power. Those two countries are not the best of friends and have conflicting interests in Iraq.

[adsH]

There's another thing to keep-in mind, when we talk about Saudi Procurements, each force has a different "Boss" (literally). Different brothers control different ministries. Each force would naturally have preferences in the vendors. Izzy might be able-to elaborate further, but the-bottom line is saudis are cash Rich, and it appears that this would be an even better year for them, so what seems illogical and uneconomical for us might not be for them since, there threshold to tolerate the cost would be very different.

[Wooki]

Jup, and I also don't like it there but the benefits you get on an IFV are bigger than on an MBT.
The Puma has an armor against 30mm over the frontal arc and RPG all around with a 6 men group inside.
And some of these men are still able to look out.
It's a compromise.

With an unmanned MBT turret you just gain a smaller height.
The problem with the autoloader has nothing to do with the turret being manned or unmanned.
I don't see why you have to do such a compromise there.

BTW, why should the Saudis want to buy a tank which is not even near to serial production?

Because its an advanced design. Unmanned turrets make you very hard to hit because they lower your silohette. This is particularly useful in an urban battlefield when you are up against infantry fired ATGMs and RPGs of the sort that are prolific in the Middle East. Firing an RPG-7 at a low tank that is moving from right to left at 30km/h? Your chances of getting a kill shot are nearly zero...add a cross wind and it gets lower. Kick up some dust and its lower again.

This sort of thing would make the old 'S' Tank a great assault gun (for instance) because it can literally hide behind a low wall as it trundles along, turns the corner and boom. Infantry don't have all the bells and whistles available to another tank, so what appears obsolete on the force-on-force engagement is not necessarily true when digging out insurgents and guerillas in an urban environment. What you need there is solid combined force tactics and that means an upgraded situation awareness suite and you are basically good to go.

So the T-95? Why not? The Soviets.... (sorry Russians) certainly need some cash to get the program going... and despite what you read , see and hear in the media, their tank designers are shit-hot. They can deduce the same lessons from watching CNN that American and European tank designers can and they can probably offer a reasonable price that is competitive with a known design.

This is the one client who could seriously make it happen for them.

cheers

W

[fylr71]

Unless the Saudis are trying to diversify their tank inventory they would have only 1 reason for looking at another tank besides the M1A2 and that is they found something superior to the Abrams which certainly won't sit well with the US army. Saudi Arabia has firmly been in the camp of the west for more then 15 years. I doubt they would begin to buy Russian equipment unless they found it to be superior.

[MG 3]

The Saudis are trying to diversify. They were in Pak a few months back with 2 of their companies and a detatchment of experst looking at our Al-Talah's and M113 command vehicals. There was also some newsabout them looking at Al-Khalids for their army(unlikely).

The real prob is the attitude they have to face from American companies. Its is a real pain in the ***. You cant imagine what they go through just to change some thing like the engine oil. My father was attached with the Saudi army in Tobuk.

[KGB]

My understanding is that T-xx series tanks are optimized for "deep battle", which reflects russian doctrine. I'm guessing that the Saudis don't plan to use their tanks with the same doctrine in mind. I mean, for defensive purposes and for countries with limited manpower isn't the Western tank approach more appropriate? For example, the low turrets do make it harder for the tanks to fire top down don't they? Plus if they engage in a mobile defence, the supply train of their tanks get shorter. Part of the soviet philosophy I imagine comes from their experience in WW2 where mechanical and fuel factors always seemed to blunt their spearheads the deeper they went.

[Rich]

Unless the Saudis are trying to diversify their tank inventory they would have only 1 reason for looking at another tank besides the M1A2 and that is they found something superior to the Abrams which certainly won't sit well with the US army. Saudi Arabia has firmly been in the camp of the west for more then 15 years. I doubt they would begin to buy Russian equipment unless they found it to be superior.

Sure there is. Every "made in USA" piece of equipment they have is like, in their minds, waving an American flag concerning spheres of Influence. The Saudi monarchy is concerned about to much western influence in the kingdom and the illusion of same among their populace. That's why our troops were stationed as far away from Saudi society as possible.

So having Russian built tanks would give them the impression of independence from western policy. What are the odds of them ever actually fighting the tank in the first place? So what does it matter if one is better then the other?

The real prob is the attitude they have to face from American companies. Its is a real pain in the ***. You cant imagine what they go through just to change some thing like the engine oil. My father was attached with the Saudi army in Tobuk.

First I heard of our companies giving customers a hard time about changing oil in tanks.

[Waylander]

In the end we all know what are the most important things in tanks.
Music and lunch boxes. :D ;)

[extern]

In the end we all know what are the most important things in tanks.
Music and lunch boxes. :D ;)
I'd prefer MTV...
Anyway, I found some video with T-95 (not MTV). http://webfile.ru/1106373 Enjoy!

[Waylander]

My download is killed everytime I am round about 30%.

[Awang se]

Good point. I believe T-95 was in competition with Black Eagle for Russia's next generation tank. Last I heard Black Eagle had won out because it is a major upgrade of the T-80 rather than a completely new design. It is kind of suprising that Russia is already looking at next generation tanks when they only have about 150 T-90s. As for the Saudis why begin purchasing T-95s when they already have M1A2s and could certainly get them upgraded to the M1A2 SEP? Doing that would be like France suddenly wanting to buy MIG-1.42

i believe the many Bush talk to bring democracy in middle east has unnerved many autocratics in arab world. and with Bush sometimes rather sharp critics on the arab leaders, even some of his allies only serve to strengthened the view. so diversifying their military hardware source is like somekind of insurance in case their "trusted ally" turn on them.

[contedicavour]

i believe the many Bush talk to bring democracy in middle east has unnerved many autocratics in arab world. and with Bush sometimes rather sharp critics on the arab leaders, even some of his allies only serve to strengthened the view. so diversifying their military hardware source is like somekind of insurance in case their "trusted ally" turn on them.

Yep right, but then just buy French Leclerc MBTs, it send a BIG signal and doesn't condemn the army to operate an untested and expensive tank... ;)

cheers

[Waylander]

I would understand the decision to buy T-95 if the Saudis would be implemented into the development from now on. If this is not the case I would not buy T-95 due to the fact that there is no final version I could test and I don't have the opportunity to change the design.
If I look at the manpower of SA a tank with an autoloader would give them some benefits because they already have problems to man their equipment.

[contedicavour]

I would understand the decision to buy T-95 if the Saudis would be implemented into the development from now on. If this is not the case I would not buy T-95 due to the fact that there is no final version I could test and I don't have the opportunity to change the design.
If I look at the manpower of SA a tank with an autoloader would give them some benefits because they already have problems to man their equipment.

Good point, which reminds me btw that MBTs need to be adapted to desert combat, a bit like the Leclerc MBT was before the UAE bought it. The Russians' whether has nothing to do with the Saudi desert, so I doubt it was built with that in mind...

cheers

[PlasmaKrab]

Sounds strange that the Saudi are issuing queries for tank makers all over the world, when they already have M1A2s which could largely top anything in the region (except for Israel's Merkava-MkIV) for a given level of training.

The fact that their best equipment is US and that they are shopping everywhere but in the US for such showy contrats as MBTs gives some credit to the idea that they want to reduce their strategic dependence on the USA (way to go, guys...).
Investing in Russian defence development would be a good move, particularly if they secure an order in the end (quite like what Qatar is doing with Jordan's KADDB).
I still prefer the way the UAE are working to move away from oil, but well, wait and see.

Anyone got any hard currency about the Khalids possibly going to the SANG? That would really change the deal, particularly given they are Pakistani tanks.

[contedicavour]

Saudi armed forces should do more to standardize their equipment, not only within their army, but also with friendly neighboring countries.
UAE has Leclercs, Oman has Challenger 2s, Yemen has mostly Russian MBTs, Saudi has M1s ... what a mess. If one day these forces have to fight together against, say, Iran, their efficiency will be reduced.

cheers

[Viktor]

Who has ever seen any pics of T-95 - just talk and some indication. I dont tkink any country would buy some tank that has not being accepted in its own country.
I think it is reporters mistake to say T-95 insted T-90.

[PlasmaKrab]

Strangely, more and more people are talking about this T-95 since some years,so one can wonder if it is a real project that got canned after the fall of the USSR (like the US Block-III tank), or a self-generating hoax of some sort.
In the second case, anyone would have a hard time finding out where the story originated.Wishful-thinking Russian enthusiasts? Russian military looking to impress their neighbors? Russian engineers looking to impress their clients? 'Misplaced' pre-project drawings? Clueless journalists? :D

Could it be that a whole government might have fallen for a fictitious project? Thinking about it, I think they may well have...

[Viktor]

Strangely, more and more people are talking about this T-95 since some years,so one can wonder if it is a real project that got canned after the fall of the USSR (like the US Block-III tank), or a self-generating hoax of some sort.
In the second case, anyone would have a hard time finding out where the story originated.Wishful-thinking Russian enthusiasts? Russian military looking to impress their neighbors? Russian engineers looking to impress their clients? 'Misplaced' pre-project drawings? Clueless journalists? :D

Could it be that a whole government might have fallen for a fictitious project? Thinking about it, I think they may well have...

Perhaps but I think it was a real project in unknown state od development whitch eventualy got cancelled due to a lack of funds. It is posibility however that project was continued beceuse of improving Russian economy or perhaps it is being sufinanced with some other country.
I have read some article in whitch Ivanov claimed to see T-95 prototype so I dont think it is a ghost tank.

[eckherl]

Just the same, it will be Russian junk, as for the Saudi`s - they are just looking to spend some money and show the world that they have the latest toy`s that money will buy. Thats why their military is crap, there is hardly standardization with their hardware, Iran will make sure that what they recieve from Putin will be export model crap.

[atilla]

lets say ıs there a posıbılıty of thıs unıted armed forces to fıght agaınst ıran???? for thıs to happen ıraq should dıveded to 3 parts thıs ıs how ı thınk thıs posıbılıty could come true and 2 years ago turkısh armıes decısıon about lerec was maınly because of tensıons between france and turks ?? maybe ???? thıs doesnt mean that lerec ıs bad equıped or ın my wıev doesnt mean leo ıs better than lerec for turkey mıddle sıze fast and good armed thank ıs enough 54 tons ıs alot even for brıdges ın many turkısh roads ;) could ıt be ???? some arab states tryıng to develop theır own MBT along whıth pakıstan and probly assıstance from a wıllıng country ???? ıncludıng france and maybe russıa ?????

[PlasmaKrab]

lets say ıs there a posıbılıty of thıs unıted armed forces to fıght agaınst ıran???? for thıs to happen ıraq should dıveded to 3 parts thıs ıs how ı thınk thıs posıbılıty could come true and 2 years ago turkısh armıes decısıon about lerec was maınly because of tensıons between france and turks ?? maybe ???? thıs doesnt mean that lerec ıs bad equıped or ın my wıev doesnt mean leo ıs better than lerec for turkey mıddle sıze fast and good armed thank ıs enough 54 tons ıs alot even for brıdges ın many turkısh roads ;) could ıt be ???? some arab states tryıng to develop theır own MBT along whıth pakıstan and probly assıstance from a wıllıng country ???? ıncludıng france and maybe russıa ?????
One point to consider re. Leopard in Turkey rather than anything else is the following: cheap surplus tanks readily available. Nothing beats that on financial grounds. Plus if you buy cheap mothballed Leo2A4s, you can have them upgraded to A5/A6/Ex for cheap too.
A newbuilt Leclerc is probably worth a Leo2A6 from the start (L52 gun, top-notch FC/BMS, modular armor...), but buying them new would have been more expensive. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, the Turkish forces are already used to Leopard series stuff, use upgraded Leo1s, and their arms industry have extensive industrial agreements with German firms (not to mention all-round economical, cultural, political alliances).
Shifting from Leopard1A4 to Leopard2A4 is certainly easier for tankers and techies than training on something totally new.
I wonder why they didn't consider developping their own MBT, llike they did for the Firtina?

[sorry for the OT bits, doesn't that belong to another thread already?]

[atilla]

yes actually turkısh army ıs usıng a lot leo and all spare parts and other stuff adjusted for leo but what ı thınk ıs sımply turkısh army dındt thınk replacıng leo whıth lerec but replacıng other tanks whıch ıs upgraded by ısrael.. leos are for ıraq syrıa ıran border sınce they use russıan equıpment??? but ın other parts another thank ıs needed when ıt comes to saudıes yes u are rıght they have a lot of fınancıal resourses and lerec ı heared ıs good on desered condıtıons ın mıd east all natıons are usıng rusıan or US or brıtısh tanks only turkey ıs usıng leo ıf ın lıke some one mentıoned saudıes wants to buy thank whıch ıs counter to russıan and US 2 optıons they have leo or lerec and ıf they consıder ırans russıan t serıes as a opponent lerec ıs good optıon .. I my self belıve speed ıs more ımportant ın tank ın desserd condıtıons

[eckherl]

Turkey is also part of the NATO alliance and I wonder how much of that played into it. The LEO is a outstanding tank and Turkey made a good decision on the purchase. I feel that Turkey has a good sound army with good command and control with structure. There also a good partner in NATO.

[atilla]

t serıes used by syrıa by ıraq by ıran ın mıd east condıtıon ıf ı m wrong pls correct me can we say t serıes was succsesful???? ın the hands of ıraq?????
seems to me t serıes cant oparate good ın thıs pat of the world so why not lerec yes ıt ıs not battel proven but why not??

[Stimpy75]

just found a drawing of the T-95 while surfing,don´t know if it´s repost,sorry if it is,but here take a look of it,it really looks impressive:cool:

[Stimpy75]

sry didn´t work at first try,just found at it´s a bitmap,and i don´t know how i can upload it?:confused:

[Stimpy75]

here it is

[Pathfinder-X]

The only existing photo of T-95 MBT being carried by a heavy transport vehicle. Unfortunately it's covered up exposing only the barrel of the gun.

[Waylander]

Is this photo confirmed?
I mean, there could also be a mock up under the coverage.
They should make an exclusive photo press conference for DT. :D

[eckherl]

Is this photo confirmed?
I mean, there could also be a mock up under the coverage.
They should make an exclusive photo press conference for DT. :D

This picture has been floating around out there for a couple of years now. Probably another test bed.

[Chrom]

t serıes used by syrıa by ıraq by ıran ın mıd east condıtıon ıf ı m wrong pls correct me can we say t serıes was succsesful???? ın the hands of ıraq?????
seems to me t serıes cant oparate good ın thıs pat of the world so why not lerec yes ıt ıs not battel proven but why not??
It was succesfull enouth - see Iran vs Iraq war. Or even Iraq - Kuweit war. A good example of counterporary East-West tank designs clashes in the hands of almost equal capable armies. Of course, they had no chances against superior USA war machine...

[Viktor]

I cant wait to that monster! :)

[eckherl]

It was succesfull enouth - see Iran vs Iraq war. Or even Iraq - Kuweit war. A good example of counterporary East-West tank designs clashes in the hands of almost equal capable armies. Of course, they had no chances against superior USA war machine...

You got that right.

[Mardini]

Saudi Arabia is more likely to see an internal threat in regards of a revolt or coup trying to get rid of the royal family. The royal saudi family is after what I hear very hated by the average Saudi. They have drained the country of its wealth, I heard something of a 70-75% downfall in GDP per capita over the last 30 years, it is said that beggars are everywhere today. And I also read some years ago that the Saudi ruler wanted to spend his summer vacation in southern spain and ended up using something in the extent of 25 mio $ in a couple of weeks. It is furthermore said that a 1/3 of Saudi Arabia's annual GDP is military budget another 1/3 is the royal family's budget, while the last 1/3 is the entire Kingdom's budget. I don't know how much of this is true but it should anyway give a fertile soil for an anti-royal saudi feeling, and which might explain the recent years' activity from muslim militants in the kingdom. Therefore Saudi Arabia actually operates 2 armies! the regular army for external threats and the SNG for internal threats. The SNG, being recruited among saudi royal loyalists, is supposed to prevent any coup (maybe from the military itself) and protect the royal family. Regarding the interest in non-US military hardware, might be explained by the Saudis are in progress of being replaced by Iraq (or that's the plan) as a major oil supplying ally, and furthermore the fact that many of the international terrorists are saudi nationals may have made it very difficult for Saudis to acquire US military hardware , since relationship with Washington DC isn't that warm (wasn't there a block against a Saudi plan for the acquirement of a large number of F-16's) the saudis are looking elsewhere for weapons as to stay updated and modern and to avoid any embargo regarding further acquirements of arms and the very very very important spare parts.. The same thing I think happened to Pakistan, many Pakistani terrorists internationally, US not that happy --> no more weapons for Pakistan --> major cooperation with China in Arms producition....
This is my personal oppinion on the case, If I am wrong either correct me or ignore :))

[extern]

The problem with the Saudis they arent ready to cooperate with the Russian autorities regarding to Chechen wahhabits persecution. Contrary SA is the most hospitable refugium for them from the early 90th. Then I think they should better follow to buy from the US all they need, and if one day Wash. DC decides to promote 'iraqi democracy' for them, let it be ameen...

[Mardini]

The problem with the Saudis they arent ready to cooperate with the Russian autorities regarding to Chechen wahhabits persecution. Contrary SA is the most hospitable refugium for them from the early 90th. Then I think they should better follow to buy from the US all they need, and if one day Wash. DC decides to promote 'iraqi democracy' for them, let it be ameen...

In some sense you are right, but things are changing, now the first priority would be to stay in power, hospitality or not, somehow the saudis are not that eager to buy russian hardware and therefore the choice of aircraft fell on the EF-2000 when they couldn't buy F-16s, I think Saudi - american relations are dettering, although mrs Rice visited Saudi arabia lately, after 9/11 things are simply not the same.. Where would you people think saudi arabia would be in terms of military hardware in let us say 20 years? still buying european? russian? or maybe chinese? how about indigenous arms prod in ME? (middle east)

[Khairul Alam]

Yet another type of tank!! I dont think this would be wise enough. The Saudis already have three different types of tanks (although the AMX-30s are in storage and will probably be sold to Lebanon). Purchasing yet another type of tank would mean separate training and maintenance costs. No wonder why they spend billions for their relatively small army.

[Mardini]

Yet another type of tank!! I dont think this would be wise enough. The Saudis already have three different types of tanks (although the AMX-30s are in storage and will probably be sold to Lebanon). Purchasing yet another type of tank would mean separate training and maintenance costs. No wonder why they spend billions for their relatively small army.

oh no I meant not buying yet another type of tank, more in terms of where would they buy them from in the future?

[jaffo4011]

i cant see why the challenger 2 hasnt been included in their considerations.it is one of only 2 western battle proven tanks in the world and is generally considered to be operationally superior to the abraams.the uk hasnt lost one to enemy fire and its armour and fire control system is better than the abraams too.is it just because the saudis dont want to put too much business britains way after the typhoon sale.i know trhey like to spread their defence orders around?:confused:

[Waylander]

And in which way its FCS is better than the Abrams one?

[Mardini]

i cant see why the challenger 2 hasnt been included in their considerations.it is one of only 2 western battle proven tanks in the world and is generally considered to be operationally superior to the abraams.the uk hasnt lost one to enemy fire and its armour and fire control system is better than the abraams too.is it just because the saudis dont want to put too much business britains way after the typhoon sale.i know trhey like to spread their defence orders around?:confused:

Logic isn't an important issue in these countries sometimes, and believe me I know hehe, I think they are making the same trick some of the Gulf states made, they are showing "interest" in other designs and suppliers which will make the original supplier either dump the price or give them a very lucrative offer to keep hold of their costumer, which I think the saudis and the gulf states are very allowed to do since they spend so much money on weaponry most often money ending being spent at western suppliers, it's strictly business

[jaffo4011]

the challenger fcs is an improved and updated version of the abraams system.the british army insisted on the best fcs possible when the challenger 2 was being developed following the disappointing results in the 1987 cat trials in canada when challenger 1 finished in last place.the abraams system was seen to be the best fcs in existance then so the vds team elected to incorporate an improved varient of the m1a1 fcs.

[Waylander]

I never heard of this before so thanks for the info. I knew thT the FCS is developed and produced by Computing Devices Company of Ontario (Canada) but I did not knew that they also produce the FCS for the Abrams.


But if it's right you have to consider that the M1A2 also has an improved version of the former FCS.
So both tanks field an improved version of the same FCS.

[eckherl]

the challenger fcs is an improved and updated version of the abraams system.the british army insisted on the best fcs possible when the challenger 2 was being developed following the disappointing results in the 1987 cat trials in canada when challenger 1 finished in last place.the abraams system was seen to be the best fcs in existance then so the vds team elected to incorporate an improved varient of the m1a1 fcs.

Please provide me with a resource on this, I have been on a Challie 2 and I have even busted a few caps on one. They do not use the same FCS, M1A2 is in a league of its own, with the German LEO2A6 in Sweden and Spain service coming in at a close second.

[Waylander]

There should be no difference between the Strv122 (Sweden), Leo 2E (Spain), Leo 2 A5/A6 (Germany) and Leopard 2 HEL Greece) when it comes to FCS.
All of them are using the same FCS only the optics differ (Which for sure also can give you an advantage).

[jaffo4011]

source re info on challenger fcs;challenger 2 mbt 1987 to 2006 published by new vanguard publishing author simon dunstan.hope this helps.

[eckherl]

There should be no difference between the Strv122 (Sweden), Leo 2E (Spain), Leo 2 A5/A6 (Germany) and Leopard 2 HEL Greece) when it comes to FCS.
All of them are using the same FCS only the optics differ (Which for sure also can give you an advantage).

Thats what I meant Waylander, I shot that one out on the fly, also let me add that the LEO has one of the best suspensions out there.

[eckherl]

source re info on challenger fcs;challenger 2 mbt 1987 to 2006 published by new vanguard publishing author simon dunstan.hope this helps.

Huh - thats a little ironic seeings how they are in the process of changing out the maingun and FCS on the Challie 2 due to not living up to there expectations.

[Waylander]

Thats what I meant Waylander, I shot that one out on the fly, also let me add that the LEO has one of the best suspensions out there.

Sorry, I missunderstood this.
I thought you think there is a difference between Strv122/Leo 2E and other modernized versions. :)

[eckherl]

Sorry, I missunderstood this.
I thought you think there is a difference between Strv122/Leo 2E and other modernized versions. :)

Do you know which maingun the british have decided to go with, last I heard it was either L44 or L55, I`ll give it to the L55 due to maingun ammunition concerns. (DU)

Saudi Arabia will most likely go with a western designed tank, I do not think that they are real comfortable with Russia having close relations with Iran, could cause big issues down the road. I will place my bet on the Leclerc, but wouldn`t it be cool to see LEO2 A6`s decked out in a desert camoflage.:)

[Waylander]

They go with a little bit modified L/55 so that it fits into their turret and can use their heat collar.

There are some Leo IIA5DK desert camo (They are now ready for sending them to A-stan if necessary).
But the site I found the pictures is down. Maybe I find them again. :)

[eckherl]

They go with a little bit modified L/55 so that it fits into their turret and can use their heat collar.

There are some Leo IIA5DK desert camo (They are now ready for sending them to A-stan if necessary).
But the site I found the pictures is down. Maybe I find them again. :)

When you can get at them, please post them. That would be pretty neat to see, has Germany tried to market the LEO2 A6 to Saudi Arabia.

[Waylander]

I have no idea if they offered it.

And I go on searching for the photos. :)

[jaffo4011]

the main reason for changing the challenger 2 main armament(which is superb in any case) is greater inter operability with other nato forces,the majority of which use the 120 mm smoothbore ammo.
british forces have traditionally utilised rifled weapons as they prefer the greater range of ammunition available for roles other than just anti armour eg;bunker busting an building clearances.
the new l55 weapon though does have a greater range than the current rifled weapon...................

source; janes

Friday, 16 September, 2005
Smoothbore gun gets first test firing
Christopher F Foss

BAE Systems Land Systems has confirmed at DSEi that the 120mm L/55 smoothbore tank gun has carried out its first test firing at the Eskmeals firing range in the UK. For these trials, the weapon was installed in a static mount fitted to a Centurion chassis.

Today the British Army’s Challenger 2 MBT is armed with a 120mm L30 rifled tank gun, which fires separate loading ammunition, projectile and charge. This weapon system is not interoperable with the UK’s NATO allies and to develop a new weapon system is no longer affordable.

Under a Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) Future Business Group contract awarded in 2003, BAE Systems Land Systems teamed with Rheinmetall W & M in developing a 120mm L/55 smoothbore tank gun. This fires standard ammunition obtainable from a variety of sources, including the latest generation of APFSDS (armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) types, which do not use a depleted uranium penetrator. The L/55 has a greater effective range than the current weapon installed in Challenger 2.

This 120mm smoothbore weapon has been manufactured by Rheinmetall W & M of Germany and is ballistically similar to that installed in the latest production German Leopard 2A6 MBT, but externally is almost a direct replacement for the current 120mm L30 rifled tank gun.

After static firing trials the complete weapon system will be integrated in a Challenger 2 turret for a series of unmanned trials, which will take place early in 2006. The UK MoD is continuing to derisk 120mm smoothbore technology for both the projected Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) direct fire platform and the in service Challenger 2 MBT. An additional package of work is expected to extend the TDP.

[jaffo4011]

incidentally the british rifled item more than lived up to expectations and was probably the best tank gun (with its various derivitives) up until the new l55 weapons were developed....and as i said the fcs is an improved abrams system and there have been no reported problems with its integration with the challenger 2 at all.please see its performance at various gunnery competitions of late if in an doubt!
the abrams is a very good tank though and its still probably the 2nd best mbt out there although the leopard 2 runs it very close(although unproven to date in battle).:p:

[Waylander]

There is another question.
If the Challi 2 is that superior in terms of protection and FCS than why do they lost nearly every competition against its opponents?

And when I talk to comrades who did some live fire exercises together with the Brits in Bergen they claim that there is no superiority of the Challi 2 FCS more vice versa (Even against Leo IIA4s).

As to rifled guns.
They are very good when it comes to HESH rounds but is is more difficult to reach the same capability with APFSDS like fired from smoothboore guns.

Saying that one tank is the best out there is also very optimistic.
Do you know the real armor stats of a M1A2SEP, Strv122 or Challi 2?

And mobility is also not a plus of the Challi 2. There is a reason for them integrating the 1500ph MTU powerpack into it during the greek tank trials.

[eckherl]

incidentally the british rifled item more than lived up to expectations and was probably the best tank gun (with its various derivitives) up until the new l55 weapons were developed....and as i said the fcs is an improved abrams system and there have been no reported problems with its integration with the challenger 2 at all.please see its performance at various gunnery competitions of late if in an doubt!
the abrams is a very good tank though and its still probably the 2nd best mbt out there although the leopard 2 runs it very close(although unproven to date in battle).:p:

No - the gun did not live up to their expectations to carry it into the next century, it wasn`t just a matter of having a gun that is compatable to NATO ammunition. When will the British start replacing TOGS 2 on the Challie 2, how is it more improved over a M1A2. Which gunnery competitions can I observe so that I can get this information. Every country that has looked at the Challenger 2 for purchase has turned it down, exception being Oman.

[jaffo4011]

heres the main reason for changing challengers main weapon...and its not because it didnt live up to ecpectations.quite the contrary........

UK Army's New Tank Gun Will End Use of Controversial Uranium-Tipped Shells
by Sean Rayment


The army is planning to end the use of depleted uranium tank rounds, the most controversial weapon in its armory.

The depleted uranium rounds, which were used with great success by British armored units in both Iraq wars and in the Kosovo campaign, are expected to be removed from service within six years and replaced with a new type of tank shell, which uses a different warhead.


Iraqi children sit near a British Challenger tank in the city of Basra
The phasing out of depleted uranium rounds, which are used because of their armour piercing qualities, will please critics of the munition, including veterans of both the 1991 Gulf war and the Kosovo campaign.

They have long argued that the shells can be directly linked to leukemia, kidney damage and lung cancer and is also one of the causes of Gulf war syndrome.

France, Spain and Italy all claim that soldiers from their armies who served in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the rounds were used by NATO forces, have contracted leukemia and other cancers. However, medical opinion on the dangers is mixed with very few studies having been conducted.

The Government continues to insist that the munition is safe, but is preparing to remove depleted uranium rounds from service under Ministry of Defense plans to improve the fighting capability of the Army's Challenger 2 tank.

As part of the enhancement program, the tank will be fitted with a different gun which can fire a wider variety of more effective, and less controversial, ammunition types.

British tanks currently use a rifled gun which can fire only two types of ordnance, high explosive and depleted uranium rounds. This limitation will disappear in the next few years, if, as expected, the MoD decides to have its new tanks built with a smooth bore 120mm gun, which is now used by most NATO armies.

Recent advances in tank ammunition have also led to the development of a new generation of rounds that will no longer be dependent on depleted uranium to achieve the same level of penetration against modern armour. The production of depleted uranium ammunition by the Royal Ordnance, the British arms manufacturer, ceased earlier this year.

The number of depleted uranium rounds in the British Army is classified information, but is estimated to be several thousand, sufficient to last for many years.

The Government has maintained that the munition does not pose any risk to servicemen and has offered those who fear that they may have been contaminated the opportunity to have independent medical tests.

Despite the Government's insistence that depleted uranium is safe, it is now accepted by many Defense chiefs that its use is increasingly politically unacceptable because of its perceived threat to health and the environment.

It is estimated that up to 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium may have been used during the recent war in Iraq.

Towards the end of the war, the United Nations Environment Program said that there was likely to be a risk of inhaling depleted uranium dust, with large doses of potentially dangerous radiation within 150 meters of buildings and vehicles being hit by American and British munitions.

Soldiers returning from Iraq are now being offered tests for the level of depleted uranium in their bodies, which the MoD says it intends to publish.

Depleted uranium ammunition was designed to penetrate the armour of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks during the Cold War. It is a by-product of making nuclear bombs and fuel for reactors.

It is called "depleted" because it is far less reactive than uranium. It is 1.7 times as dense as lead, so only small amounts are needed to be able to punch through armour.

In the Kosovo war in 1999, NATO forces used 31,000 rounds tipped with depleted uranium. About 18,000 rounds were also used in the alliance's previous campaign in Bosnia.

British tanks use the munition in a round called the "armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot". The round is fired at such a speed that against lightly armored vehicles, such as those used by the Iraqis, it punches a hole straight through the tank. When it hits more modern armour it burns fiercely at very high temperatures, releasing a cloud of radioactive dust.

Both Britain and the United States have admitted that this dust can be dangerous if inhaled but they argue that there is more risk of chemical poisoning from the heavy metal than from the radiation, and that both dangers are only short-lived.

An MoD spokesman said: "Research is continuing into the alternatives to depleted uranium. We are considering investigations into the main armament options for tanks and the result of that will effect future equipment decisions but there are no specifics available at the moment."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003

[eckherl]

heres the main reason for changing challengers main weapon...and its not because it didnt live up to ecpectations.quite the contrary........

UK Army's New Tank Gun Will End Use of Controversial Uranium-Tipped Shells
by Sean Rayment


The army is planning to end the use of depleted uranium tank rounds, the most controversial weapon in its armory.

The depleted uranium rounds, which were used with great success by British armored units in both Iraq wars and in the Kosovo campaign, are expected to be removed from service within six years and replaced with a new type of tank shell, which uses a different warhead.


Iraqi children sit near a British Challenger tank in the city of Basra
The phasing out of depleted uranium rounds, which are used because of their armour piercing qualities, will please critics of the munition, including veterans of both the 1991 Gulf war and the Kosovo campaign.

They have long argued that the shells can be directly linked to leukemia, kidney damage and lung cancer and is also one of the causes of Gulf war syndrome.

France, Spain and Italy all claim that soldiers from their armies who served in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the rounds were used by NATO forces, have contracted leukemia and other cancers. However, medical opinion on the dangers is mixed with very few studies having been conducted.

The Government continues to insist that the munition is safe, but is preparing to remove depleted uranium rounds from service under Ministry of Defense plans to improve the fighting capability of the Army's Challenger 2 tank.

As part of the enhancement program, the tank will be fitted with a different gun which can fire a wider variety of more effective, and less controversial, ammunition types.

British tanks currently use a rifled gun which can fire only two types of ordnance, high explosive and depleted uranium rounds. This limitation will disappear in the next few years, if, as expected, the MoD decides to have its new tanks built with a smooth bore 120mm gun, which is now used by most NATO armies.

Recent advances in tank ammunition have also led to the development of a new generation of rounds that will no longer be dependent on depleted uranium to achieve the same level of penetration against modern armour. The production of depleted uranium ammunition by the Royal Ordnance, the British arms manufacturer, ceased earlier this year.

The number of depleted uranium rounds in the British Army is classified information, but is estimated to be several thousand, sufficient to last for many years.

The Government has maintained that the munition does not pose any risk to servicemen and has offered those who fear that they may have been contaminated the opportunity to have independent medical tests.

Despite the Government's insistence that depleted uranium is safe, it is now accepted by many Defense chiefs that its use is increasingly politically unacceptable because of its perceived threat to health and the environment.

It is estimated that up to 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium may have been used during the recent war in Iraq.

Towards the end of the war, the United Nations Environment Program said that there was likely to be a risk of inhaling depleted uranium dust, with large doses of potentially dangerous radiation within 150 meters of buildings and vehicles being hit by American and British munitions.

Soldiers returning from Iraq are now being offered tests for the level of depleted uranium in their bodies, which the MoD says it intends to publish.

Depleted uranium ammunition was designed to penetrate the armour of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks during the Cold War. It is a by-product of making nuclear bombs and fuel for reactors.

It is called "depleted" because it is far less reactive than uranium. It is 1.7 times as dense as lead, so only small amounts are needed to be able to punch through armour.

In the Kosovo war in 1999, NATO forces used 31,000 rounds tipped with depleted uranium. About 18,000 rounds were also used in the alliance's previous campaign in Bosnia.

British tanks use the munition in a round called the "armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot". The round is fired at such a speed that against lightly armored vehicles, such as those used by the Iraqis, it punches a hole straight through the tank. When it hits more modern armour it burns fiercely at very high temperatures, releasing a cloud of radioactive dust.

Both Britain and the United States have admitted that this dust can be dangerous if inhaled but they argue that there is more risk of chemical poisoning from the heavy metal than from the radiation, and that both dangers are only short-lived.

An MoD spokesman said: "Research is continuing into the alternatives to depleted uranium. We are considering investigations into the main armament options for tanks and the result of that will effect future equipment decisions but there are no specifics available at the moment."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003

One of the major issues with Challies gun is the length, making it very prone to thermal bending during extreme desert temperatures.
Yes - the justification for using DU type rounds will continue to be debated.
Getting back on topic, can anyone confirm if Saudi Arabia has visited Russia yet to take a gander at the Black Eagle.

[Chrom]

Yes - the justification for using DU type rounds will continue to be debated.
Getting back on topic, can anyone confirm if Saudi Arabia has visited Russia yet to take a gander at the Black Eagle.
Can anyone explain me what relation have DU rounds and rifled/smoothbored guns? I cant see any...

[eckherl]

Can anyone explain me what relation have DU rounds and rifled/smoothbored guns? I cant see any...

For target penetration and round performace, neither can I.

[Chrom]

For target penetration and round performace, neither can I.
Then what have this loong article about DU rounds to do with replacing rifled gun with smoothbored in british army?

[eckherl]

Then what have this loong article about DU rounds to do with replacing rifled gun with smoothbored in british army?

Hey - I am not the one that posted it, @Jaffo4011 is the one, I just responded. I know that pretty much everyone in NATO would like to get away from DU because of health and environmental issues and because of this, alot of different militaries are looking at the German L-55 so that they can revert back to Tungsten KE projectiles. Because of the thermal bending issue experienced on Challenger 2 in extreme hot temperatures it is my opinion that the British felt it would be a good time to change out with the other reasons listed also - No more DU rounds, compatable to NATO ammunition. The U.S has no current near term plans to do this, we are content with DU and we get better performance firing DU in the M256/L-44 than what is experienced firing Tungsten in the L-55.
have you heard anything in-regards if Saudi Arabia actually looked at the Black Eagle.:)

[Waylander]

In the end the L/55-DM54/63 combo still has a better performance than the L30 with latest DU rounds.
So you cannot say that getting away from DU rounds is the reason.
Even when staying with DU rounds you would have inferior capabilities while using the L30 compared to the L/55.

[Waylander]

I found the photos of the danish Leopard IIA5DK in desert camo. :)

[Grand Danois]

I found the photos of the danish Leopard IIA5DK in desert camo. :)

The reason that there are Danish Leo 2's with desert camo is probably that there is a detachment of 4 Leos on standby for quick reaction deployment if anything goes down in Afghanistan (and Iraq).

[Waylander]

Jup, I know that. :)

There are some Leo IIA5DK desert camo (They are now ready for sending them to A-stan if necessary).
But the site I found the pictures is down. Maybe I find them again.

We talked about them in this thread on the page before and now I found the photos and so I posted them.

[Grand Danois]

Ooops! My bad. I actually remember reading that, and guessed you would post pictures of Danish Leos. ;)

[eckherl]

In the end the L/55-DM54/63 combo still has a better performance than the L30 with latest DU rounds.
So you cannot say that getting away from DU rounds is the reason.
Even when staying with DU rounds you would have inferior capabilities while using the L30 compared to the L/55.

That was just one of their reasoning behind it, 1. DU ammunition, NATO ammunition compatability, and thermal gun bending in extreme temperatures.

Was their actual testing done to get them to admit that the L-55 outperforms the L30 with latest DU ammunition.

We have experienced that our latest DU rounds actually perform better or on par in the M256/L-44 versus the L-55.:)