What do you think about Turkish ASELSAN's leopard 2 next generation? next generat
- Thread starter assslan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- leopard 2 ng
Turkish Aselsan upgraded the Leopard 2A4 and named as Leopard 2 NG ( Next Generasion) . What do you think about this upgrading? After these changes, leopard 2NG can be compared with Leopard 2-A6, Merkava or Abram ??
.youtube.com/watch?v=4frziRdqN6o
You can allways compare tanks, the result will only differ. The Leopard 2 NG uses add-on armour modules from the German company IBD Deisenroth, which featured the applique armour already in different concepts (Leopard 2 Evolution, Leopard 2 Revoultion). The armour was also fielded by the Singaporean Army.
The question is how good is the armour? First of all the main armour seems to be unchanged, which means that the hull and turret armour is probably on the 1980s level of technology - the turrets feature the welded ammunition resupply hatch, which shows that this are not the 1990s Leopard 2A4s with improved armour protection. While the applique covers pretty much of the frontal profie it leaves a gap at the location of the gunner's sight - formerly the EMES-15, but Aselsan replaced it - at this place the tank armour is very likely weak enough to be penetrated by most modern types of ammunition.
The applique armour is very thick, but also very low-weight. If we compare the Leopard 2 with AMAP applique to the Leopard 2A5 we will notice that both tanks will roughly weigh the same, but the AMAP armour covers much more of the tank (sides, roof, hull) - while it probably has increased weight efficiency, the Leopard 2A5 is at the turret front probably better protected. The hull front armour of the Leopard 2A5 is thinner, but the basic armour is more modern. Hull front armour could be similar or better on the Leopard 2NG. Side armour and roof armour is stronger than on the Leopard 2A5, however the Strv 122/Leopardo 2E/Leopard 2HEL have better roof armour.
In terms of firepower the Leopard 2NG has a less effective gun, but it has the advantage of a newer FCS. How good the FCS performs compared to the Leopard 2 FCS or the M1A2 SEP FCS is not known, however the main sight of the Leopard 2 is pretty old and has undergone nearly no changes. Replacing it is a very good idea, still the Aselsan sight is not much better. It has at advantages a CCD camera and probably a newer thermal sight, but magnification of the day sight is unchanged, so is the maximum range of the LRF. The advantage here is very small only. Maybe the stabilization/drives are better than the of the Leopard 2A6/M1A2, but I couldn't find any data regarding this.
The commander's sight is an advantage when compared to the Leopard 2A4, but the Leopard 2A5 and the M1A2 feature also pretty good sight, with pretty modern thermal sights. The new commander's sight has the same level of stabilization as the German PERI R17A2 and has less elevation (-9 to +20° instead of -13 to +20°). Magnification and field of view of both sights are about the same, but maybe the new Turkish thermal sight supports higher resolutions (no data given)? The Germans have fitted their Leopard 2A7 prototypes with a new PERI RWTL-B, which is better than the PERI R17A2 and probably also better than the Aselsan Commander's Panoramic Periscope.
The new controll handles and the User Interface of the Aselsan FCS are probably an advantage over the Leopard 2A5, but I don't now anything about the M1A2 here. The main advantage of the Leopard 2NG are the new laser warner and the remote weapon station, but this is not very combat determining.
The Greek Leopard 2HEL has better front and roof armour, slightly inferior FCS, but better armour penetration. The Leopard 2HEL features also laser warners (at least some tanks) and an APU. Not fitting the long L/55 gun or an APU into the Leopard 2NG is a very curios decision, but in the end the Leopard 2NG is made by a company and not by the government. If the government wants to buy it has still to be decided.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Thanks Methos...You can allways compare tanks, the result will only differ. The Leopard 2 NG uses add-on armour modules from the German company IBD Deisenroth, which featured the applique armour already in different concepts (Leopard 2 Evolution, Leopard 2 Revoultion). The armour was also fielded by the Singaporean Army.
The question is how good is the armour? First of all the main armour seems to be unchanged, which means that the hull and turret armour is probably on the 1980s level of technology - the turrets feature the welded ammunition resupply hatch, which shows that this are not the 1990s Leopard 2A4s with improved armour protection. While the applique covers pretty much of the frontal profie it leaves a gap at the location of the gunner's sight - formerly the EMES-15, but Aselsan replaced it - at this place the tank armour is very likely weak enough to be penetrated by most modern types of ammunition.
The applique armour is very thick, but also very low-weight. If we compare the Leopard 2 with AMAP applique to the Leopard 2A5 we will notice that both tanks will roughly weigh the same, but the AMAP armour covers much more of the tank (sides, roof, hull) - while it probably has increased weight efficiency, the Leopard 2A5 is at the turret front probably better protected. The hull front armour of the Leopard 2A5 is thinner, but the basic armour is more modern. Hull front armour could be similar or better on the Leopard 2NG. Side armour and roof armour is stronger than on the Leopard 2A5, however the Strv 122/Leopardo 2E/Leopard 2HEL have better roof armour.
In terms of firepower the Leopard 2NG has a less effective gun, but it has the advantage of a newer FCS. How good the FCS performs compared to the Leopard 2 FCS or the M1A2 SEP FCS is not known, however the main sight of the Leopard 2 is pretty old and has undergone nearly no changes. Replacing it is a very good idea, still the Aselsan sight is not much better. It has at advantages a CCD camera and probably a newer thermal sight, but magnification of the day sight is unchanged, so is the maximum range of the LRF. The advantage here is very small only. Maybe the stabilization/drives are better than the of the Leopard 2A6/M1A2, but I couldn't find any data regarding this.
The commander's sight is an advantage when compared to the Leopard 2A4, but the Leopard 2A5 and the M1A2 feature also pretty good sight, with pretty modern thermal sights. The new commander's sight has the same level of stabilization as the German PERI R17A2 and has less elevation (-9 to +20° instead of -13 to +20°). Magnification and field of view of both sights are about the same, but maybe the new Turkish thermal sight supports higher resolutions (no data given)? The Germans have fitted their Leopard 2A7 prototypes with a new PERI RWTL-B, which is better than the PERI R17A2 and probably also better than the Aselsan Commander's Panoramic Periscope.
The new controll handles and the User Interface of the Aselsan FCS are probably an advantage over the Leopard 2A5, but I don't now anything about the M1A2 here. The main advantage of the Leopard 2NG are the new laser warner and the remote weapon station, but this is not very combat determining.
The Greek Leopard 2HEL has better front and roof armour, slightly inferior FCS, but better armour penetration. The Leopard 2HEL features also laser warners (at least some tanks) and an APU. Not fitting the long L/55 gun or an APU into the Leopard 2NG is a very curios decision, but in the end the Leopard 2NG is made by a company and not by the government. If the government wants to buy it has still to be decided.
Aselsan is planning to upgrade all Leopard 2A4 in the world. there are over 1000 leopar2A4 in the world. " Austuria (114), Canada (80), Shili (140), Denmark (51), Finland (124), Greece (183), Norvay (52), Poland (128), Portugal (37), Singapur (66),Spain (108), Sweden (160) and Türkiye (339+15) ***from wikipedia***"
What is your opinion that will aselsan be succesfull on their goal ?
Very unlikely. Rheinmetall (the German arms manufacturer known for making the 120 mm smoothbore gun) has developed a very similar and in my opinion better upgrade for the Leopard 2 using the same armour. This is called the Leopard 2 Revolution and can include the longer barreled L/55 gun. Other features are a new APU, a soft-kill APS, new sights/FCS, 360° sensor coverage (day and thermal sights) and many other things (amongst others a RWS). But the best chances on the export market will have the company KMW, which is the main manufacturer. Their Leopard 2A7 prototypes are also having 360° situational awareness, improved side and hull armour, better sights and FCS, a RWS etc.Thanks Methos...
Aselsan is planning to upgrade all Leopard 2A4 in the world. there are over 1000 leopar2A4 in the world. " Austuria (114), Canada (80), Shili (140), Denmark (51), Finland (124), Greece (183), Norvay (52), Poland (128), Portugal (37), Singapur (66),Spain (108), Sweden (160) and Türkiye (339+15) ***from wikipedia***"
What is your opinion that will aselsan be succesfull on their goal ?
As third alternative there is the Swiss company RUAG, which also has upgraded the Swiss Leopard 2 tanks (but this was only a very small upgrade) - they also have demonstrated a more intensive upgrade which was originally planned for the Swiss army and are willing to sell a similar upgrade (with a lot of gimmicks again). One side note is that the Swiss' once built a 140 mm gun which should be easier to retrofit in the Leopard 2 turret - but they abandoned it... it might be possible that they sell it for enough money.
Poland has expressed interest in a KMW upgrade, while Spain and Greece both can simply upgrade their tanks (if they pay money for licences) to their respective 2A6 models.
Portugal does use ex-Dutch Leopard 2A6 tanks, so Aselsan's upgrade could only be used partial - the main advantage here is the thicker hull/side armour of the Leopard 2NG, but if the Portuguese government wants to it can buy the armour directly from the German manufacturer (Sweden did this in their Strv 122B model and is very likely not interested in the Aselsan upgrade).
In your list the only countries still using the Leopard 2A4 are Austira, Norway, Chile, Poland and Finland. As I said Poland has taken a look at some KMW proposals (this doesn't mean that they are not looking for alternatives, but KMW has more knowledge in making/upgrading tanks). Austria has reduced the number of tanks in the past and is not really interested in upgrading their tanks in the near future. Only Norway, Chile and Finland could have a real intention in buying the Aselsan upgrade, but at the same time they could buy KMW or Rheinmetall upgrades.
Eventually Qatar has Leopard 2A4s, but it is not exactly known which model they bought.
Is the Qatar deal really done? Haven't heard of it for some time.
Break.
When it comes to Leopard II baseline turret protection it is hard to say that the armour protection is at 80s level just because there is a normal Leopard IIA4 turret beneath the applice armor. The special armour inserts could very well be changed as it is the case with newer production models.
Apart from the autotracker I am not sure if the Aselsan FCS offers any advantages over Leopard IIA5+ models as the Leo FCS also got upgraded from A4 to A5.
It's not like it already isn't pretty easy to hit a target as long as one identifies it (optics being important here).
Break.
When it comes to Leopard II baseline turret protection it is hard to say that the armour protection is at 80s level just because there is a normal Leopard IIA4 turret beneath the applice armor. The special armour inserts could very well be changed as it is the case with newer production models.
Apart from the autotracker I am not sure if the Aselsan FCS offers any advantages over Leopard IIA5+ models as the Leo FCS also got upgraded from A4 to A5.
It's not like it already isn't pretty easy to hit a target as long as one identifies it (optics being important here).
The base armour is older than the Leopard 2A4 armour, because the inserts were not changed in Germany. There are two points speaking against that the Leopard 2A4 armour was used on earlier models:When it comes to Leopard II baseline turret protection it is hard to say that the armour protection is at 80s level just because there is a normal Leopard IIA4 turret beneath the applice armor. The special armour inserts could very well be changed as it is the case with newer production models.
1.) The weight. The Leopard 2 turret for the early models weighs 15.5 t, while the late batch Leopard 2A4 turret weighs 16 t. Leopard 2A5 turret has a weight of ~19 tonnes without wedge shaped applique and ~20 t with wedge shaped armour. According to some users of a different forum from Poland their empty turrets sometimes weigh 15.5 t and sometimes 16 t.
2.) The Germans decided to take the oldest turrets for their Leopard 2A5s, because they needed to change the inserts and do some other stuff. If all tanks would have used the Leopard 2A4 inserts, then they also could have taken Leopard 2A4 turrets.
Regarding the Leopard 2NG:
Aslesan is a company producing FCS and other stuff, but not a heavy vehicle manufacturer, which produces armour and cuts the armour cavities open. The Leopard 2 NG brochure also does not claim that the base armour was changed.
According to IBD the Leopard 2 Evolution (plain Leopard 2 with applique armour) weighs just below 60 tonnes (which means that the armour weighs about 5 tonnes after removing the side skirts etc.). If the base armour also would have been changed with a more protective one (and for Leopard 2, M1 and Leclerc more protective armour allways required greater weight), then the tank would weigh as much as the Merkava IV - possible, but such a weight increase never has been mentioned. Their Altay is planned to weigh below 60 tonnes and their Sabra weighs 59 tonnes.
If Aslesan did change the inserts, then they would be pretty stupid because they didn't change the gunner's sight location at the same time.
Last edited:
I agree. I just wanted to add that they can possibly add new armor inserts if they decide that the add-on armor doesn't offer enough protection. Just now they probably think that the (R)evolution package is enough considering the threats they face and with a new indigenious tank model on the horizon.
Not moving the main sight is a question of costs and benefits. The Canadians also decided not to move the main sight on their A4M CAN.
Not moving the main sight is a question of costs and benefits. The Canadians also decided not to move the main sight on their A4M CAN.