Will we see future tank projects such as the Leopard 3 emerging?
This is a discussion on Will we see future tank projects such as the Leopard 3 emerging? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Such as the Leopard 3 or Challie 3 in the future?
The Russians have unveiled plans for a T-95 to ...
Will we see future tank projects such as the Leopard 3 emerging?
Such as the Leopard 3 or Challie 3 in the future?
The Russians have unveiled plans for a T-95 to be deployed by 2015 at the latest despite cancellation of the project in 2011.It seems that they have restarted funding on the cancelled project, probably with the news that the M1A3 is under development.
December 1, 2010, a translated interview with Oleg Sienko, Chief Executive Officer of the Uralvagonzavod
Interviewer
"In April the Deputy Minister of Defense, Vladimir Popotkin, stated that the military will cease financing for the development of their newest tank, known by the name T-95, and do not object to its declassification and showing to the public, which wants to see it as much as it wanted to see the fifth generation "Sukhoi" jet fighter in January. When will this be possible?"
Oleg Sienko
"I personally want it to be shown, but for now we cannot do this without having received all the necessary permissions. All I can say is that no one has developed anything similar. As far as the fate of this fighting vehicle and other new fighting vehicles is concerned - I hope that clarity will be brought in for the new military state program."
Interviewer
"Meaning, in the following year the fighting vehicle will not be declassified?"
Oleg Sienko
"I cannot comment on that right now."
Interviewer
"Is it possible a simplified fighting vehicle based on the T-95 will be developed? It is often said similar programs are very complex and that the industry would not be able to deal with it."
Oleg Sienko
"We are currently intensively developing a unified combat platform. I can say we've reached a new level of quality. Of course, we are developing it on military request."
Interviewer
"And the T-95 experience is being taken into consideration in this project?"
Oleg Sienko
"Absolutely."
Interviewer
"This new platform will probably be revealed 2015 or later, right?"
Oleg Sienko
"We will not wait for 2015, this is too late. We are working on it, and on other types of platforms. We are also developing new engines in the 1500 hp and 1800 hp range, and they are being tested. Most importantly, there was no problem with their production. We are also working on electric drives, which provide a large fuel economy and smoother motion. These are great advantages compared to older designs."
Interviewer
"Then the new unified platform will use an electric drive?"
Oleg Sienko
"Yes, it's quite possible."
It is an age where many new tanks are being developed, from the K2 Panther, Altay M1A3, T-95 and the Indian Tank-EX project. I can't imagine when several projects sprouted out all at once, or within few years of each other, except during the cold war and the second world war.
Will this spur a arms race, in terms of firepower and armor development for the Bundeswehr or the British Army, such as the proposed 140mm tank gun for the Leo 2 or a totally new tank like a Leopard 3?
why can/t the western countries produce a common gun/turret but put it on localised chassis would make interoperability better maybe even a common engine
Will this spur a arms race, in terms of firepower and armor development for the Bundeswehr or the British Army, such as the proposed 140mm tank gun for the Leo 2 or a totally new tank like a Leopard 3?
Personally, I do not believe so. New technologies will certainly be incorporated into newer vehicles, but I do not see the masses of armored vehicles like we had seen in the past. Current conflicts just have not shown a need for armored divisions rolling across the landscape. Instead I see smaller vehicles, like Striker, being built.
The General Dynamics Lima Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, is scheduled to be shut down for the next 4 years. It is planned to be reopened in 2016 to upgrade Abrams to A3 standard.
Korea's K2 Panther, and the Turkish Altay project, are both 3rd generation vehicles and bring their armor up to par with leading front line standards, not a leap forward.
we also need to get it into our thinking that we are not in the cold war anymore and that we will not be able to compete with countries like america russia and china unless we start proper producing things together. There is just not enough of a market for france/germany and the uk to keep making equipment seperately
Personally, I do not believe so. New technologies will certainly be incorporated into newer vehicles, but I do not see the masses of armored vehicles like we had seen in the past. Current conflicts just have not shown a need for armored divisions rolling across the landscape. Instead I see smaller vehicles, like Striker, being built.
The General Dynamics Lima Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, is scheduled to be shut down for the next 4 years. It is planned to be reopened in 2016 to upgrade Abrams to A3 standard.
Korea's K2 Panther, and the Turkish Altay project, are both 3rd generation vehicles and bring their armor up to par with leading front line standards, not a leap forward.
Well, it were the heavy forces which carried the day during Desert Storm. The same goes for the conventional phase of Iraqi Freedom. There will still be a need for heavy formations to kick in the door.
It is a common mistake to think that modern technologies are only favouring light forces. A heavy formation retains a healthy advantage over a light force when it comes to the holy trinity of firepower, protection and mobility.
Platforms like the Leopard II and Abrams will stay viable with upgrades for some time to come. What I can see in the future is a common chassis with ca. 45-55 tons as a base for a whole family of vehicles (MBTs, IFVs, HAPCs, SPGs, ARVs, bridge layer, etc.). The Israelis have done it right with them basing the Namer on the Merk IV.
I don't see Britain doing it as they virtually flushed their tank building capacity down the toilet but they could very well join a EU program. Ok, if the FRES desaster and their decision to leave the Boxer program is anything to go by I am not sure if the other countries should let them in...
Personally, I do not believe so. New technologies will certainly be incorporated into newer vehicles, but I do not see the masses of armored vehicles like we had seen in the past. Current conflicts just have not shown a need for armored divisions rolling across the landscape. Instead I see smaller vehicles, like Striker, being built.
The General Dynamics Lima Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, is scheduled to be shut down for the next 4 years. It is planned to be reopened in 2016 to upgrade Abrams to A3 standard.
Korea's K2 Panther, and the Turkish Altay project, are both 3rd generation vehicles and bring their armor up to par with leading front line standards, not a leap forward.
Hey PC,
I would have to disagree with you regarding what recent conflicts have deomonstrated. In all actuality recent deployments have proven without a shadow of doubt that heavy armour IS needed, it has a VERY integral place in modern armed forces and on the battlefields.. That said, I DO believe, as you said the huge massed Divisions of armour ( except in the Pakistan/India area) are no longer viable.
As a retired Armoured Corps Trooper, I watched in utter disbelief as my own country began the systematic dismantling of our Armour and replacing EVERYTHING with Coyotes and LAVIII's.......Yet deployment to Afganistan re invigerated the Heavy Armour...we are now a three Regiment's of heavy Armour country again.lol....yet our aged and low numbers of Leo1's ( C2 version) have been retained for training purposes and we now operate a decent number of Leo 2's A4 and A6 versions complete with all LEO 2 support vehicles......Our Armour showed a definate use in Afganistan and was the first time the LEO2's were ever utilized in combat, ( The Dutch also followed suite).
Armour is here to stay for some time......like others said, the days of massive development and construction are done, UNLESS we get into a large scale engagement somewhere ( Iran?)..upgrading, re arming, updating..for sure.massive scale builds.......probably not except in China, India and Pakistan......just my guess...lol
we also need to get it into our thinking that we are not in the cold war anymore and that we will not be able to compete with countries like america russia and china unless we start proper producing things together. There is just not enough of a market for france/germany and the uk to keep making equipment seperately
Not enough of a market for Germany?
AFAIK there is a huge market for Leopard 2 products with many variants operating all over the world, in fact Wiki claims "More than 3,480 Leopard 2s have been manufactured" and IIRC 16 countries worldwide use variants of the Leopard 2 (i think)
Not every military in the world produces kit with export potential in mind, the UK has developed the Challenger 2 and the French the LeClerc, both are very capable MBTs and both countries have the infrastructure to maintain their fleets and the ability to upgrade their systems so why shouldn't they produce their own? Sure the UKs current tank production line is defunct but I expect in a pinch it could be restarted.
If countries like the UK/Germany/France all thought "sod it, lets buy all the kit" then the entire Western world would be flooded with most likely US inventory which (as good as it is) might not suit certain countries armour doctrine.
I mean look at the UK, British doctrine values firepower/protection over mobility which is why the CR2 is counted as the most armoured MBT in service whereas compared to the Abrams/Leopard 2 they tend more towards firepower/mobility at the cost of armour (not saying the armour is bad however).
Lets not be too keen to rid the defence world of all variation in military kit.
Personally, I do not believe so. New technologies will certainly be incorporated into newer vehicles, but I do not see the masses of armored vehicles like we had seen in the past. Current conflicts just have not shown a need for armored divisions rolling across the landscape. Instead I see smaller vehicles, like Striker, being built.
The General Dynamics Lima Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, is scheduled to be shut down for the next 4 years. It is planned to be reopened in 2016 to upgrade Abrams to A3 standard.
Korea's K2 Panther, and the Turkish Altay project, are both 3rd generation vehicles and bring their armor up to par with leading front line standards, not a leap forward.
Heavy armor is definitely still needed in this day and age. MGS like the Stryker are too fragile compared to a MBT when providing fire support. While they may be armed on par with the 105mm cannon in the case of the stryker, the M1 fares better in absorbing hits in a day and age where there are cheap and numerous RPGs flooding the battefield.
Congress is still debating whether to grant $272 million to keep the Lima plant open, and i doubt the M1A3 will be based on the A2 platform design wise.
@Armoured Recce
Mr. Picky says that the Danes were the second country to deploy the Leopard II to Afghanistan...
----------
As for the limited market. The domestic market for a MBT replacement in Germany for example might be rather small but just a cooperation between France and Germany would bring such a programm to a minimum number of 500 vehicles. Not bad compared to the numbers of other vehicles which get introduced right now (VBCI, Boxer, Puma).
And that doesn't include the possibility of exports or the reuse of the chassis for other vehicles.
yeah but surely the development costs for even 500 tanks is just to expensive to justify where as if that was for say 1500/2000 vehicles then it would make more sense .If the vehicle is good enough for UK/france/germany then we could convince other countries like spain/sweden and maybe poland to join the programme
Comments regarding my previous posts make good points. My thinking was about the quantities of heavy armor, not the complete elimination. We currently have about 1200 Abrams in service with U.S. Forces. British forces have announced the reduction of their heavy armor forces.
Agreed to the above post, if such a vehicle could be manufactured that was satisfactory to all nations, such a vehicle could serve in all armies. the problem is that different nations have different attack and defense doctrine and so a vehicle that satisfies all requirements would be prohibitively expensive.
Sure economics of scale would apply for bigger production runs but in the end 500 vehicles is not that few. During the height of the cold war germany procured some 2000+ Leopard II with the Netherlands and Switzerland adding ca. 800+ vehicles.
The figure of 500 would only mean a pure replacement of German and French MBTs and this includes even further number reductions to the already very low numbers of today.
Adding to that possible exports as well as using the chassis for other applications could very well bring you to a much bigger production run.
We are currently introducing less than 400 Puma IFVs and South Korea is also not going to buy the full planned 680 K-2s as once planned, so IMHO a colaboration of France and Germany alone could very well result in a program big enough to be feasible.
One added bonus is that the tank production in Germany is very well alive as it is to some extend in France with both countries having a rather healthy AFV industry. Designing and building a new MBT is less of an adventure than for other countries.
It was the Danes and not the Dutch that fielded the Leo 2's....
As a side note, The Canadians also fielded a 15 tank squadron of our upgraded Leo 1 version ( the C2) to Afganistan...the most serious draw back to our over 30 year old Leo 1's was a lack of air conditioning.....
With proper and more extensive upgrading I do believe that our Leo 1's could have been brought up to a standard that would have enabled them to keep on rolling effectively for some time, certainly NOT going to be the top contender for any expected or potential armour on armour confrontations, but situations like Afganistan etc...even older armour can play a valuable role.......
Canada has kept our 60 something Leo 1's for now, most of which are being used mostly for driver training in the Armour schools...unfortunately some of them have become targets on the ranges...when combined with the new to us Leo 2 (A4's and A6's), our Coyotes and LAVIII's and what ever older M113's we still field...Canada is now in the best place armour wise we've been in for decades.
All that said, Canada has gone a route of used armour of proven technology and upgrading....I just don't think that in todays economic situation ANY country can simply afford to spend on R&D and manufacture of brand new designed MBT's.
And althought the concept of NATO wide or multi country wide armour developement and use is intreaging...It won;t happen, at least not effectively....Every Nation developes tactics and postures based soley upon their own doctrine and terrain , expected use etc....What works in Germany may NOT work in Australia or the USA...sure MBT's like LEO 1 and 2 are used world wide...BUT they were developed by ONE nation and assessed and employed by the others...with user specific upgrades/versions for the most part....
I just wanted to add, That I will grasiously bow to the experience and expertese of some of the other posters...in that they are still currently serving and have far more experience with the new generations of MBT's.
I'v been out of the Forces since 2001 and totally missed the induction of the new LEO2's and actually only breifly trained with the Coyotes. In my service, as my user name states I was assigned to Armoured Recce, and as such served as a crewman on the Canadian LYNX tracked Recce vehicles. As such my actual exposure to and use of even the older LEO 1 C2 is limited although my regiment was issued them as well....
I;m kind of looking at this through the eyes of someone that used old equipment and have seen several directional shifts in thought regarding MBT's.
In discussion with currently serving regimental friends I am basing alot of my ideas on their direct feedback. And as is currently the "hope" with most of them is that Canada will procure further LEO 2's and replace the C2's completely and rebuild our Armour forces, perhaps even re forming another complete Regular forces Armoured Regiment, as we have now seen the RCD's take up Heavy Armour again too.
Personally, I;d like to see Canada look seriously at perhaps suplimenting our available armour with the Marder or Puma series and replacing our M113LE's totally.
Canada , as I see it may a serious mistake in canning the entire fleet of AVGP's (6x6's) such as the Cougars, Grizzlies and Huskies. For sure they were past effective use by the Regular Forces but the numbers we had would have been more than fully sufficient for the use of the Reserve Armoured units, most of which seem to have been designated as Armoured Recce units and train and were equipped with Canadian ( Bombardier Can.) ILTIS and more recently the G Wagons. Certainly what I say in my service was the difficult transition for reserves trained on ILTIS's to Armour, wouldn;t using the older but still decent AVGP's streamlined their abilities and transition?, especially to the Coyotes/LAVIII's?....I just am NOT sold on the effectiveness of wheeled Recce vehicles as they present to tall and cumbersome a target silouete...
Anyway, Canada it seems ( at least in my view) will always be reactive and simply follow along at some distance when it comes to heavy armour development, and simply adopt what is designed and prodused by Germany. Although our development and production of wheeled AVGP's ( Coyotes, LAVIII's, and export versions to Australia etc) seem to be top notch and fill a nitch....
Cheers and again these are just opinions of an old fart that perhaps has outdated views.....lol
On the other end of the tank spectrum, however, we may also see transfers of technology and equipment to upgrade older equipment, rather than build new units. Again, this is what pointed me to a downsizing trend in armor forces.
The United States recently granted 400 M1 Abrams to Greece, and has been transferring many more to Iraqi defense forces. These are not new production, but stored units that had not yet received M1A2 upgrades. Looks like the U.S. Army doesn't feel they are needed in the future.
