European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

muttbutt

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
197
RM released this late last year. MGCS=Main ground combat system= the supposed Leo III MBT.

2WNzFGZ.jpg
 

muttbutt

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
197
Grey Havoc said:
More like Leopard 2.5, it seems to me.
I don't think the illustration with the 130mm gun is supposed to show the final MGCS.
 

SpudmanWP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
62
I found this while looking around.... that is one SCARY looking shell.

How does the 130mm compare to the 140mm (next to a 120mm below)?

XLpYdWH.png
 

Tony Williams

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
652
Reaction score
385
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
The 125mm gun in the Russian T14 Armata tank is, according to some, an interim solution - they are aiming at something bigger, maybe 152mm.
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,410
Reaction score
173
Website
cluttonfred.info
Well, the former Soviet military was not known for the economics of some of their decisions, and presumably the Russian military has maintained that tradition. Not that other countries, most especially the USA necessarily do better, mind you. But when tank that costs $9 million (1999 M1A2 Abrams price adjusted for inflation) or more can be taken out by missile that costs $250,000 (price of current generation Javelin) or less, does the next generation tank really need a bigger and better gun for tank-vs.-tank combat? It reminds me of the stubborn efforts by some to maintain old technology in the face of new developments, like the Italians retaining the Fiat CR.42 in front line service for far too long--a fantastic biplane still being built when the day of the biplane was long over.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,634
muttbutt said:
Grey Havoc said:
More like Leopard 2.5, it seems to me.
I don't think the illustration with the 130mm gun is supposed to show the final MGCS.

Sorry, should have looked at that slide more carefully.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
248
I wonder if a larger higher velocity round is better suited for getting past active defences? It certainly has the potential to fire at longer range (i.e. as improvised artillery) or fire more effective gun launched missiles - but that is more of a Russian approach than a German one isn't it?

It is interesting how that slide implies the superiority of the Armata.

The turret *is* said to have growth capability - so there might eventually be an upgunned variant. The technology for such a gun appear to be quite mature (Russia has had working prototypes for about 25 year - which is a long time even if you assume the program was on hold for a decade). I suspect that their reason for talking about the capability (and building it in) is to deter an arms race... i.e. "don't bother to up armour your tanks. If you do we'll field a bigger gun quickly."
 

muttbutt

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
197
Rheinmetall to unveil 130mm smoothbore tank gun at Eurosatory

Rheinmetall is developing a 130mm smoothbore tank gun that will be unveiled at the Eurostatory exhibition in June, company officials have confirmed to IHS Jane's .

According to Werner Kraemer, president of Rheinmetall Waffe Munition's executive board, the new 130 mm gun should be in production by 2025.

The new tank gun is intended to be a match for the current and new generations of Russian armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), including the T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT).

A new MBT turret is also being designed alongside the new gun. The new turret design is understood to be based on an existing Leopard 2 MBT turret reconfigured to cope with the new weapon.
http://www.janes.com/article/60318/rheinmetall-to-unveil-130mm-smoothbore-tank-gun-at-eurosatory
 

Void

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
136
Reaction score
16
cluttonfred said:
Well, the former Soviet military was not known for the economics of some of their decisions, and presumably the Russian military has maintained that tradition. Not that other countries, most especially the USA necessarily do better, mind you. But when tank that costs $9 million (1999 M1A2 Abrams price adjusted for inflation) or more can be taken out by missile that costs $250,000 (price of current generation Javelin) or less, does the next generation tank really need a bigger and better gun for tank-vs.-tank combat? It reminds me of the stubborn efforts by some to maintain old technology in the face of new developments, like the Italians retaining the Fiat CR.42 in front line service for far too long--a fantastic biplane still being built when the day of the biplane was long over.

Tanks usually are not destroyed by penetration or enemy fire. Especially when care is taken to prevent the ammunition from detonating inside the fighting compartment. Tanks in intense combat can be expected to be penetrated, knocked out, repaired and returned to service many times; repairing a 9 million dollar tank does not cost 9 million dollars, it isn't expensive at all and can usually be done in a very short time by a competent repair service. Especially newer tanks like the Merkava IV, which were designed with rapid repair in mind.

More tanks have probably been lost permanently because they were abandoned and blown up to prevent capture or were captured than as a result of enemy fire.

And as for tank guns they have proven generally more consistent as effective AT weapons than ATGMs, which have swung from being enormously effective to largely ineffective and back again multiple times since they debuted with the progression of technology. With APS systems now (slowly) entering service and the early combat results very promising they seem to be waning again. The potential vulnerability of anti-armour defenses anchored by light vehicles and infantry with ATGMs to heavy artillery fire is also something that has been largely been forgotten since the Cold War in the West. It has never really been tested in battle, but NATO exercises in the 80's suggested Soviet artillery would be extremely effective at neutralizing ATGMs, either directly or by laying smoke screens.

If you are worried about Russia, you definitely need to worry about artillery.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946
http://defense-update.com/20160614_rheinmetall-ups-tank-firepower-with-new-130mm-gun.html

P1930454.jpg
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,977
Reaction score
2,560
This image is pretty infomrative:

P1930431.jpg


That's the old 120mm round on the right, and the new 130mm on the left. Not much difference in case diameter, but the case length is about 50% longer (just eyeballing), which translates pretty directly into propellant volume. That's going to be a very hot round (and pretty hard to manhandle -- 120mm was said to be right at the limit for manual loading and this will be much heavier.)
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946
TomS said:
This image is pretty infomrative:

P1930431.jpg


That's the old 120mm round on the right, and the new 130mm on the left. Not much difference in case diameter, but the case length is about 50% longer (just eyeballing), which translates pretty directly into propellant volume. That's going to be a very hot round (and pretty hard to manhandle -- 120mm was said to be right at the limit for manual loading and this will be much heavier.)
IIRC when I watched a M1A2 video the space for the loader to pull the shell, swing it around and load it is pretty tight so we may also be talking about an autoloader or a turret redesign.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
I'd be pretty surprised if an all-new turret for the M1 family happened. Either they'll cram this in with an autoloader and a lot of tight tolerances, or the 130mm becomes the latest impetus for a new tank family.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,977
Reaction score
2,560
Probably going to need an autoloader for a one-piece cartridge that big -- it's going to be around 60 pounds. Can't see that fitting in the current turret at all.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
778
Reaction score
134
So what is the big advantage of this over the 140mm gun designs Germany, the US, and others were testing?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
319
Colonial-Marine said:
So what is the big advantage of this over the 140mm gun designs Germany, the US, and others were testing?

It will be smaller.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
778
Reaction score
134
Abraham Gubler said:
It will be smaller.
True but it will still require an autoloader to maintain a rate of fire comparable to existing 120mm guns and a similar amount of design work to incorporate the gun + autoloader into new variants of existing MBTs.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,977
Reaction score
2,560
Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
TomS said:
Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.

One can't help but wonder though how much the larger round, combined with the mandatory autoloader, is going to reduce the number of rounds that can be carried.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.

One can't help but wonder though how much the larger round, combined with the mandatory autoloader, is going to reduce the number of rounds that can be carried.
Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
bobbymike said:
Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
240
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)

You need to remain in place to guide the missiles, when they fly directly to their targets. The size of the launch signature as such is a clear guide to where the launcher is and more than likely where the guidance package is. Not a good idea on a modern battlefield.

If a FOG-M style, vertical launch, fibre-optic or autonomous missile is used then you can hide from direct sight and fire and scoot or guide your missile safely to your target.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)
When you can outrange a tank's main gun and hit a target 3+km away in about a second of flight time shoot and scoot with a lighter vehicle seems a reasonable CONOPS
 

Maury Markowitz

From the Great White North!
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
142
Reaction score
71
sferrin said:
The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bEPVqF9Ms

The smoke trail points directly to the launcher, and is persistent. Shoot-n-scoot is great, but there's no way you can move a humv fast enough to avoid getting nailed by you target's wingy.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
Maury Markowitz said:
sferrin said:
The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bEPVqF9Ms

The smoke trail points directly to the launcher, and is persistent. Shoot-n-scoot is great, but there's no way you can move a humv fast enough to avoid getting nailed by you target's wingy.

Upon further thought I'd bet it's the laser designator less than the exhaust trail that's the issue. You could easily put the missiles on low-profile, unmanned, "roamers" while designating targets from a manned vehicle thus keeping the launch signature away from the command vehicle. Problem is, many armored vehicles have (or will have) detectors that alert them to if they're being "painted" and from where. The laser itself is the give-away I'd wager.
 
M

Mike1158

Guest
Shirley a 130mm gun plus autoloader will be a reasonable move but replacing the M1 would be problematic when the recent record of the department of defence is considered. BTW, a move to replace the gas turbine should be a priority, most likely a good hybrid diesel setup and some batteries. Just not those from a certain brand of electric car. There was an article about a Japanese plan to compete on the battery market with an iron hybrid type that was as powerful as the alternative but easier to recycle, using none of the exotic metals. Just wish I could find the thing, ain't the internet a wonderful thing. Find it and lose it in the same day.
 

muttbutt

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
307
Reaction score
197
IAV 2019: Nexter tests 140 mm gun on Leclerc MBT
Samuel Cranny-Evans, London - Jane's Defence Weekly
24 January 2019

Nexter has fit a 140 mm gun on a Leclerc main battle tank (MBT) to gather data for the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) programme to replace it and the Leopard 2, Jane's learned at the International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) 2019 conference held in London on 21-24 January.

This is understood to be the first time that a 140 mm gun has been successfully integrated onto a 50-tonne MBT and conducted over 200 firings. It is expected to provide a 70% increase in firepower over a NATO standard 120 mm gun.

Nexter has resurrected past efforts to develop a 140 mm main weapon to establish which firepower solutions are best suited to meet the MGCS requirement.


https://www.janes.com/article/85934/iav-2019-nexter-tests-140-mm-gun-on-leclerc-mbt#.XEpzE_NUHYQ.twitter
 

Cifu

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
23
Reaction score
6
So there is two separate developent exits, the one from the Rheinmetall 130mm and the Nexter + KMW 140mm gun...
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2,348
Website
beyondthesprues.com
muttbutt said:
IAV 2019: Nexter tests 140 mm gun on Leclerc MBT
Samuel Cranny-Evans, London - Jane's Defence Weekly
24 January 2019

Some possible images of this - please note that I am not sure if a couple of these are actually photoshopped.
 

Attachments

  • 94911928-E9D6-440B-9336-1361DD06D577.jpeg
    94911928-E9D6-440B-9336-1361DD06D577.jpeg
    51.8 KB · Views: 196
  • D1C1991B-B349-4503-8DB0-9F78C61C9C5F.jpeg
    D1C1991B-B349-4503-8DB0-9F78C61C9C5F.jpeg
    100.7 KB · Views: 203
  • 1CCAEC28-20D7-4781-9F6A-E62F4B2D8D66.jpeg
    1CCAEC28-20D7-4781-9F6A-E62F4B2D8D66.jpeg
    85.1 KB · Views: 204

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,634
Finally, good news.

sorry, it's in French. I did not find articles in English yet

After agreements between KMW, Nexter and Rheinmetall on work sharing on the Main Battle Tank Program MGCS (program economally and politically linked to the SCAF),

 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,977
Reaction score
2,560

Not sure how much I believe that description but the presence of the extra transport version would make sense. With only two crewmembers per tank, each platoon would need an APC to carry relief crewmembers to help with maintenance, provide security in a lager, and replace crew who can no longer function due to injuries or fatigue).
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,426

Not sure how much I believe that description but the presence of the extra transport version would make sense. With only two crewmembers per tank, each platoon would need an APC to carry relief crewmembers to help with maintenance, provide security in a lager, and replace crew who can no longer function due to injuries or fatigue).
Tom may well be correct as this concept would appear to be Russian propaganda...or potentially more strange a Russian future concept.
 

GARGEAN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
731
Reaction score
476
Why on Earth this should be Russian propaganda? Propaganding what exactly?
 

Similar threads

Top