European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

uk 75 said:
The idea of a family of main armoured vehicles has not gone too well for the Russians but the Germans may have more luck.
If France, Germany and Italy make a successful family of vehicles the UK should buy them off the shelf.
Click to expand...
The UK should rebuild its AFV industry. It won't be able to make good procurement decisions without sufficient institutional knowledge, and that can only come from in-house development.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The UK should rebuild its AFV industry. It won't be able to make good procurement decisions without sufficient institutional knowledge, and that can only come from in-house development.
Click to expand...
This is a sensible and centrist position. But sadly it is heresy to current Orthodoxy of UK politics.
 
GTX said:
www.armyrecognition.com

France and Germany Agree to Develop New MGCS Tank to Replace Leopard & Leclerc MBTs | Defense News March 2024 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2024 | Archive News year

France and Germany Agree to Develop New MGCS Tank to Replace Leopard & Leclerc MBTs
www.armyrecognition.com www.armyrecognition.com
Click to expand...
They already have two of the best Tanks in the World, if they work together, i can only imagine what they could accomplish, i wish them good luck.
 
One significant advantage of the new calibers is that they allow a longer penetrator. 120mm are basically maxed out, the only way to get longer penetrators is a new caliber.

jsport said:
euro-sd.com

Main Ground Combat System (MGCS): A Status Report

In 2018, France and Germany agreed to jointly develop a successor to their respective main battle tanks (MBTs), the Leclerc and the Leopard 2.
euro-sd.com euro-sd.com
csm_MGCS_front_bodytext_9be3c180cc.png
Notional MGCS family of combat and support vehicles. (Photo: Hensoldt=
BMVg-1A.jpg
Notional composition of a multi-vehicle MGCS team. (Photo: BMVg)
BMVg-1B.jpg
Notional composition of a multi-vehicle MGCS team. (Photo: BMVg/German MoD)
Click to expand...
Am I understanding this correctly? One classic tank as HQ. 3 vehicles on smaller tracked chassis, with two of those vehicles optionally manned and one unmanned entirely? Or is it 3 vehicles on the same chassis as the tank with only the unmanned loitering munition launcher on a lighter chassis?

In terms of weapons, 2 tank guns, one hypervelocity ATGM launcher, and one loitering munition/artillery rocket platform?
 
Scott Kenny said:
One significant advantage of the new calibers is that they allow a longer penetrator. 120mm are basically maxed out, the only way to get longer penetrators is a new caliber.

In terms of weapons, 2 tank guns, one hypervelocity ATGM launcher, and one loitering munition/artillery rocket platform?
Click to expand...
jsport said:
Folks will believe a MGCS story when they see a prototype emerge.
Click to expand...
Personal impression: Is this a TOG II?

Practically meme requirements suitable for the war before the last war, right at when RMA is still a novel idea to be hedged.
 
shin_getter said:
Personal impression: Is this a TOG II?

Practically meme requirements suitable for the war before the last war, right at when RMA is still a novel idea to be hedged.
Click to expand...
Could be, but I don't believe so.

IIRC from a Chieftain video, the idea with MGCS is that you can't make a reasonably sized tank with all the different bits you need to be competitive today. Hence a vehicle carrying HV-ATGMs, a vehicle carrying a whole hive of loitering munitions, and two vehicles carrying the big tank guns as a single battlefield unit.
 
BMVg released who does which pillar.
Pillar 1 – MGCS Main Ground Combat System platform with chassis and automated navigation under German leadership
Pillar 2 – cannon, turret and ammunition under German-French leadership. In a first step, different cannon systems are to be developed nationally and a system is to be selected after comparative testing.
Pillar 3 – secondary armament, for example, guided missiles under French leadership
Pillar 4 – Communication, command and operations system as a “digital nervous system” under German-French leadership
Pillar 5 – simulation environment under German-French leadership
Pillar 6 – Sensor technology under French leadership
Pillar 7 – Protection and drone defense under German leadership
Pillar 8 – Support, logistics and infrastructure under German-French leadership
https://t.co/yepI49QKZI
 
Hmm we know there is an Missile carrier in development but is there anything known about it? If i remember it right everything from loitering munition to hypersonic ATGM was said which makes it hard to guess what one can expect.
 
kqcke for you said:
Hmm we know there is an Missile carrier in development but is there anything known about it? If i remember it right everything from loitering munition to hypersonic ATGM was said which makes it hard to guess what one can expect.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting both, but maybe not loaded into the same vehicle at the same time...
 
The thing is in the EDF are 2 programs for a new MBT. MARTE (Main ARmoured Tank of Europe) and FMBTech (Technologies for existing and Future MBTs). Marte is a more german lead programm compared to FMBTech which has a focus around french industrie.
www.hartpunkt.de

European Defence Fund leistet sich gleich zwei parallele Kampfpanzerprojekte

Nicht nur Deutschland und Frankreich arbeiten an einem Kampfpanzersystem der Zukunft mit der Bezeichnung Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), bei dem erst vor wenigen Wochen ein Verhandlungsdurchbruch erzielt wurde, wie Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius es ausdrückte.
www.hartpunkt.de www.hartpunkt.de
 
kqcke for you said:
The thing is in the EDF are 2 programs for a new MBT. MARTE (Main ARmoured Tank of Europe) and FMBTech (Technologies for existing and Future MBTs). Marte is a more german lead programm compared to FMBTech which has a focus around french industrie.
www.hartpunkt.de

European Defence Fund leistet sich gleich zwei parallele Kampfpanzerprojekte

Nicht nur Deutschland und Frankreich arbeiten an einem Kampfpanzersystem der Zukunft mit der Bezeichnung Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), bei dem erst vor wenigen Wochen ein Verhandlungsdurchbruch erzielt wurde, wie Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius es ausdrückte.
www.hartpunkt.de www.hartpunkt.de
Click to expand...
FMBTech sounds more like a support program than MARTE. MARTE makes the tanks, FMBTech makes the things that go into the tanks.
 
Italy may be joining MGCS.
breakingdefense.com

Leonardo and KNDS pull plug on main battle tank and IFV cooperation - Breaking Defense

“The parties did not manage to agree on [Leopard] configuration and consequently, talks about Leonardo’s strategic participation in KNDS have also fallen short,” Frank Haun, CEO of KNDS NV, said in a company statement.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

defense-update.com

ASCALON Gun Marks New Milestone in Firing Series - Defense Update:

KNDS recently completed a test firing series with the 140mm ASCALON gun, demonstrating the applicability of the new gun design for current and future main combat systems, including the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS). During the tests series company personnel demonstrated an easy and quick gun...
defense-update.com defense-update.com
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Penetration vs number of rounds carried.
Click to expand...

AIUI, it's not even that issue. I believe both the 130mm and 140mm have the same case diameter as the NATO 120mm, just significantly longer. The 130mm might actually be a bit longer but I'm not sure.

They're basically arguing about piston area of the sabot and the flight weight of the dart.

lasd.online

ASCALON, the French touch for the MGCS. - Land Air Sea Defense

Table of Contents Origins of the ASCALON can be traced back to the 1990s. At the time, the French were involved in a quadripartite program designated by NATO as FTMA (Future Tank Main Armament). The FTMA program started in 1988 as a memorandum of understanding between the USA, UK, France and...
lasd.online lasd.online
 
TomS said:
AIUI, it's not even that issue. I believe both the 130mm and 140mm have the same case diameter as the NATO 120mm, just significantly longer. The 130mm might actually be a bit longer but I'm not sure.

They're basically arguing about piston area of the sabot and the flight weight of the dart.

lasd.online

ASCALON, the French touch for the MGCS. - Land Air Sea Defense

Table of Contents Origins of the ASCALON can be traced back to the 1990s. At the time, the French were involved in a quadripartite program designated by NATO as FTMA (Future Tank Main Armament). The FTMA program started in 1988 as a memorandum of understanding between the USA, UK, France and...
lasd.online lasd.online
Click to expand...
Well, the next generation tank round needs to be able to hold a really long dart.

IIRC the M829A4 penetrator is more than 780mm long overall (L : D over 31!), and the complete round is 890mm. But the end of the A4 penetrator is basically right on top of the primer vent tube inside the case stub, so the US can't really get any more length out of the 120mm ammunition.

So if the 130mm case is longer than the 140mm, that's the better argument. More growth potential for the future!

(edited to remove the unintentional smilie.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Well, the next generation tank round needs to be able to hold a really long dart.

IIRC the M829A4 penetrator is more than 780mm long overall (L : D over 31!), and the complete round is 890mm. But the end of the A4 penetrator is basically right on top of the primer vent tube inside the case stub, so the US can't really get any more length out of the 120mm ammunition.

So if the 130mm case is longer than the 140mm, that's the better argument. More growth potential for the future!

(edited to remove the unintentional smilie.
Click to expand...
As far as i know both rounds are supposed to be the same in case diameter and length. Things the projectile diameter, max./min. ... pressure are different. And even if one is some 10-50mm longer the extra 10mm diameter are also „important“ for NLOS munitions.
 
Arjen said:
@cador I am genuinely puzzled. Please explain.
Click to expand...
How do you explain that Rheinmetall came after in the MGCS program, and the information about armament concern its 130mm product and overall no decision has been taken about it ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@cador That's a question. I would like an explanation, please.
My guess, if I would care to offer one, I would struggle to phrase in polite words.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
@cador That's a question. I would like an explanation, please.
My guess, if I would care to offer one, I would struggle to phrase in polite words.
Click to expand...
remove the question, you will have the explanation otherwise why be rude? you don't know how to do it otherwise? Are you from the police and asking for explanations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@cador My French suffices to understand you aren't offering the explanation I seek. I will offer my guess now: you don't have an explanation to offer.

Kindly reply in English the next time.
 
So the best I understand this perplexing argument:

GTX posted news about a KNDS (Franco-German company) 140mm ASCALON© gun being tested as part of development of the armament of the MCGS.

Scott Kenny said he thought MCGS was going to use a 130mm gun.

Cador said that MCGS using 130mm was just "Rheinmetall and German propaganda", the 130mm gun is a separate purely Rheinmetall project.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom