European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

Scott Kenny said:
Which means they need to sell the US on the new caliber, whether 130mm or 140mm.
Click to expand...
BLOS/NLOS are the reasons for larger guns
Scott Kenny said:
And also stick a .338 Norma/8.6x63mm MG into the coax spot, because those fly better to the longer ranges that a stabilized turret and FCS allow you to shoot at.
Click to expand...

Pentagon Tests AI-Enabled Autonomous Robotic Gun to Tackle Drone Threats – Impact Lab

www.impactlab.com www.impactlab.com
Scott Kenny said:
Agree on the overlapping APS, not sure about gun based options versus FPV drones. I'd rather use a DEW, whether laser or microwave.
Click to expand...
DEW is always the way, but SWAP & cost is currently a thing.
Scott Kenny said:
That's honestly been the way tanks should work for a really long time. Like since WW2.
Click to expand...
The Army recently seemed to return from Penetration Div to Hvy Div. Attrition Div is a better moniker for the aforementioned tactic. Attrite the adversary until exploitation brings their culmination and dont fuss about penetration as it will likely end in ambush.
 
jsport said:
BLOS/NLOS are the reasons for larger guns
Click to expand...
Koreans have a good "slow BLOS" round, the Korean Smart Top Attack Munition. It's good for steep terrain, mountains or tall cities, as it's basically a 120mm launched BLU108 skeet. Lobs up, pops a parachute while the boom looks for a target.

And the US has developed and then failed to field something like 5 different "fast BLOS" rounds, from STAFF to XM1111 Mid-Range Munition. Those would be good for a mostly-flat battlefield like Iraq or Kursk.


jsport said:

Pentagon Tests AI-Enabled Autonomous Robotic Gun to Tackle Drone Threats – Impact Lab

www.impactlab.com www.impactlab.com
Click to expand...
Huh, hadn't seen that, cool!

Still want the bigger caliber for more standoff range, though.


jsport said:
DEW is always the way, but SWAP & cost is currently a thing.
Click to expand...
Every military vehicle has enough spare power to run a coffee pot or microwave oven.


jsport said:
The Army recently seemed to return from Penetration Div to Hvy Div. Attrition Div is a better moniker for the aforementioned tactic. Attrite the adversary until exploitation brings their culmination and dont fuss about penetration as it will likely end in ambush.
Click to expand...
If you can get inside someone's OODA Loop, you can get away with Penetration and running rampant in someone's rear areas.

If you cannot get inside their OODA Loop, trying to Penetrate will get you encircled and wiped out.
 
www.twz.com

New Franco-German Tank Project Takes Shape With Industry Team Confirmed

The Main Ground Combat System will be centered upon a tank, but aims to provide a wider ‘system of systems,’ with crewed and uncrewed platforms. The Main Ground Combat System will be centered upon a tank, but aims to provide a wider ‘system of systems,’ with crewed and uncrewed platforms.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
An ATGM carrier on an MBT chassis is an interesting choice. If these MBTs are somewhat lighter than the previous generation it might be a good choice. Perhaps the ATGM term understates the ability to engage other targets newer missiles feature. I'd guess the French are hoping some variant of their Akeron missile is used for the role.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
An ATGM carrier on an MBT chassis is an interesting choice. If these MBTs are somewhat lighter than the previous generation it might be a good choice. Perhaps the ATGM term understates the ability to engage other targets newer missiles feature. I'd guess the French are hoping some variant of their Akeron missile is used for the role.
Click to expand...
Maximum was (i think) 50t for the mbt so without an real turret probaly around 43t
 
TomS said:
The photo got dropped into the middle of the link, breaking it.

Try: https://armyrecognition.com/news/ar...an-future-main-battle-tank-despite-challenges
Click to expand...
Thank you!

hrm.

Still not sure about putting the ATGM launcher on a tank-armored chassis.

Unless the plot is to put everything on a single chassis? Because that image looks like it has tank, ATGM-carrier, and IFV on the same heavy-armor chassis. (or Tanks and ATGM-carrier are unmanned while the crew is in the "IFV"?)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thank you!

hrm.

Still not sure about putting the ATGM launcher on a tank-armored chassis.

Unless the plot is to put everything on a single chassis? Because that image looks like it has tank, ATGM-carrier, and IFV on the same heavy-armor chassis. (or Tanks and ATGM-carrier are unmanned while the crew is in the "IFV"?)
Click to expand...
Yes(ish). The new MGCS system is supposed to be multiple vehicle on the same chassy (outside of things like logistic vehicles because thats a given). The 3 vehicles so far discribed where gun carrier (130/140mm), ATGM and an unmanned carrier. You can read a bit about the 3 here:
kqcke for you said:

Auf dem Weg zum Main Ground Combat System

Der neue Kampfpanzer Leopard 2 A8 ist eine Brückenlösung auf dem Weg zum MGCS. Das MGCS soll 2050 vollständig die vorhandenen Kampfpanzer abgelöst haben. Was soll das MGCS können?
esut.de esut.de
Click to expand...
 
Colonial-Marine said:
An ATGM carrier on an MBT chassis is an interesting choice. If these MBTs are somewhat lighter than the previous generation it might be a good choice. Perhaps the ATGM term understates the ability to engage other targets newer missiles feature. I'd guess the French are hoping some variant of their Akeron missile is used for the role.
Click to expand...
Less Spike LR (5km), more Spike ER and NLOS (10 - 30km).
ATGMs have long ago became pocket BLOS PGMs, with dual purpose warheads replacing pure HEAT.

As for why it is armored to MBT standard, I have 2 theories:

1. Even tens of km behind a line, if you're a shooter, you still need more or less the same armor as on the front line.

2. These ATGMs prioritize speed. Loitering munitions can provide volume and persistence, and be deployed from lighter platforms far further to the rear. But something with a powerful motor and high speed like an ATGM is even more necessary today as shooters can scoot faster.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Less Spike LR (5km), more Spike ER and NLOS (10 - 30km).
ATGMs have long ago became pocket BLOS PGMs, with dual purpose warheads replacing pure HEAT.
Click to expand...
Maybe even even more but yeah NLOS in greater capacity than today is the goal and nothing beats a missile at it
Big_Zukini said:
As for why it is armored to MBT standard, I have 2 theories:

1. Even tens of km behind a line, if you're a shooter, you still need more or less the same armor as on the front line.
Click to expand...
Yeah something are have seen quite a lot in ukraine and that wouldn't change for nato
Big_Zukini said:
2. These ATGMs prioritize speed. Loitering munitions can provide volume and persistence, and be deployed from lighter platforms far further to the rear. But something with a powerful motor and high speed like an ATGM is even more necessary today as shooters can scoot faster.
Click to expand...
Hypersonics is the word around town but another reason that kinda works with both is cost.
 
Aaand...

euro-sd.com

Technologies for Existing and Future Main Battle Tanks project officially launched - European Security & Defence

The European Commission-funded Technologies for Existing and Future Main Battle Tanks (FMBTech) project has been officially launched.
euro-sd.com euro-sd.com
FMBTech, incorporating the MGCS.

Europäische Kampfpanzerentwicklung FMBTech gestartet - ESUT - Europäische Sicherheit & Technik

Die EU hat das Projekt FMBTech zur Entwicklung von Zukunftstechnologien für Kampfpanzer gestartet. Das Industriekonsortium wird von Thales Sixt koordiniert. Gleichzeitig laufen mit MARTE und MGCS weitere wichtige Kampfpanzerentwicklungen. Europäischer Standard ist derzeit der Leopard 2 A8.
esut-de.translate.goog esut-de.translate.goog
And MARTE, with almost the same goals and aiming for slightly different balance of attributes and costs.

Both projects have been given the green light and have been officially started.
 
kqcke for you said:
With this we will see the first evolution into MGCS while also future proving existing leopards for the time until them and then some....
Afterall you don't build a thousand tanks in day
Click to expand...
Customers and tech are moving while the MGCS isn't. At what stage is it right now? 3rd round of pre-early consultation coffee break?
 
Big_Zukini said:
Customers and tech are moving while the MGCS isn't. At what stage is it right now? 3rd round of pre-early consultation coffee break?
Click to expand...
We actualy don't rly know how good its doing but real Develop only started last year as far as i can tell. Then again with an target of 2045+ this doesn't seem so bad for those who can afford new tanks
 
kqcke for you said:
We actualy don't rly know how good its doing but real Develop only started last year as far as i can tell. Then again with an target of 2045+ this doesn't seem so bad for those who can afford new tanks
Click to expand...
Those doing the work now are getting all the tech and manufacturing ready. Silently the MGCS is being constantly renegotiated even if it's none's intent.

A significantly modernized Leopard 2 could make an MGCS just an evolutionary leap.

France is doing light and medium AFVs but where they at on heavy AFVs? What about new Leclercs? And then, once Europe is purely American, German, and Korean designs - why keep partnering with France instead of one of these?

I'm not getting a "functioning joint program" vibes here man.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Those doing the work now are getting all the tech and manufacturing ready. Silently the MGCS is being constantly renegotiated even if it's none's intent.

A significantly modernized Leopard 2 could make an MGCS just an evolutionary leap.
Click to expand...
Whatever MGCS is supposed to be they came to the conclusion that they won't be able to get all the asked capabilitys for it in one vehicle. For example both sides want a 50 ton weight.
Big_Zukini said:
France is doing light and medium AFVs but where they at on heavy AFVs? What about new Leclercs? And then, once Europe is purely American, German, and Korean designs - why keep partnering with France instead of one of these?
Click to expand...
To stop your neighbour to become and additional enemy on the Market while getting yourself there potential market.
Big_Zukini said:
I'm not getting a "functioning joint program" vibes here man.
Click to expand...
The joint was more sharing there expertise and leverage from on area to another...
 
I think @Big_Zukini is right on the money.

What chances of success are there for a program that has been launched in the mid 2010s and is projected to deliver something by the mid 2040s. Such a vast time frame asks for failure because there's simply no way to create or keep up any pace over such a period of time. Especially with the threat landscape evolving over the course of three decades. Now add to this the fact that there is already another similar joint project falling apart between Germany and France and the fact that France simply doesn't bring anything to the table with regards to AFVs that Germany hasn't done, couldn't do or won't be doing. There is no need for them, or any partner for that matter. Rheinmetall and KMW (now KNDS I suppose?) are more than eager to develop a proper Leopard 2 successor under a government contract. And seeing their concepts, funded out of their own pockets and proposed interim solutions, I don't think there's any doubt that they could execute according to their eagerness. Add to that the simple fact that France and Germany have very different needs with regards to their AFVs (France prefers lighter and smaller vehicles, with a smaller logistical footprint for their expeditionary focus, while we focus on full battle of the bulge style heavy armored warfare in continental Europe) and the arrangement doesn't occur as something either side would be happy with. One of the many joint 'MBT projects' in the west that will result in two different vehicles that take jointly developed technologies and findings into consideration.

MGCS is just as dead in the water as FCAS, if not perhaps more so given the lack of need for cooperation and the outright lack of progress. Lack of noise doesn't mean all's going according to plan, it simply means very little is going on.
 
Last edited:
https://suv.report/deutschland-strebt-beteiligung-am-panzerhersteller-knds-an/

Translated with google
According to information obtained by Reuters, the German government is preparing to purchase a minority stake in the tank manufacturer KNDS. Four people familiar with the matter confirmed these considerations; options for a stake of at least 25.1 percent are being examined. Such a so-called blocking minority would enable Germany to veto certain corporate decisions.
Click to expand...

https://berlinmorgen.de/2026/02/17/einfluss-deutschlands-auf-knds-2026/

Translated with google
A key factor in Germany's influence on KNDS is the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), which was designed as a successor to the Leopard 2.
Click to expand...

So after delaying and eliminating FCAS, the next target is to eliminate MGCS? :confused:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ombat-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/page-64
 
on the topic of German and French tanks, can anyone ID the tank on the far right?

It looks like from left to right..
LeClerc, Leopard2A8?, Leopard 2 with unmanned turret, and ??
LALGL5A47NB77C67RD4NFGSQWQ.jpg
 
Suricato said:
https://suv.report/deutschland-strebt-beteiligung-am-panzerhersteller-knds-an/

Translated with google


https://berlinmorgen.de/2026/02/17/einfluss-deutschlands-auf-knds-2026/

Translated with google


So after delaying and eliminating FCAS, the next target is to eliminate MGCS? :confused:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ombat-air-system-fcas-scaf-fsac.29201/page-64
Click to expand...
Yes. Germany has everything it needs to move forward.

If a willing participant wants to pay extra money to get the early production slots - that's fine.
But if it's multinational cooperation on requirements and development then that's just not a good formula.
Especially since France wants a new MBT later than Germany, and has a very small tank fleet of its own to warrant such investment.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:

France to increase defense spending by $42 billion, mulls new tank effort​

breakingdefense.com

France to increase defense spending by $42 billion, mulls new tank effort - Breaking Defense

"We need an interim tank, that is likely going to be a KNDS Germany or KNDS France platform," said French Armed Forces Minister Catherine Vautrin.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Among the priorities listed by Vautrin is the possible development of a new “intermediate” tank to fill a capability gap, as current Leclerc tanks are aging and the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project remains years away.

“Our current Leclerc tanks will last until 2040 — the MGCS project will take about a decade…We need an interim tank, that is likely going to be a KNDS Germany or KNDS France platform, which hasn’t yet been decided at this time, with a French-designed turret,” Vautrin said during the press conference today. KNDS is a joint venture between Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter.

Identification of the firm as a potential contractor followed rival Rheinmetall’s display of a “Concept Unmanned Turret” (CUT) for its Panther KF51 main battle tank in 2024. At the time, the German firm framed the rollout as an “additional medium-term solution” should MGCS drag out too long.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom