Leopard 2 Tank Developments

[kqcke for you]

Or maybe, just maybe a manufacturer of sensor equipment like Hensoldt should address that market need? Hmmm...

They are in there own region of expertise but things don't grow out of thin air.
And again its not like there aren't anyone who work at this.
Rheinmetall, KMW, Skylance, Argos, Mehler and Tytan for C-UAV systems that aren't a 30 or 7,62mm (or inbetween for that matter).

 

[Big_Zukini]

A naked tank is quite typical for mockups and concepts.
In 2026 a customer may choose APS between Trophy, Iron Fist, StrikeShield, or in France's case may prefer to have no APS.
An RWS is local for some customers. Sights may be chosen from a different vendor too.
And given how every nation is setting up its own C-UAS layers, sensors and effectors, it'd be pointless to stick some ready solution on it that has 0% chance of making it to a customer.

 

[kqcke for you]

Cut down on the caliber of the main gun, which reduces weight, the Type 100 moved into a similar direction. This also means that the turret size can be reduced while still protecting vital components.

I agree on that 130 or 140mm seems to be Not needed but i don't believe that a switch to a smaller size is worth the cost. The 120mm is fine for all the needs while one should instead Invest into making the gun itself lighter i.e. XM360 for example.

Existing weight in form of protection can be allocated toward the roof of the hull.

This could open new weaknesses....

Cold War concepts like the Object 490 (the second proposal) could provide a glimpse at how a tank in the drone age may look like. Four sets of tracks ensure that immobilizing the vehicle takes more effort and resources than it does now, meaning that if the engine and Transmission remain operable, the tank retains a high probability of being able to move into less threatening positions.

The problem is that this would only be a temporary solution as current attacks are already happening in relative large waves of drones and as sutch allocating 1 or 2 for hitting the tracks wouldn't be mutch of a hassle for the enemy. Theres also the problem of having more like 2 engines and 2 transmissions (as Obj. 490 had for example).

View attachment 815389

One should also ask themselves, what is a tank actually doing today? And the answer is: not really engaging other tanks. In fact, it's mostly attacking structures, dug in troops, lightly or non-armored targets of opportunity.

As it allways has been. Since WW2 tanks did this more than fighting tanks.

The folks at Uralvagonzavod are exploring that idea too, with the Shturm assault tank concept, with an unmanned/optionally manned tank that features a shortened 125mm main armament (presumably mostly firing HE and HEAT shells) that's controlled by a low profile, casemate control vehicle. It's certainly one possible manifestation of lessons learned in recent years.

View attachment 815390

Thus I'd argue something that's meant to address the threats of today should be a low profile vehicle

We allways try but space is a rare good and many thing need / profit from being high up

where the crew is seperated from the gun and ammo,

Already happening to the best possible but this haunts ous when trying to reducing the profile.

the vehicle should have robust top armor, greatly simplified by a casemate style design.

This comes at a cost of limiting the turret for example which may not be preferable even in urban scenarios as it becomes harder to some targets.

The armament should reduce weight by also reducing length, modest anti-tank capability should be provided by improved ammunition rather than ever bigger, ever longer, ever heavier guns. Additional AT capability could be present in the form of externally mounted ATGMs, not eating into the internal volume of the vehicle.

Or drones for that matter but we return to the profile problem as well as weight so it may be more efficient to run a singular unit fully as AT then.

Redundancy of propulsion, this may pair well with a hybrid system, where you have at least four sets of tracks that make immobilizing your vehicle a more substantial undertaking. Depending on the capability of the hybrid system, even taking out the engine wouldn't gurantee that the vehicle couldn't crawl slowly due to the electric motor(s).

Would depend on the setup but yeah this could help for a bit. Another 20 to 30km could be enough to get out of range if the terrain allows it.

I'd further argue that at least two anti-drone capable RWS should be present to decrease the chances of being overwhelmed. Hard-kill APS and jamming are no brainers as well. Now, such systems require plenty of Power, and power means a strong powerplant and if you have a hybrid vehicle also substantial batteries, that's weight. But as weight has been shaven off the turret and gun, some of these freed up tons can go to the propulsion and power generation. That's the formidable and most likely expensive route. The other route the obvious and ever present "make it unmanned" and develop more capable armed UGVs. Systems where individual losses are not much of a burden and mass compensates for attrition. I do not believe that this is a suitable strategy for Germany though.

UGV could help in the role of C-UAS with them purely being designed to defending tanks together with the systems on the tank.

 

[Halcyon66]

Defense giant KNDS plans IPO in Paris and Frankfurt

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/24/knds-ipo-paris-frankfurt.html

Interesting development.

Regards,