Leopard 2 Tank Developments

I didn't know where else to put this it's based on a modernised Leo 1 platform. It's a combined FSV/SPAAG

The northern German tank builder Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG) will for the first time publicly present its new Condor tank concept at the DSEi armaments fair in London, which combines both the role of a fire support tank and an air defence gunpan in one system. The vehicle was developed on the basis of a modernised Leopard 1 chassis and has a newly developed unmanned 30mm machine gun tower of the type “Turra 30 – SA” by the Slovak manufacturer EVP, which is also suitable for combating destinations.

The Condor was developed according to FFG to meet the latest threats on the battlefield. The aim of the approach was to combine modern weapon technology with battle-hardened components to create an effective, agile and reliable weapon system. To achieve this, the Condor is relying on an improved Leopard 1 battle tank chassis and a new, state-of-the-art tower with a 30 mm machine gun and an improved protection concept
Click to expand...
https://www.hartpunkt.de/condor-ffg...zer-auf-basis-eines-modernisierten-leopard-1/
 

Attachments

  • FFG CONDOR.jpg
    FFG CONDOR.jpg
    146.3 KB · Views: 86
muttbutt said:
I didn't know where else to put this it's based on a modernised Leo 1 platform. It's a combined FSV/SPAAG ...
Click to expand...

A warmed-over machine translation:

-- https://www.hartpunkt.de/condor-ffg...zer-auf-basis-eines-modernisierten-leopard-1/

Condor – FFG showcases „Flugabwehrkanonen-Feuerunterstützungspanzer“ ("anti-aircraft fire support vehicle") based on a modernized Leopard 1

Waldemar Geiger
25 August 2025

The northern German tank manufacturer Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG) will publicly unveil its new Condor tank concept for the first time at the DSEi arms trade fair in London. It combines the roles of both a fire support tank and an anti-aircraft gun in a single system. The vehicle was developed on the basis of a modernized Leopard 1 chassis and features a newly developed unmanned 30mm "Turra 30-SA" gun turret from the Slovakian manufacturer EVPÚ, which is also suitable for engaging air targets. hartpunkt had the opportunity to learn some details about the new weapon system in advance.

According to FFG, the Condor was developed to meet the latest threats on the battlefield. The goal was to combine modern weapons technology with battle-proven components to create an effective, agile, and reliable weapon system. To achieve this, the Condor relies on an improved Leopard 1 main battle tank chassis and a new, state-of-the-art turret with a 30 mm automatic cannon and an improved protection concept.

"With the Condor, we were able to develop a powerful and efficient air defense system based on the field-proven and readily available Leopard 1 platform. Our goal was to create a system for the rapid expansion of air defense capabilities. The use of the EVPÚ turret system also allows the use of additional weapons, enabling the Condor to provide fire support to infantry troops," FFG Managing Director Jörg Kamper explained to hartpunkt.

The tank is designed to be capable of operating in all visibility conditions and while on the move. Since the turret can fire programmable airburst ammunition, this vehicle is also suitable for air defense. Thanks to dual feed for the gun, the Condor can carry two different types of 30 mm rounds in the turret, allowing the crew to switch between ammunition types depending on the task. This allows the vehicle to engage both ground and air targets equally effectively and to switch its role from an 'anti-aircraft gun tank' to a 'fire support tank' within seconds.

In addition, the Condor is equipped with a state-of-the-art situational awareness and target acquisition system. This contributes to significantly improved effectiveness and survivability against current threats. Furthermore, the flexible system is designed to have the necessary growth potential to meet future threats. Since the Condor is based on the Leopard 1 main battle tank, many globally available spare parts can be used to repair the chassis.

The Flensburg-based tank manufacturer states that the combat weight of the 7.18 m long x 3.41 m wide x 3.05 m high vehicle is less than 40 tons. To equip the Leopard 1 hull for the threats of the modern battlefield, the vehicle has been fitted with additional side and roof armour. The Condor also features an on-board digital network and a new side-by-side seating arrangement - with the commander sitting on the portside and driver to starboard.

According to EVPÚ, their unmanned Turra 30–SA gun turret is capable of mounting various 30 mm guns, including the Bushmaster Mk44. Secondary armament includes a coaxial machine gun and Spike and Konkurs anti-tank guided missiles. In addition to powerful electro-optics, the stabilized turret also features a multi-mission radar, an anti-tank fire detector, plus a sniper and small arms fire detection system. The weapon system's elevation is specified as between minus 10 and plus 70 degrees.

New Leopard 1 Drivetrain Concept

FFG sees mobility as a key factor in improved system protection and has equipped the Condor with a new drivetrain that offers more power and torque than the outdated Leopard 1 drive unit, while also being lighter and more fuel-efficient.

FFG had already developed a dual-circuit braking system for their Leopard 1-based Wisent 1 [ARV]. That system is also used in the Condor, allowing these vehicles to be fully registered under current road traffic regulations. This is not trivial, since exceptions are only for older vehicles. For new vehicles, a separation between the normal braking system and the parking brake is mandatory. According to FFG, implementing the dual-circuit braking system was challenging because the Leopard 1 hull offers very limited space.

Under FFG design leadership, a new drive unit was specially integrated into the Condor, which is equally suitable for installation in all vehicles of the Leopard 1 family. It consists of a modern 1,080 hp 8V199TE23 V-8 diesel engine from Rolls-Royce Power Systems coupled with a modified ZF 4 HP 250 automatic transmission and a new two-cycle cooling system developed by FFG. This new powerplant is approximately 300 kg lighter than the original unit.

According to FFG, the new power unit improves the platform's performance through an improved power-to-weight ratio, lower fuel consumption, and a longer service life. It is also a direct plug-and-play replacement for the original unit. The integration of this new power unit allows the proven and combat-proven Leopard 1 chassis to continue to be used cost-effectively and economically for decades to come.

Waldemar Geiger
 
GTX said:
So what are we looking at? Some commentary please rather than just a drawing.
Click to expand...
Postillon would describe it as a new combat tank variant including a drone cage camouflaged as a Leguan armoured rapid bridge. Others (myself included) would simply refer to it as a Leguan armoured rapid bridge. Select a solution. Next time, I will also describe everything in great detail in a child-friendly manner so that everyone in this specialist forum who is not familiar with the subject is completely overwhelmed by the flood of information!
 
helmutkohl said:
On the new 2A8, any chance of Germany going for the new KF51 (which seems to be borrow a lot from the Leopard 2), or is it just a tech demonstrator like the AbramsX?
Click to expand...
German army already used Leo 2, with a strong road map for the futur.
Why do you want them to go in a logistic mess with another MBT ? The future is, normally, the MGS studied between Germany and France (but linked to the futur of SCAF...)
And KF51 is not mature so far. The variety of ammos of 130mm are very limited. No future in the wehrmacht.
 
The KF51, being an initiative completely led by Rheinmetall themselves is largely export oriented, as was the KF41 as well (which had more merits than the Panther imo). The Bundeswehr would be far more interested to implement tech showcased by KNDS' Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 demonstrator. Which is to be honest, the much more interesting and forward thinking tech demonstrator compared to the KF51 Panther or even Panther-U really. And as such would lend itself, or at least aspects of itself to an improved Leopard as a stop gap to the MGCS or a potential purely German Leopard 3 successor to our current MBT.
 
BonPlan2 said:
German army already used Leo 2, with a strong road map for the futur.
Why do you want them to go in a logistic mess with another MBT ? The future is, normally, the MGS studied between Germany and France (but linked to the futur of SCAF...)
And KF51 is not mature so far. The variety of ammos of 130mm are very limited. No future in the wehrmacht.
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten that the Leopard 2's combat upgrade 3 was supposed to include a 140 mm cannon with an autoloader and a new turret? This weapon was also planned as the standard armament for the Kampfpanzer 2000, which in turn was supposed to replace the Leopard 1. This simply means that the 105 mm calibre would be replaced by 140 mm, which is not a significant logistical problem. As is well known, this development was completely cancelled in the early 1990s. There is no question that the MGCS will have a larger calibre; the question is rather when and whether this system will go into series production at all, not least because of French requirements. There is no doubt that the commissioned further development of the Leopard 2 as a bridge solution to the MBCS should sensibly have the same gun as we already have.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
 
Frankenheimer said:
Have you forgotten that the Leopard 2's combat upgrade 3 was supposed to include a 140 mm cannon with an autoloader and a new turret? This weapon was also planned as the standard armament for the Kampfpanzer 2000, which in turn was supposed to replace the Leopard 1. This simply means that the 105 mm calibre would be replaced by 140 mm, which is not a significant logistical problem. As is well known, this development was completely cancelled in the early 1990s. There is no question that the MGCS will have a larger calibre; the question is rather when and whether this system will go into series production at all, not least because of French requirements. There is no doubt that the commissioned further development of the Leopard 2 as a bridge solution to the MBCS should sensibly have the same gun as we already have.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Click to expand...
The actual Leo 2 canon is a 120mm.
140mm canon is a germano french developpment If I remember weel, driven by the Institut Saint Louis. As seen by french side, it is the MGCS prefered gun.

The 130mm KF51 gun has no future. Even the Italian, interested in KF51 (have they inked a formal deal ?), don't want it, but a 120mm one.
 
BonPlan2 said:
The actual Leo 2 canon is a 120mm.
140mm canon is a germano french developpment If I remember weel, driven by the Institut Saint Louis. As seen by french side, it is the MGCS prefered gun.

The 130mm KF51 gun has no future. Even the Italian, interested in KF51 (have they inked a formal deal ?), don't want it, but a 120mm one.
Click to expand...
There was already a 140 mm gun from Rheinmetall for the KWS 3, which was originally supposed to be introduced in the mid-1990s. However, this would have required a completely new turret, including an autoloader. In the current MGCS, France also favours a 140 mm cannon, while Germany prefers the RH130 from Rheinmetall. However, KNDS has the problem that the French 140 mm cannon is being developed within the group, but the RH130 comes from a competitor. As things stand, Italy still wants to equip its KF51 with the modern 120 mm cannon. Only the German Armed Forces has placed an order to further develop the Leopard 2 with the RH130 and a new engine from Liebherr, because France is claiming the whole pie for both the MGCS and FCAS, and both programmes are closer to failure than to realisation!
https://www.hartpunkt.de/bundeswehr...tem-und-triebwerk-fuer-leopard-2-kampfpanzer/
 
Frankenheimer said:
because France is claiming the whole pie for both the MGCS and FCAS,
Click to expand...
There is a battle around FCAS, as Dassault has more skill than any other ine Europe.
Nothing like that with MGCS.

From the beginning it was clear that France was supposed to lead SCAF and Germany the MGCS. If Germany brake the rules on SCAF, why France don't move on MGCS? Because after all France also know how to built a modern MBT.
 
BonPlan2 said:
There is a battle around FCAS, as Dassault has more skill than any other ine Europe.
Nothing like that with MGCS.

From the beginning it was clear that France was supposed to lead SCAF and Germany the MGCS. If Germany brake the rules on SCAF, why France don't move on MGCS? Because after all France also know how to built a modern MBT.
Click to expand...
You are aware that most Leopard 2 tanks were produced before 1990 and were subsequently only modernised to A5-A7 standard. This means that these vehicles are older than any Leclerc. MGCS will not be introduced until 2040 at the earliest. How do you intend to bridge this gap? With 60-year-old systems? The development contract for the 130 mm gun and the Liebherr engine is for a modified version of the Leopard 2, not a new design. These systems do not need to be developed from scratch, as they already exist, but rather to enhance the combat effectiveness of the existing system. To interpret this as a breach of contract is a very cheap fairy tale! I'm just afraid that when two stubborn people argue, something like what happened with the MBT 70 will happen.
Yes, France can build tanks too, but I wonder why there are so few Leclercs.
 
BonPlan2 said:
There is a battle around FCAS, as Dassault has more skill than any other ine Europe.
Nothing like that with MGCS.
Click to expand...
The only real problem for MGCS (as far as i remember) are for one that there more german main manufacture trought the work with KNDS and Rheinmetall and the question of caliber which was to he handled in a competition (but i would have to look it Up).
BonPlan2 said:
From the beginning it was clear that France was supposed to lead SCAF and Germany the MGCS. If Germany brake the rules on SCAF, why France don't move on MGCS?
Click to expand...
I think its pretty questionable who breaks what afterall there more than 2 partner in FCAS than MGCS.
BonPlan2 said:
Because after all France also know how to built a modern MBT.
Click to expand...
Yes but havent done it for quite some time. It doesn't really matter MGCS is nothing we can rush just like FCAS.
 
Frankenheimer said:
Yes, France can build tanks too, but I wonder why there are so few Leclercs.
Click to expand...
It is called "collapse of Warsaw pact".
Before 1989 the plan was to equip french army with 1400 Leclerc. This figure was cut to nearly 450 only.

Another key point : this tank came too late on the export market : Leo2 took a lot of export deals before the Leclerc was on the market, and on the remaining one we made shit : to equip the Greek army, we refused to give the exact specifications of the armor, so the greek used the only one they knew from a french product : AMX30... we loosed the deal while the Leclerc was the most efficient in fire trials...
 
kqcke for you said:
Yes but havent done it for quite some time.
Click to expand...
Leclerc MBT is the father of South Korea K2 and of the Turkish Altay. It is more recent and modern than Leo2.
But the production is halted for a long time, and during this Leo2 is already on production and a huge export success.
Price also is different. Cost Leclerc >> cost Leo2. Quantity is a quality in itself....
 
I don't see a 130-140mm gun entering service before the 40's, and I do see them offered as turret upgrades later on.
Really no good argument for buying into them right now.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Leclerc MBT is the father of South Korea K2 and of the Turkish Altay.
Click to expand...
Could you show me something that supports this claim?
BonPlan2 said:
It is more recent and modern than Leo2.
Click to expand...
Yes and?
BonPlan2 said:
But the production is halted for a long time, and during this Leo2 is already on production and a huge export success.
Click to expand...
The bigger advantage that Leo 2 had was the already existing mass back than. That allowed them to be sold to second hand User quite cheaply.
BonPlan2 said:
Price also is different. Cost Leclerc >> cost Leo2. Quantity is a quality in itself....
Click to expand...
:)
 
kqcke for you said:
Could you show me something that supports this claim?

Yes and?

The bigger advantage that Leo 2 had was the already existing mass back than. That allowed them to be sold to second hand User quite cheaply.

:)
Click to expand...
The Leclerc already had an inglorious predecessor, which, depending on the source, is sometimes referred to as the Kampfpanzer 90, Char 90 or something else. This was an attempt by France and Germany to once again jointly build a standard battle tank. The German side took the flat turret development of the Leopard 2, which in its early development was to be given a new hull with six road wheels and a more compact engine. This was back in the 1970s, at a time when production of the Leopard 2 had only just begun. However, this hull was quickly abandoned in favour of the flat turret. This was available in both a tandem configuration, with the gunner and commander seated to the left of the gun, and a parallel version, with the gunner on the left and the commander on the right. The latter was also adopted for the Leclerc and K2, but without the mistake of the roof hatch; a hump was added to the turret above the gun so that the gun did not have to exit the turret whenlowered!
Ultimately, the only problem was that Germany had a modern battle tank and further developments would have been expensive without offering any improvement in combat effectiveness. France, on the other hand, had not introduced a new battle tank since the AMX30 and urgently needed to replace it. Therefore, this programme was stopped and France developed and produced the Leclerc itself.
 

Attachments

  • 217030-d4ae3eb1bc4ae5a321f995beb52ad257.jpg
    217030-d4ae3eb1bc4ae5a321f995beb52ad257.jpg
    101.5 KB · Views: 50
  • IMG_20250727_133929_088.jpg
    IMG_20250727_133929_088.jpg
    482.3 KB · Views: 48
  • Kampfpanzer 90.jpg
    Kampfpanzer 90.jpg
    781.2 KB · Views: 58
kqcke for you said:
Could you show me something that supports this claim?
Click to expand...
Just watch a Leclerc, a K2 and an Altay !

It is clear that the automatic loading system of K2 is a copy of the Leclerc one (unfortunately open to eyes during a Eurosatory fair....)
 
BonPlan2 said:
Just watch a Leclerc, a K2 and an Altay !

It is clear that the automatic loading system of K2 is a copy of the Leclerc one (unfortunately open to eyes during a Eurosatory fair....)
Click to expand...
If you don't want to discuss the development of the Leopard 2 tank, but rather the Leclerc, please find the appropriate topic. You're in the wrong place here! Thank you!
 
BonPlan2 said:
Just watch a Leclerc, a K2 and an Altay !

It is clear that the automatic loading system of K2 is a copy of the Leclerc one (unfortunately open to eyes during a Eurosatory fair....)
Click to expand...

I think the LeClerc is a very cool and underrated tank that performed well in the Yemen Conflict.

That said, this is the Leopard 2 thread. Stop threadjacking every single thread and transforming it into French weapon vs the World
 
Frankenheimer said:
If you don't want to discuss the development of the Leopard 2 tank, but rather the Leclerc, please find the appropriate topic. You're in the wrong place here! Thank you!
Click to expand...
It would be nice to have a dedicated Leclerc MBT origins/development/derivatives thread.
At the present moment t has a very scarce presence in the forum:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/leclerc-tank-developments.43778/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/swedish-leclerc.31269/
 
16_incher said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1991162107396555078
View: https://x.com/jeff21461/status/1991162107396555078?s=46
Click to expand...
Laser warning system for Norway, not for Germany.
The IDF often takes their off too, especially in deployments in Gaza because obviously no enemy tanks there.
But that nuance aside, LWS are still as expensive, still as vulnerable to non-combat and minor combat damage, and most importantly they're constantly losing utility.

They're no longer needed vs missile guidance because APS does that via radar. Tracks the missile and thus identifies its source.
Useful vs tanks up to the point of firing, after which an APS also detects and cues.
Perhaps a sensible decision on Germany's part.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom