Leopard 2 Tank Developments

[kqcke for you]

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.

LWS will be refitted later with a system already in build and used

 

[Big_Zukini]

LWS will be refitted later with a system already in build and used

The BW has a standard LWS already?

 

[kqcke for you]

The BW has a standard LWS already?

We got MUSS the only system that actualy fills those requierments (MUSS is modular enough to be only an LWS sensor if needed) tho i would love to see the full MUSS (2.0) on it with Trophy.

Also LWS are kinda important for the BW because most russian ATGM are to be detected with it.

 

[Big_Zukini]

We got MUSS the only system that actualy fills those requierments (MUSS is modular enough to be only an LWS sensor if needed) tho i would love to see the full MUSS (2.0) on it with Trophy.

Also LWS are kinda important for the BW because most russian ATGM are to be detected with it.

Russian ATGMs do laser ranging before firing?

 

[kqcke for you]

Russian ATGMs do laser ranging before firing?

Don't think so (outside of tanks, maybe) but again they use LASER guided ATGMs. This most often include pointing a LASER at the target for most of the flight.
Only 9K114 Shturm, 9M113 Konkurs, 9M111 Fagot, 9K115 Metis and 9M120 Ataka (and there Variations) aren't laser guided.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Don't think so (outside of tanks, maybe) but again they use LASER guided ATGMs. This most often include pointing a LASER at the target for most of the flight.
Only 9K114 Shturm, 9M113 Konkurs, 9M111 Fagot, 9K115 Metis and 9M120 Ataka (and there Variations) aren't laser guided.

Yes I understand the laser guidance part, you don't actually need to scream that word. But once it's fired, the LWS is redundant because it's picked up on radar as well.
Hence the question about ranging.

 

[kqcke for you]

Yes I understand the laser guidance part, you don't actually need to scream that word. But once it's fired, the LWS is redundant because it's picked up on radar as well.

For that the radar needs to be on and you don't only car for the arrow but also the archer.

Hence the question about ranging.

"One special advantage of StrikeShield is the extremely small electromagnetic signature of the low-power radar sensors. This decreases the risk of detection of the radars – and the vehicle – by hostile electronic intelligence (ELINT) assets. According to Rheinmetall, some currently deployed APS radars can be detected from a distance of 21.5 km, while StrikeShield’s low emissions limit the detection range down to roughly 350 m (at -60 dBm sensitivity) for tactical level ELINT assets, or 6 km (at -95 dBm sensitivity) for more powerful strategic-level ELINT assets."
https://euro-sd.com/2024/01/articles/36065/active-protection-systems-an-overview/
You forget that EMCON is a serious measure and its the easiest way to find APS equiped tanks. Which is why an LWS would be needed to slave Trophy too it. But you really also want the acustic system for launch of others but an LWS is already an hugh improvement.

 

[Big_Zukini]

For that the radar needs to be on and you don't only car for the arrow but also the archer.

If a LoS ATGM is fired at you, your radars need to be on.

"One special advantage of StrikeShield is the extremely small electromagnetic signature of the low-power radar sensors. This decreases the risk of detection of the radars – and the vehicle – by hostile electronic intelligence (ELINT) assets. According to Rheinmetall, some currently deployed APS radars can be detected from a distance of 21.5 km, while StrikeShield’s low emissions limit the detection range down to roughly 350 m (at -60 dBm sensitivity) for tactical level ELINT assets, or 6 km (at -95 dBm sensitivity) for more powerful strategic-level ELINT assets."

1. StrikeShield is not installed on Leopards so what point are you trying to make?

2. Another special advantage of SS is the massive amount of sensors.
This config here, according to Janes, has 15 radars and 35 EO sensors.


Basic principle of radars which I'm certain you're aware of, is the relationship between number of antennas or antenna elements, and strength of transmitted and received signal.
Could they be simply testing with 1 radar transmitting for every 4 receiving? Possible. Also possible they just reduce transmission power until they spot something. Or an EO sensor is used to "wake up" the radars.
You're still going to need to turn the power back up to get a clearer picture and more accurate fire solution, since you can't risk false positives. Of course you can just ignore that scenario because then you don't care about force detection anymore.
But you can use the same trick on a more traditional 4-5 radar setup. Nothing prevents you from doing that.

This is an EL/M-2133 radar panel with an ELO-5220 "Othello" hostile fire detector. Entered service around 2020.





And coincidentally, in 2023 EuroTrophy brought this config to Europe

https://euro-trophy.de/news/eurotrophy-introduces-trophy-aps-silent-mode/

You forget that EMCON is a serious measure and its the easiest way to find APS equiped tanks.

So did I really?

Which is why an LWS would be needed to slave Trophy too it. But you really also want the acustic system for launch of others but an LWS is already an hugh improvement.

Perhaps. But then, an LWS isn't the only logical option. Combined systems may be the current direction.

 

[kqcke for you]

If a LoS ATGM is fired at you, your radars need to be on.

Yes but there is a good chance that they run in a low emission mode at which they may not run an active radar and instead use other passive sensors.

1. StrikeShield is not installed on Leopards so what point are you trying to make?

My point is not strikeshield but Rheinmetalls point about EMCON. 24/7 active radar can be a hughe emission problem.

2. Another special advantage of SS is the massive amount of sensors.
This config here, according to Janes, has 15 radars and 35 EO sensors.
View attachment 792271

Basic principle of radars which I'm certain you're aware of, is the relationship between number of antennas or antenna elements, and strength of transmitted and received signal.
Could they be simply testing with 1 radar transmitting for every 4 receiving? Possible. Also possible they just reduce transmission power until they spot something. Or an EO sensor is used to "wake up" the radars.

Or an LWS my point is an LWS is one of the most basic but important refit against the russian thread as they just simply relay heavily on laser guided munition.

You're still going to need to turn the power back up to get a clearer picture and more accurate fire solution, since you can't risk false positives. Of course you can just ignore that scenario because then you don't care about force detection anymore.
But you can use the same trick on a more traditional 4-5 radar setup. Nothing prevents you from doing that.

This is an EL/M-2133 radar panel with an ELO-5220 "Othello" hostile fire detector. Entered service around 2020.

View attachment 792273

View attachment 792275

And coincidentally, in 2023 EuroTrophy brought this config to Europe
https://euro-trophy.de/news/eurotrophy-introduces-trophy-aps-silent-mode/

Yet none of the current 2A8 has this nor would it fit the discription: "used and build already".

So did I really?

Those things aren't on 2A8 so again the reason for an LWS is most likely for that.

Perhaps. But then, an LWS isn't the only logical option. Combined systems may be the current direction.

Thats why a MUSS 2.0 set up seems the most logical as you get "all needed" sensors and even a jammer but we just don't know for now. We only know about the LWS because someone asked why they don't have it (or anything more didn't make the cut/wasn't allowed for the news). They could get EO sensors, passive radar, LWS, acustic sensor and more trought MUSS 2.0 if they wanted (and could fit it but it seems likely).

 

[Big_Zukini]

Those things aren't on 2A8 so again the reason for an LWS is most likely for that.

 

[kqcke for you]

View attachment 792281

Thats only the housing. As you can see here there as green as the rest and not the black the sensor has. Its likely because this is the new standard housing design...

 

[Big_Zukini]

Thats only the housing. As you can see here there as green as the rest and not the black the sensor has. Its likely because this is the new standard housing design...

Don't know if it's an optical illusion or whatever but it shows intent. Wouldn't put it there if they didn't want it. And we know the housing was designed per customer because the German variant doesn't have the LWS housing which the Norwegian one does.

 

[kqcke for you]

Don't know if it's an optical illusion or whatever but it shows intent.

I would disagree with that.

Wouldn't put it there if they didn't want it.

yeah they put it there because the LWS need to go somewhere and where would it be better than in a space thats already designed for an LWS.....

And we know the housing was designed per customer because the German variant doesn't have the LWS housing which the Norwegian one does.

It has the housing it just doesn't have the LWS sensor and its specific mounting system because an other sensor may not use the same. Again why would they only install LWS later when its the same?

 

[Big_Zukini]

yeah they put it there because the LWS need to go somewhere and where would it be better than in a space thats already designed for an LWS.....

So instead of using the LWS housing like on the Norwegian Leopard, they built the exact housing designed for the Othello HFD, and want to put an LWS of unspecified design there, with coincidentally matching form factor, while blocking the installation of the Othello?
Is that what you're saying?

And Norway is getting 2 LWS types, with one mysteriously identically matching the ELO-5220?

It has the housing it just doesn't have the LWS sensor and its specific mounting system because an other sensor may not use the same. Again why would they only install LWS later when its the same?

Norwegian Leopard, showing an LWS mount/sensor beside the EL/M-2133 radar and ELO-5220 HFD.



German Leopard, showing no mounting point or sensor beside the EL/M-2133 radar and ELO-5220 HFD.

 

[kqcke for you]

So instead of using the LWS housing like on the Norwegian Leopard, they built the exact housing designed for the Othello HFD, and want to put an LWS of unspecified design there, with coincidentally matching form factor, while blocking the installation of the Othello?
Is that what you're saying?

Im saying that the housing which contains the EL/M-2133 Radar, Elbit LWS and Othello are the same for the norwegian and german tank.

Why? Because its cheaper and it allows each user too choose there own loadout. Now MUSS (2.0) if choosen will be fitted there where the LWS of elbit sits because they "Look" the same size and this space is there on the german Leopard 2A8. Afterall its dead volume if its not filled with a different sensor. A MUSS Sensor Head is in a similiar size factor and form.

And Norway is getting 2 LWS types, with one mysteriously identically matching the ELO-5220?

No its not. Norway has 1 LWS that of Elbit and the the space for an ELO-5520 HFD which as far as i (we) can tell isn't there because from every angle its green not black which indicates it.

Norwegian Leopard, showing an LWS mount/sensor beside the EL/M-2133 radar and ELO-5220 HFD.
View attachment 792291


German Leopard, showing no mounting point or sensor beside the EL/M-2133 radar and ELO-5220 HFD.
View attachment 792292

Again the space is there just no fitting for the Elbit LWS sensor. Even the Leopard 2A8 Prototyp had there the LWS because nowhere else is space for it.


The reason for the Bundeswehr to go after MUSS is the same reason you didn't like them having Boxer and CAVS. Logistics...

 

[Big_Zukini]

I think a lot of the wording is vague so we're misinterpreting each other.

The Trophy system in the configuration chosen by Germany appears to match the "Silent Mode" advertized by EuroTrophy, with the Othello sensor. So we're good on the matter of signature management.

The Othello is a HFD, so it can be argued as redundant with an LWS. Still, we see both installed on several types of MBTs.

Installing MUSS is a possibility. I think it's odd that even a placeholder was not installed.

 

[kqcke for you]

I think a lot of the wording is vague so we're misinterpreting each other.

The Trophy system in the configuration chosen by Germany appears to match the "Silent Mode" advertized by EuroTrophy, with the Othello sensor. So we're good on the matter of signature management.

You assume thats the reason but maybe just maybe this is the new standard configuration.....

The Othello is a HFD, so it can be argued as redundant with an LWS. Still, we see both installed on several types of MBTs.

Again as far as we can see there is space for Othello but it doesn't look Like any is installed because this should be visible but very angle only show that there is space no system.

Installing MUSS is a possibility. I think it's odd that even a placeholder was not installed.

Thats why it still takes time because its likely that exactly this is still in development.

But lets agree to disagree because i don't think we will agree anytime soon

 

[Big_Zukini]

You assume thats the reason but maybe just maybe this is the new standard configuration.....

I don't understand. Signature management wasn't solved... because the configuration that does it is now standard? What?

Again as far as we can see there is space for Othello but it doesn't look Like any is installed because this should be visible but very angle only show that there is space no system.

Because you see green instead of black. Yeah I get it. What does it matter though?

 

[kqcke for you]

I don't understand. Signature management wasn't solved...

Because there is only the radar right now.

because the configuration that does it is now standard? What?

Because the Trophy housing which contains all sensors is designed even from the baseline to be able to hold all sensors. Think of an fitted for but not with situation.

Because you see green instead of black. Yeah I get it. What does it matter though?

Because we know how the sensor looks... Painting over the lense would probaly impact performance if not hinder it outright so this then tells ous there is no Othello.
At the same time all News Outlets like CPM, S&T or Hartpunkt all talk about 2A7A1 configuration and the option of an additional LWS system. No Othello or anything else.
For the LWS system this was reported:
"The Norwegian 2A8 has a laser warning system of Israeli manufacture, while the German tanks are to be equipped with such a system of domestic manufacture, which is already in use."
https://www.hartpunkt.de/leopard-2-...ellung-von-75-zusaetzlichen-kampfpanzern-vor/

 

[kqcke for you]

Because there is only the radar right now.

Because the Trophy housing which contains all sensors is designed even from the baseline to be able to hold all sensors. Think of an fitted for but not with situation.

Because we know how the sensor looks... Painting over the lense would probaly impact performance if not hinder it outright so this then tells ous there is no Othello.
At the same time all News Outlets like CPM, S&T or Hartpunkt all talk about 2A7A1 configuration and the option of an additional LWS system. No Othello or anything else.
For the LWS system this was reported:
"The Norwegian 2A8 has a laser warning system of Israeli manufacture, while the German tanks are to be equipped with such a system of domestic manufacture, which is already in use."
https://www.hartpunkt.de/leopard-2-...ellung-von-75-zusaetzlichen-kampfpanzern-vor/

Think of the Standard Trophy system with only the radar as a golf. Now the Trophy with LWS is a Golf GTI. It got quite a bit more and is an Higher Performance model and the Trophy with Othello and LWS is the Golf R. Its the whole package.

But what do all of them have in Common? At there bones (the chassis) there mostly the same. Even a normal Golf can be made into an R if needed or an R into an more normal Golf. That is why we see the place where Othello would go

 

[Big_Zukini]

Because there is only the radar right now.

Because the Trophy housing which contains all sensors is designed even from the baseline to be able to hold all sensors. Think of an fitted for but not with situation.

Because we know how the sensor looks... Painting over the lense would probaly impact performance if not hinder it outright so this then tells ous there is no Othello.
At the same time all News Outlets like CPM, S&T or Hartpunkt all talk about 2A7A1 configuration and the option of an additional LWS system. No Othello or anything else.
For the LWS system this was reported:
"The Norwegian 2A8 has a laser warning system of Israeli manufacture, while the German tanks are to be equipped with such a system of domestic manufacture, which is already in use."
https://www.hartpunkt.de/leopard-2-...ellung-von-75-zusaetzlichen-kampfpanzern-vor/

It is possible the EL/M-2133 and ELO-5220 combo is the standard production version for EuroTrophy so why would they specify it as an add-on?

If the Othello is baked into the algorithm then going without it ends product support.

 

[kqcke for you]

It is possible the EL/M-2133 and ELO-5220 combo is the standard production version for EuroTrophy so why would they specify it as an add-on?

Then where is it??? Because in this head on View im not seeing it. What is possible (and likely) is that the Leopard 2 Trophy mounting can take all sensors if an consumer wants it but germany didn't buy it.

(Source:

View: https://youtu.be/Z3fz1C758Oc?si=1b_N08U_ZtDuX5AR
)

 

[Big_Zukini]

Then where is it??? Because in this head on View im not seeing it. What is possible (and likely) is that the Leopard 2 Trophy mounting can take all sensors if an consumer wants it but germany didn't buy it.
View attachment 792327
(Source:

View: https://youtu.be/Z3fz1C758Oc?si=1b_N08U_ZtDuX5AR
)

Is this tank configured for delivery to the BW?
If it is, then that's a good question. If it isn't, then it's hardly an issue.
Years after entering service, I see Eitans still either without APS (Iron Fist) or with empty APS mounts. Reason unknown. But the intent is to fit them all.
We don't know if they intend to tour that Leopard to customers.
Some of the Leopard customers are not approved for access to that system.

I think there's more logic in assuming BW wants to align their Trophy variant to the production standard of the last several years. And it doesn't conflict with a MUSS 2 buy since the Othello isn't a LWS and the two system types are often co-fitted.

 

[kqcke for you]

Is this tank configured for delivery to the BW?

Yes

If it is, then that's a good question. If it isn't, then it's hardly an issue.
Years after entering service, I see Eitans still either without APS (Iron Fist) or with empty APS mounts. Reason unknown. But the intent is to fit them all.
We don't know if they intend to tour that Leopard to customers.

All Leopard 2A8 and L2AX will have APS.
I doubt 2A7A1 will get an refit tho...

Some of the Leopard customers are not approved for access to that system.

I think there's more logic in assuming BW wants to align their Trophy variant to the production standard of the last several years. And it doesn't conflict with a MUSS 2 buy since the Othello isn't a LWS and the two system types are often co-fitted.

Its just redundant. MUSS 2.0 at its current level can do all that what Othello would do and (based on the configuration) even more. It would complement Trophy really well but also look quite funny

 

[fightingirish]

Another fantastic video from Panzer-Universum showcases the new German tank, the Leopard 2 A8. You can switch the language from German to English if you prefer.
Video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TretRofW9A

Link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TretRofW9A

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1997210651287060599

View: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1997210651287060599?s=20

 

[EmoBirb]

Oh, and drones? They don’t even get close. It sees them, tracks them, and blasts them mid-air like clay pigeons.

It's such a confidently stupid statement, it hurts on a physical level.

However aside from the terrible video which doesn't show the actual L2A8 for most of the time, I noticed that that Leopard 2A8 that was recently rolled out was lacking the remote controlled weapons station. Something that would actually be useful against drones.


A large caliber (.50 cal up to 30mm) remotely operated weapons station with proximity fused rounds like shown on many technology demonstrators and mock ups over the most recent years is something that shouldn't be absent from any tank rolling out these days. Preferably optically guided or through radar. Such a system is a theoretically viable countermeasure against drones, even engaging them before the hard kill measures of the APS have to step in, and seems to be absent from the example above.

For comparison we have;

Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0:


Panther-U:


EMBT:


Abrams X:


ZTZ-100:

 

[kqcke for you]

It's such a confidently stupid statement, it hurts on a physical level.

However aside from the terrible video which doesn't show the actual L2A8 for most of the time, I noticed that that Leopard 2A8 that was recently rolled out was lacking the remote controlled weapons station. Something that would actually be useful against drones.
View attachment 794346

A large caliber (.50 cal up to 30mm) remotely operated weapons station with proximity fused rounds like shown on many technology demonstrators and mock ups over the most recent years is something that shouldn't be absent from any tank rolling out these days. Preferably optically guided or through radar. Such a system is a theoretically viable countermeasure against drones, even engaging them before the hard kill measures of the APS have to step in, and seems to be absent from the example above.

For comparison we have;

Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0:
View attachment 794347

Panther-U:
View attachment 794348

EMBT:
View attachment 794349

Abrams X:
View attachment 794350

ZTZ-100:
View attachment 794352

And yet Nobody got them.....
Anyway https://www.google.com/amp/s/defenc...scalable-last-line-counter-drone-defense/?amp

 

[EmoBirb]

And yet Nobody got them.....

Probably because all of these are prototypes from like the last 2 years? You think something like this gets thrown on production tanks over night without any integration work to be done? Are we forgetting that the Leopard 2 just now received an APS after decades? Lol.

Anyway https://www.google.com/amp/s/defenc...scalable-last-line-counter-drone-defense/?amp

[...] combines acoustic and optical tracking, instead of radar-based detection. In its announcement, the company stated that avoiding radar is intentional, as emitting signals would increase the likelihood of the system itself being detected and targeted.

[...] links its passive detection suite with a kinetic interceptor module. This configuration is intended to detect and neutralize small drones

Essentially what I already talked about and have shown to be proposed by various other manufacturers already. Something that is clearly absent from the L2A8 as it has been shown recently. Something that would give it the ability to actively defend itself against the biggest threat it would face.

 

[kqcke for you]

Probably because all of these are prototypes from like the last 2 years?

I know.

You think something like this gets thrown on production tanks over night without any integration work to be done?

No No No i tought we snap our fingers and they just appear on the tank fully working

Are we forgetting that the Leopard 2 just now received an APS after decades? Lol.

Well the only reason we hadn't had it sooner was that there was no need. And still Trophy integreation started 2019, with the first tested system in im 2021 with the system in Service by 2024. So one could argue that after 2 years atleast testing could have been done with sutch an system as in the end its nothing new in it just a different combination then before.

 

[kqcke for you]

There some new developments:
1. The Interim solution for MGCS has its first concept shown. The design will have a 130mm, a turret which seems to be based or even be the Leopard 2 A-RC 3, probaly a new powerpack but definitely a new hull. The new tank hull will be produced by Rheinmetall so this brings me the question of it still being a Leopard 2.

2. A new more refined version of the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 was shown with a redone turret. While the 2024 concept was to be less than 60 ton (depending on final loadout) this will be around 62 tons so a bit of weight was added. That said there other area's that can help bring this down again i.e. propulsion but this oblivously not part of this demonstration.

3. A Leopard 2 was shown with a new MUSS add on later specified to be ODAEON by KNDS and Hensoldt. While still in development ODAEON is supposed to be a future part of MUSS 2.0 (or beyond) bringing optical detection as well as dazzeling and jamming aren't out of the question.
4. Last but not least a new interim solution for france was shown called CAPINT. Reason i included it is because the hull will be from the Leopard 2 however modefied (current is 2A4 but production would be 2A8 hulls). Its a bit ironic that this seems more Leopard than the german interim solution.



Edit:
Links for the source are in the Images.

 

[EmoBirb]

Very disappointed by what's being presented. While the ARC 3.0 style turret was always going to be the obvious way forward, these designs are still too light on drone countermeasures, which have to be mostly kinetic in order to deal with fiber-optic drones. This is still T-14-ish, a tank from 2015 which the Russians consider inadequate in that form for the current battlefield, overhauling the design. Neither MUSS 2.0 nor ODAEON address this issue in an appropriate way. If I was in charge of BAAINBw I wouldn't be convinced by these proposed offers, conceptually they are stuck in the early 2000s to 2010s. And I'd expect leading European defence contractors to come up with and propose adequate countermeasures 4 years after it became apparent that drones make the tank of the late 20th and early 21st century nearly obsolete.

Not even touching on weight creep and cost. Maybe Germany needs a start up in the AFV space to disrupt the landscape, because these legacy manufacturers aren't going with the time while asking big bucks for unimaginative vehicles.

 

[kqcke for you]

Very disappointed by what's being presented. While the ARC 3.0 style turret was always going to be the obvious way forward, these designs are still too light on drone countermeasures, which have to be mostly kinetic in order to deal with fiber-optic drones.

We are still at a point where there isn't a lot of market ready solution that can be integrated into a tank.

This is still T-14-ish, a tank from 2015 which the Russians consider inadequate in that form for the current battlefield, overhauling the design. Neither MUSS 2.0 nor ODAEON address this issue in an appropriate way.

No but they cover almost all of the other threat spectrum which still exist and is a dangerous threat.

If I was in charge of BAAINBw I wouldn't be convinced by these proposed offers, conceptually they are stuck in the early 2000s to 2010s.

I wouldn't say that. The big problem is that we simply don't / can't comprehend fully how the battlefield of the next decade will be while conflicts and threats are ever changing.*

Not even touching on weight creep and cost.

Even with the increase the new turret reduces the weight by around 7 ton alone and cost are well more a location factor first and foremost.

Maybe Germany needs a start up in the AFV space to disrupt the landscape, because these legacy manufacturers aren't going with the time while asking big bucks for unimaginative vehicles.

Hey you can allways try it.

Edit:
*To be specific things like laser aren't in budget yet but 1 30mm, trophy + CUAS drones are still better than almost all other options.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

There is no reason the ARX30 RWS couldn't play an important part in countering the small drone threat. I have some questions/concerns about some of the specific design choices, but I hardly see this as being as being somehow "outdated".

 

[EmoBirb]

We are still at a point where there isn't a lot of market ready solution that can be integrated into a tank.

Manufacturers shouldn't rely on OTS solutions, they should develop solutions themselves to offer a superior product to domestic and international competitors.

No but they cover almost all of the other threat spectrum which still exist and is a dangerous threat.

Which is saying that they don't cover the cause for the majority of tank losses during large scale combat operations of the recent years, but they take care of the small percentage of systems that had a hard time dealing with previous models already, astounding success!

The big problem is that we simply don't / can't comprehend fully how the battlefield of the next decade will be while conflicts and threats are ever changing.

These concepts don't even address threats of this decade, lol. And by showing off something that's straight from the late cold war in terms of philosophy, it's doing the opposite of even attempting to try to have something to offer that can contest threats in the coming decade. Being stuck in the past while ignoring the presence isn't being futureproof.

 

[EmoBirb]

There is no reason the ARX30 RWS couldn't play an important part in countering the small drone threat. I have some questions/concerns about some of the specific design choices, but I hardly see this as being as being somehow "outdated".

ARX30 is a step in the right direction, especially as they have mentioned optional radar guidance. But as I said, these vehicles are very light on drone countermeasures, not lacking them entirely. A single remote weapon station, with a set ammo-supply, doesn't make this immune to drones, it's a band-aid similar to excessive add-on armor that is seen at the front in Ukraine. And how effective a single weapon station will be against multiple threats approaching from different vectors is certainly a question that should make one uncomfortable.

Solutions to make the hull and turret roof as well as the engine deck less vulnerable are also lacking. Yes an unmanned turret means that the result is a mission kill rather than killing the majority of your crew, it still puts the vehicle out of action and your crew being stranded while under hostile attack (getting out doesn't mean survival whatsoever these days).

These proposals are beyond conservative, modest improvments on a cold war era vehicle. We've seen more radical proposals for tanks from Germany, the US or Russian/USSR during the late stages of the cold war. It occurs that Rheinmetall and KNDS are completely out of touch.

 

[kqcke for you]

Manufacturers shouldn't rely on OTS solutions, they should develop solutions themselves to offer a superior product to domestic and international competitors.

Right right damn how dare KNDS not build the whole tank themself. Its already bad they don't even make the gun or engine /s

Which is saying that they don't cover the cause for the majority of tank losses during large scale combat operations of the recent years, but they take care of the small percentage of systems that had a hard time dealing with previous models already, astounding success!

The "small scale" that still exist and is a vile threat while also protecting them from specific evolutions of those drones into These directions i.e. any full automonous drone would have an hard time while the extra sensors increase awareness of the system while being existing domestic solution that are getting adapted to the threat.

These concepts don't even address threats of this decade, lol. And by showing off something that's straight from the late cold war in terms of philosophy, it's doing the opposite of even attempting to try to have something to offer that can contest threats in the coming decade. Being stuck in the past while ignoring the presence isn't being futureproof.

Locking at 1 aspect which has become a predominant factor because of specific reasons neither deletes older threats nor is the sole future threat.

The believe that drones are the only danger of importants is as ignorant as you see this solution to the modern battlespace.

ARX30 is a step in the right direction, especially as they have mentioned optional radar guidance. But as I said, these vehicles are very light on drone countermeasures, not lacking them entirely. A single remote weapon station, with a set ammo-supply, doesn't make this immune to drones, it's a band-aid similar to excessive add-on armor that is seen at the front in Ukraine. And how effective a single weapon station will be against multiple threats approaching from different vectors is certainly a question that should make one uncomfortable.

A single turret, modern countermeasure system, advanced sensors, a APS system that can shoot down drones as well as counter UAV drones. Its just a tiny bit more than what almost every existing combat vehicle in ukraine has.

Solutions to make the hull and turret roof as well as the engine deck less vulnerable are also lacking. Yes an unmanned turret means that the result is a mission kill rather than killing the majority of your crew, it still puts the vehicle out of action and your crew being stranded while under hostile attack (getting out doesn't mean survival whatsoever these days).

Please enlighten ous how to secure the vehicle while providing the needed mobility for those vehicles.

These proposals are beyond conservative, modest improvments on a cold war era vehicle. We've seen more radical proposals for tanks from Germany, the US or Russian/USSR during the late stages of the cold war. It occurs that Rheinmetall and KNDS are completely out of touch.

For one this Leopard 2 turret is a refit for existing vehicles while having specific requierments to fill like being lighter for example.

 

[EmoBirb]

You said:

We are still at a point where there isn't a lot of market ready solution that can be integrated into a tank.

I said:

Manufacturers shouldn't rely on OTS solutions, they should develop solutions themselves to offer a superior product to domestic and international competitors.

Now tell me where I said KNDS should develop something to address the most pressing threat for AFVs of the last 4-5 years?

Please enlighten ous how to secure the vehicle while providing the needed mobility for those vehicles.

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



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. So does a tank necessarily need a large, heavy, long, high velocity anti-tank gun? Perhaps not. Instead something shorter that's not much of a hindrance in urban environments is preferable, something that cuts down on weight as a natural consequence. After all you'll be mostly slinging high explosive munitions anyway.

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.



Thus I'd argue something that's meant to address the threats of today should be a low profile vehicle where the crew is seperated from the gun and ammo, the vehicle should have robust top armor, greatly simplified by a casemate style design. 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. 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). 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.

 

[kqcke for you]

Now tell me where I said KNDS should develop something to address the most pressing threat for AFVs of the last 4-5 years?

Your wording:

"Manufacturers shouldn't rely on OTS solutions, they should develop solutions themselves to offer a superior product to domestic and international competitors."

KNDS is in this case the manufacturer so....

The thing is not everyone can or should do everything themself. In this case using for example Trophy a proven system that still gets developts works even while other home grown systems are being developted which may or may not replace or assist it.


I deal with the extremely long wall later.

 

[EmoBirb]

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

Living in an era where the MIC waits for innovation to be laid at their feet rather than innovating themselves. That's truly something, even worse seeing people not having an issue with stagnation but rather defending it like their own bloodline. No wonder this country is going down the drain.