1/ A short summary of 🇪🇸's Leopard 2E upgrade plans.
Spain bought 219 Leopard 2E (local name Leopardo 2E), which are broadly speaking a 2A6 analogue with the Strv 122/2A6HEL roof armour and some unique to Spain C4 gear (LINCE BMS, Indra licence-built TI optics etc)
2/ The initial plan was to manage obsolescence and reduce some of the maintenance burden - in recent years the training has been curtailed simply because funding for spares and consumables wasn't there, so they are rather keen to minimise outdated elements.
3/ However, some money has been found somewhere, and so the upgrade plan has expanded into a multi-phase approach. Phase 1 will result in the Leopard 2E M1, and remains on the original plan - obsolescence management and sustainment efficiencies. IOC is planned for 2029.
4/ Phase 2 will then apply more substantial MLU enhancements, resulting in the Leopard 2E M2, broadly analogous to the 2A7A1/2A7HU/2A7NO configurations, give or take. Appearance is for a UK-style "fitted for but not with" approach to the expensive bits like APS and RWS.
5/ This brings us to Phase 3 which would procure equipment sets to equip vehicles, currently expected to be 60, with all the bells and whistles for operational use. Vehicles in the full fit-out would be designated Leopard 2E M2+ and the intent is to see FOC for those in 2032.
6/ Leopard 2E M2+ will include APS (undoubtedly Trophy), L55A1 gun, RWS, laser warning system, new armour package including passive and reactive elements, mine/IED underbody armour, smoke protection (looks like ROSY) and a "new drive line" which is a bit unclear but looks like...
7/ ...new tracks & sprockets, rather than anything wild like a new suspension system or other far reaching changes. Will have to include new torsion bars to balance & accommodate all the kit being thrown on. Tracks will remain steel as CRT cant yet work with the weights involved.
8/ One interesting oddity of Spain's Leopard 2 history is that after the 30 initial KMW-made vehicles, remaining 189 were made locally in Spain by Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara (ENSB), which later became GDLS-Santa Barbara Sistemas via acquisition. As a result, it looks like...
9/ ...the 2E modernisation will be directed to be carried out locally by the same organisation, resulting in this particular latest Leopard 2 variant being a GD product, in a manner of speaking. The oddities of defence consolidation and local manufacture requirements.
10/ A few observations. Phased approach is good, not resetting the planned obsolescence work but instead building on it incrementally, and the equipment set concept is a good way to manage limited budgets and is something most users are doing with expensive APS systems anyway.
11/ Timeline tight w/FOC 2032 but approach looks to be usual affair with Leo2 leveraging user group & keeping in realms of reality. Main risk factor is GDLS-SBS, whilst new Leo2 like 2A7HU have been fielded quickly, that was using hot lines at KMW, not (re)starting older lines...
12/ ...but SBS are very active right now manufacturing all sorts of AFVs, and this is a upgrade not a new build project so its a lower risk.
One to watch, and another nicely spec'd Leopard 2 in the world is never a bad thing! /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(Part 2) It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why is it a critical requirement?
I’ve broken into a few parts; (1) What is Titan and Project TYRO; (2) Why is combat bridging important anyway; (3) Why is Titan a serious problem area; (4) Whats the plan for TYRO CSB; and (5) What are the other options and the implications?
So, Part 2 – Why is combat bridging important anyway?
The UK was the birthplace of the tank and though today it has only a single upgrade programme to show for heavy tracked armour, it was the origin of many key technologies and capabilities used by tanks the world over. A🧵of a few highlights of the glory days of British armour R&D
The first practical gas turbine powered vehicle, the FV200 Turbine Test Vehicle, a Conqueror. 'Practical' is a caveat - the Germans actually had the first gas turbine tank, a Jagdtiger in WW2, but it had a problematic habit of setting trees and other nearby objects on fire.
FV4211 (initially the Chieftain Mk5/2), an all-aluminium tank that was the first with composite armour, initially called Burlington but renamed to Chobham, based around the concept of composite materials under permanent compression, laid in a matrix with additional materials...
(1/n) A neat bit of thermal footage of Challenger 2 firing and driving. A couple of obvious takeaway comments on tank heat signatures:
Engine is peak sustained source of heat, particularly once underway & exhaust blooms. Its at the rear which is good for classic head on engagements, but modern all-aspect attacks mean its increasingly a concern that you can't do much to mitigate. (cgi image but representative)
Barrel once fired is a big hot spot from the front. One part of the reason for these trendy shrouds we see on concept AFV is to limit that signature (and thus far has been dismissed as until you shoot barracuda coverings are good enough, and once you have who cares anymore)
Some fervent discussion about KF51 in one of my tweets yesterday, a quick thread on the 130 mm main gun and its ammunition handling system in the KF51 concept vehicle to answer some of the question that came up.
Reminder this is a prototype vehicle still and everything is in active development and would be subject to user requirements if it gets bought by anyone. Notional data follows.
Main weapon is Rheinmetall’s new (though its almost 10 years old already – development started in 2015) 130 mm L51 smoothbore gun, often referred to as the Future Gun System (FGS).
80 years since D-Day, so I thought a (rather long, it turns out) thread of the various interesting AFV things that were around that day, and a bit of a look at what they have evolved to today as spiritual successors. #tanktwitter #dday80 #tanks
Specialist AFV are ubiquitous now, but the D-Day landings were some of the first outings for many of these capabilities or at the least cemented their utility upon which several generations have evolved since.
Actually getting onto the beach is itself a challenge, as double-digit tonne AFV are not inherently seagoing things (aside dedicated amphibians).
A brief summary🧵of the Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) element of the aspirational US Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) programme. A bit of a "what they almost got" for the US Army of the late 90s and early 00s.
MGV was a common family of AFV that were bold in their vision - baseline 24 ton hull (later upped to c.30t) with hybrid drive & CRT track, loads of data & sensor fusion, a lot of automation (most variants were 2-man crews), with less passive armour and more smart solutions.
A few more details of the core base platform that the family would build on. Lots of bold capabilities that many 2020s AFV still lack, and all with the strategic benefits of a single common platform across an entire Army fleet, which are substantial.