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has been curtailed simply because funding for spares and consumables wasn't there, so they are rather keen to minimise outdated elements.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
1/ UKs Challenger 3 prototype now a real steel bit of kit, going into trials within the next few weeks. Imagery from #IAV2024 courtesy of @Janes own @Rivet_Counter
A few of the usual objections/critiques/comments flying around on twitter this week - a mini thread of responses to
2/ The design remains unchanged at the overall design level from that which I summarised 3 years ago at contract award in this thread:
3/ Critique: "Its not got APS". Yes it does, we've seen pics & videos of Trophy tested on mock turrets. Remember CR3 is "fitted for but not with" APS so prototype not having it means v little. This kind of testing would not be expected to have more than ballast to simulate APS
1/ A much requested 🧵 thread on the confused and misunderstood topic of Challenger 2/3’s engine and just how many horses are, or can be fit under the deck of these tanks. Short answer – there is no 1,500 hp uplift for CR2 or CR3.
2/ There *could* be a lift to 1,500 hp but there are major technical obstacles and there is no intent to do it. There is be a mid-ground to be found that is being looked at outside committed programmes.
3/ First establish the as-is: CR2 is fitted with the original 1998 powerpack consisting of a Perkins CV12-6A V-12 diesel engine and David Brown TN54E epicyclic transmission, plus a monster cooling system.
1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with one on turning circles
TLDR: tracked AFV have better capabilities for turning, even when both vehicle types can do neutral turns, which the vast majority of wheeled AFV cannot
2/ Missed the start of this (increasingly large…) mini-series of threads? Start over here:
3/ Traversing (or better yet, avoiding) obstacles is obviously simpler and quicker if you can turn the vehicle easily. In tight and complex terrain, like urban or woodland, being able to turn tightly is very important.
3/ So, approach and departure angles. Again one that has been a big factor repeatedly already, these are the longitudinal angle a vehicle can reach before it strikes the terrain.
2/ Ground clearance has overtly been a factor in everything so far, but is its own thing too. The higher the bottom of your vehicle is off the ground, the less likelihood you get stuck on things, obviously.
1/ Wheels vs tracks: a short series of threads on relative merits of each, continuing with another on the ability to negotiate trenches.
TLDR: tracks are better at trench crossing than wheels, and for wheels the fewer the # axles, the worse it gets.
2/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.
3/ Final point of clarity – comparisons assume we are comparing equivalent vehicles seeking peer weights, internal volumes, automotive performance etc. As that’s never really the case, the comparisons are more conceptual and generic than reflecting vehicle A vs vehicle B.