Battle tank Leopard 2
Kampfpanzer Leopard 2
The successor to the Leopard 1, the Leopard 2, was first produced in 1979. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann’s Leopard 2 has set world standards in combat tanks. A total of sixteen countries, mostly in Europe, have opted for this amazing combination of fire power, armour and mobility. No other western combat tank on the world market is used by so many armies – Scandinavia, the Alps, or Afghanistan, a KMW Leopard 2 is up to any deployment setting.
The largest German tank procurement program, with scheduled expenditure of DM 6.5 billion for 1,800 Leopard 2 battle tanks, cleared all parliamentary hurdles in 1977. All tank brigades of the Army (with the exception of tank brigades 28 and 29 which were equipped with the Leopard 1 A4/6th lot) were to be equipped with it, each of the 3 tank battalions of a tank brigade was to receive 35 Leopard 2 battle tanks. In addition to these 1,470 Leopard 2 tanks, there were to be 140 tanks for the 14 tank training companies and 190 tanks for schools, test sites, troop training areas and for rotation reserve, all together a defense reserve of 330 battle tanks equal to 18 percent. The supply was to begin with 20 vehicles in 1979, then 100 and 180 vehicles a year, and starting in 1982, it was to reach theannual delivery rate of 300 battle tanks.
Eventually, over 2,000 Leopard 2 tanks were produced. In 1988 a seventh lot of 100 LEOPARD 2's, priced at DM 561 million (of which DM75 million were peripheral expenses) was authorized. The lot represented the second "installment" of an order placed in the summer of 1986 to procure 250 LEOPARD 2's for the 10th Panzer division stationed in Sigmaringen — a division still equipped with LEOPARD 1 A4 tanks; however, financial constraints had reduced this order to 150 tanks (called the 6th lot). The German Army had thus ordered a total of 2,050 LEOPARD 2 tanks at a cost of DM 10.79 billion. By March 1987, a total of 1,800 had been delivered. The first tank of the 6th lot was to arrive in January 1988. A total of 108 LEOPARD 2's were expected for 1988 and an equal number for 1989.
In the Army Structure 2000 adopted at the end of the Cold War, Tank brigades in the early 1990s were equipped with Leopard 2 main battle tanks, replacing remaining Leopard 1 and M-48 tanks. Tank brigades continued to dominate the army structure, although the 16 Tank Brigades represented a slight decrease from the previous 17. Tank brigades consisted of two tank battalions, two mechanized battalions, and one artillery battalion, a decrease of one tank battalion and an increase of one mechanized battalion per brigade. Twelve mechanized brigades in the Army Structure 2000, represented a decrease from 15 in the previous army structure, resembling the composition of the tank brigades. Mechanized brigades contained two tank battalions, two mechanized battalions, and one artillery battalion, an increase of one tank battalion and a decrease of one mechanized battalion. However, there brigades were equipped with upgraded Leopard 1 rather than Leopard 2 tanks.
After delivery of the first lot of Leopard 1 tanks in 1967, investigations were initiated to improve several construction groups of the battle tank, such as weapon, drive, running gear and armor configuration. For this purpose two test vehicles were built in an experimental program and tested in 1970-1971. The "experimental development" was a successful example of German test bed, a vehicle built as a possible, more conventional alternative to the MBT-70 when the joint US-Germany development of the latter began to run into difficulties. After establishing the German-American Main Battle Tank 70 [MBT-70] development, the findings gained from this program flowed into the "experimental program," which was continued as a national battle tank development, a program which had as its goal for 1976 the introduction of a new battle tank to replace the M48.
When the joint MBT-70 program was terminated in 1970 the "experimental development" became the basis for the design of the Leopard 2 battle tank. After 7 prototypes at first, 10 other battletanks were built which were called Leopard 2 at the instance of the thenMinister of Defense Helmut Schmidt. In 1973 the technical testing of the first prototypes began, in 1974 troop trial followed, and in the next yearclimate testing in Shilo and Yuma. New requirements for armor, with the resultant establishing of the weight limit MLC50 and an agreement with the United States on battle tank standardization (December 1974), had a decisive influence on the Leopard 2 development.
A tank is developed according to the requirements of a specific user. Starting in the early 1990s, Forecast International’s Weapons Group assessed tanks and ranked them, and the Leopard 2 A5/A6 ranked in first place. “This potent tank has been greatly improved in the latest operational version, the A5 (Improved), maintaining the lead that it has held for some time,” the report concluded. It noted that the version of the Leopard 2 that was adopted by the Swedish Army after competitive trials is “even better than the A5 as used by Germany. This is due to the incorporation of a new, advanced command and control system and the Galix vehicle protection system. The Leopard 2S also features a new passive armor system.”
During the Cold War there were basically two kinds of tanks — NATO tanks for the defense of Central Europe and Soviet tanks for an attack on Central Europe. NATO tanks were heavier and more sophisticated than their Soviet counterparts, with superior fire control, communication and control equipment, and especially all-weather opto-electronic sights. NATO requirements called for defense and counterattack under the climatic and terrain conditions of Europe. The Red Army had different requirements — tanks to attack NATO defense lines, gain terrain, and play havoc with NATO’s logistics.
The German Army’s version of the Leopard 2 has been upgraded with a longer gun tube and new ammunition. This version is called the Leopard 2A6. Other features of the Leopard 2 series that drew high praise were the tank’s MB 873 diesel engine, improved turret armor protection, and a new all-electric gun control and stabilization system that eliminates the danger of a hydraulic fluid fire and operates more quietly. New fire control components and some repackaging of the components within the turret have improved the “fightability” of the tanks, making the Leopard’s “hunterkiller” target acquisition even more effective. But the report noted that the Leopard 2’s lead over the M1A2 had closed over the years and was now exceedingly small. Much of the rating hung on the improved cannon.
The western armies developed very sophisticated tanks. The M1A2, the Leopard 2A5, the Challenger and the Leclerc all have great features; they are ergonomic, fightable, and computerized. Their only drawback is the large size, heavy weight (nearly 60 tons), and as a result increased logistic demands. The Russian designs focused on mobility and firepower, sacrificing armor protection [that is only significant on the front]. These systems (T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90) are not as ergonomic, roomy and fightable as the western tanks, but the designers were able to keep its height under 2.4 meters and maintain a small frame.
Battles in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere earned Germany's Leopard 2 battle tank a reputation for being indestructible. In one case, Canadian forces managed to drive a Leopard through a massive Taliban bomb blast and survive. However, Turkish troops fighting the terrorist group Daesh in northern Syria had a different experience. According to reports, Daesh fighters in the city of Al Bab had destroyed ten Leopard 2A4 battle tanks by February 2017.
Searching for answers, some German analysts speculated that leadership failures or a lack of experience among Turkish troops may be to blame. However, the fundamental issue appears to be whether the 60 ton tanks are suitable for use in an urban environment. The Leopard 2 basic concept came from a time when the enemy was expected to attack from the front. This basic design applies internationally to the big combat tanks, even to the most modern Russian T-14 Armata. The heavy-duty tracked vehicles are designed for a duel battle and have maximum protection in the frontal area as well as a small side angle. Since, for example, the Russian anti-tank missile Kornet can penetrate even 1.2-meter-thick armor, a tank's less-protected areas are relatively vulnerable.
During the course of fighting in the Syrian town of al-Bath, the Turks' approximately 30-year-old Leopards were often shot in the rear and sometimes from the side with anti-tank weapons. There, the massive tracked vehicles are less protected. Soldiers agreed that a battle in a city can't be compared with a duel on wide, undeveloped land, where tanks usually fight their targets from two or three kilometers away.
The newest version of the Leopard 2, the A7V, being introduced to the German army, boasts higher protection compared to the 2A4, which is no longer in service with the Bundeswehr. The newest Leopard 2A7, 20 of which were introduced to the Bundeswehr in 2014, reportedly has a special composite armor which includes layers of ceramic. However, the models produced so far don't have reactive armor, which was first installed in 1982 on Israeli tanks during Israel's war with Lebanon.
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH has also fielded a Leopard 2A6 PSO ( Peace Support Operations ) prototype for urban warfare. It has more effective all-around protection, better reconnaissance capabilities, non-lethal armaments, close-range surveillance capabilities through camera systems, a secondary weapons station ( remotely controlled ), a bulldozer blade, search lights and a shorter gun barrel ( obvious reasons ). This is similar to the M1A2 TUSK ( Tank Urban Survival Kit ) upgrade of the US Army.
The development of the Leopard 2 tank from 1970 cost a total of 359.4 million German marks, in combination with various further developments even 600 million German marks. The prototype of the Leopard 2 is called the Leopard 2AV. Each piece cost 2.3 million German marks in 1973, and the model is no longer manufactured today. The Leopard 2 A6 model is delivered from Germany to Ukraine for use in the war against Russia. These tanks cost between 3 and 9 million euros to produce. This large range comes about because the tank is not mass-produced and a price per piece cannot be clearly calculated. In addition, the price depends on the equipment of the vehicle. In order to replenish its own stock, the Bundeswehr wants to order Leopard 2 tanks of the A7 type itself. These cost around 15 million euros each.
Leopard 2A8
The latest German tank Leopard 2A8 was shown for the first time at an arms exhibition in May 2023. The Leopard 2A7A1 is supposed to be the "starting point" for the development of a new version. The most modern tank will have active and dynamic protection, the latest optics and 3rd generation armor. In the Czech Republic, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann showed a prototype of the Leopard 2A8 tank. It is reported by Army Recognition 28 May 2023. The publication notes that, despite the fact that KMW hides most of the specifications, the Leopard 2A8 from the outside looks like a significant jump in power and protection of the machine.
At the International Exhibition of Defense and Security Technologies in Brno, the most modern version of the Leopard 2A8 tank was demonstrated. The vehicle boasts innovative 3rd generation multilayer armor. It consists of steel, tungsten, plastic filler and ceramic elements. The tank has a dynamic protection kit, as well as a modern EuroTrophy active protection system. The latter should intercept anti-tank missiles on approach to the car.
"The Leopard 2A8 is designed to deliver unrivaled performance on the battlefield while meeting the dynamic challenges of modern warfare," a spokesman for the German manufacturer said. At the same time, it is known that the tank is based on the Leopard 2A7 +, which also has the KAZ Trophy, it is now being purchased by Hungary.
Germany's budget committee has approved the purchase of 18 Leopard 2A8 tanks at a cost of €525.6 million ($565 million). There is also an option to buy 105 more combat vehicles, which will increase the total contract value to €2.9 billion ($3.1 billion).
Deliveries of the tanks will start no later than 2026. The purchase of the combat vehicles will not be financed from the €100bn ($107.3bn) special fund, but from Germany's current budget.
Recall that the Czech Republic is considering the possibility of purchasing up to 70 Leopard 2A8 tanks. Negotiations are ongoing with Germany. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) brought the first Leopard 2A8 demonstrator to the Czech Republic at the IDET 2023 exhibition. By the way, the Czech Republic intends to order 70 tanks.
At its meeting on May 24, the Budget Committee of the German Bundestag approved three procurement projects for the Bundeswehr. All armament projects that exceed an investment volume of 25 million euros must be approved by the budget committee before the contract is signed.
The army will receive 18 Leopard 2 A8 main battle tanks. The latest version currently used in the Bundeswehr is the Leopard 2 A7V. The more modern Kampfpanzer 2 A8 are to be delivered between 2025 and 2026. The framework agreement with the manufacturer includes an option to purchase additional Leopard 2 A8 main battle tanks. In this version currently available on the market, the main battle tank is equipped with the Trophy active distance protection system.
Since this is a subsequent procurement of material given to the Ukraine, the financing of the Leopard 2 A8 main battle tank does not come from the defense budget, but from the individual plan 60 of the federal budget. There, the so-called upgrading title provides for the funds managed jointly by the Federal Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defense for the federal government's upgrading initiative. The upgrade initiative is a security policy instrument of the federal government to support partner states with military material, equipment and training.
According to the developer, the new model boasts an innovative protection system, including the latest generation of multilayer armor, which is created by combining steel, tungsten, composite filler and ceramic components.
The Leopard 2A8 is also equipped with an additional set of passive armor, and a number of improvements have been made to enhance mine-resistance capabilities and increase the protection of the turret roof.
As noted, the Israeli KAZ Trophy in the EuroTrophy modification became the pinnacle of the defensive potential of the new MBT.
KMW indicated that the company "remains at the forefront of tank technology", but did not disclose the performance characteristics of the new vehicle.
The Leopard 2A8 is anticipated to feature an active protection system called EuroTrophy, as well as additional protection against cluster munitions. It is also expected to incorporate spaced composite armor of the third generation, composed of a combination of steel, tungsten, plastic filler, and ceramic elements, for enhanced vehicle protection.
Moreover, the Leopard 2A8 will boast an upgraded fire control system, improved sighting devices, and an independent power unit. Currently, there are no plans to change the tank’s armament, which will continue to be a 120-mm gun with a barrel length of 55 calibers.
Germany currently proceeds with its objective to have even more advanced main battle tanks than their current state-of-the-art model A7V. The upcoming Leopard 2A8 promises to become the most sophisticated heavy combat vehicle in the world. The Czech Republic’s Ministry of Defense has already expressed its desire to participate in Germany’s program to produce an upgraded Leopard 2. The country’s aim to acquire these tanks from Berlin as compensation for Soviet armored vehicles that were previously transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine through a so-called circular exchange model, when donor countries were promised to be given the opportunity to obtain a better technology instead. The initial plan was to obtain Leopard 2A4. But after the German government offered to “get more for less”, the Czech Republic made a logical choice to go for Leopard 2A8 – even if these machines are not developed yet. In the future, this order is expected to grow to roughly 70 tanks, and could potentially even increase to 123 units down the road.
https://www.technology.org/2023/04/25/leopard-1-can-be-effective-in-ukraine-with-the-right-ammo/">Leopard 1 can be effective in Ukraine with the right ammo Share Posted April 25, 2023 New ammunition can greatly improve the performance of the old L7s. For example, DM63 tank shells could deliver some serious blows to the Russian armor. This is a German copy of the M426 projectile developed by the Israeli defense manufacturer Elbit. The DM63 (and M426) weighs 18 kilograms. These are projectiles with a tungsten core inside, designed to penetrate thick armor. The armor penetration capabilities of the DM63/M426 shells depend on the distance to the target and the angle of the armor relative to the gun. Taiwan’s armed forces, which use DM63 rounds with their CM-11 tanks, say the round can penetrate 600mm armor at a distance of 1-2 km. For older T-72 tank types, which constitute a significant portion of the Russian forces, the DM63 can be lethal. Newer T-72s (like the T-72B3) can get away with being hit by DM63 ammo, but only from further distances. And even if the armor is not penetrated, the DM63 will cause significant damage to Russian tanks.
Leopard AS1 MBT
Australia acquired 103 Leopard AS1 MBT variants in 1977. The Australian Leopard AS1 MBT is a vehicle from an era when heavy armour was sacrificed for speed. The choice of the Leopard AS1 made sense in continental defence scenarios which foresaw the Army defending Australia from enemies unlikely to land MBT themselves. Unfortunately, in its current state, the Leopard AS1 is vulnerable to mines and hand-held anti-armoured weapons and its frame is not suited to being upgraded.
Some 600 personnel were directly involved with the tank capability and salaries and allowances are approximately $15m annually. Other direct operating costs were ot the order of $14m annually and the original capital cost ot the tanks whicn were delivered oetween 1976 and 1978 was approximately $150m. By 1984 at least 72 of the 103 Leopard tanks were on issue to Army units and the remainder had been withdrawn from service. The Army considered the reduction would have no adverse effect upon its capability to meet any likely contingencies.
Most areas where the Australian Army is likely to deploy—either in war or on peacekeeping missions—are located in regions dominated by what the military refer to as 'complex terrain'. Broadly, this includes areas that are either heavily urbanised, or have a mix of heavy scrub or jungle, sometimes mountains or swamp, often in proximity to urban areas. Much of the fighting in Iraq was in proximity to urban terrain. When guerrillas fight among the civilian population, modern military operations become more complex. Friendly forces must obviously take the greatest care to avoid civilian casualties and unwarranted destruction whilst still managing to win the battle and keep the peace.
Tanks form an integral part of any combined arms team, the loss of any one element of which exposes the rest. Without tanks, the infantry are exposed, and without ground elements, helicopters are extremely limited during the close-quarter battle. The protection offered by modern MBTs is extended to the infantry and other dismounted soldiers carrying out operations, not just the tank crew. The presence of tanks provides a significant boost to the effectiveness and security of other force elements, even during peacekeeping operations.
The tank capability in 2000 comprised 75 Leopard main battle tanks, 15 main battle tank dozers,eight armoured recovery vehicles medium, and five armoured vehicle launched bridges. The core business of an Army is to conduct close combat against an enemy using combined armsteams. A combined arms team is made up of infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and army aviation. Within this formation the tank plays a central role providing protection, communication and firepower. The combination of armour, infantry, artillery, and engineers is designed to ensure that in combat the whole of the military machine is greater than the sum of its parts.
Since the release of the Defence White Paper in 2000 ‘Defence 2000 –– Our Future Defence Force’, the ADF had assessed that its current in-service tank, the Leopard AS1, no longer met the requirements of the Army. Defence noted that future land operations were likely to occur in complex terrain against a threat from a range of highly lethal hand-held weapons at short engagement ranges. This, coupled with rapid increases in relatively cheap, effective anti-armour and anti-tank technology, rendered the Leopard tank as no longer being capable of effectively performing its role in a balanced combined arms team.
Defence assessed that its ability to support the existing fleet of75 Leopard AS1 tanks30 until their anticipated Life of Type in 2020 was under growing pressure, because increased operating and life cycle support costs areimpinging on the allocated support budget. When purchased in 1973, the Leopard AS1 was assessed as the best tank in the world with a leading edge fire control system and protection levels appropriate for the battlefields of the time.
In the intervening period, developments associated with the Leopard have not been incorporated to the Australian version of the tank. This has rendered the Australian AS1 Leopard tanks an orphan fleet which is no longer included in the cooperative logistics arrangements that once guaranteed asupply of replacement parts. Defence noted in 2004 that the logistic support ability of the Leopard AS1 was problematic and would further decline overtime.
In 1994, a decision was taken not to spend the then $65 million required to maintain and extend theLeopard AS1 capability to 2020.
In 2002, the core platform in the Armoured Battle Group was the Leopard I Tank. This tank faced serious obsolescence issues. While it lacked Thermal Sights, it did have a basic active emission night fighting capability. The armour had not kept pace with advances in gun and ammunition technology. Consequently, it was vulnerable to a range of anti-armour weapons, including from Iraqi T-72 tanks.
To provide its tank crews with a higher degree of force protection, the Army would have had to purchase, under the Rapid Acquisition Program, bolt-on armour from the vehicle’s manufacturer. However, with information on force options heavily compartmented for security reasons, planners at Army Headquarters never considered the option of approaching industry.
There were also serious support issues. There were not sufficient stocks of training ammunition in Australia for the 105mm gun (war stock ammunition was sufficient). While Germany produced the ammunition and that country opposed the war, a Former Director of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle Program, highlighted during a verbal interview on 22 November 2022 that the Australian Army used a range of manufacturers, including those in UK and US as the gun used standard NATO 105mm ammunition. The ammunition could have been obtained.
Finally, the US Army and US Marine Corps (USMC) did not field the Leopard Tank. Instead, Australia would have had to provide a robust support capability of its own for their maintenance and sustainment. The government of the day, through the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF), had provided a manpower cap of 600 personnel and ultimately the deployment of a larger support contingent to the Middle East Area of Operations would have violated the objective of manpower minimisation. The Armoured Battle Group force package was not deployed.
The reality was that in mid-2002 little of the Australian Army’s order of battle was readily deployable for a war with Iraq. One of the reoccurring themes of the force option selection process was the discovery by planners that the ADF maintained ammunition stocks at such low levels that it made the deployment of certain capabilities virtually impossible without the immediate purchase of additional supplies.
The requirement for tanks as a component of the Australian Defence requirement was reviewed by the Defence Science and Technology Organsiation (DSTO). DSTO analysis of lessons from tactical battles confirmed the need for a tank capability as part of a combined arms team whenever Army was confronted with a task that demands the capacity to conduct close combat.
In making the choice to replace the Leopard fleet, three platform types were considered, namely: the LEOPARD 2 and LEOPARD 2 variants, ABRAMS variants and CHALLENGER 2. Of the other options considered, the British made CHALLENGER 2 tank was discounted because it was assessed as being far more expensive than any of the other options, with an acquisition cost (at an estimated $9.6 million each) of at least twice that of the ABRAMS AIM M1A1 tanks, and at best, acomparable through-life support cost profile. Defence was advised that only 30 Challenger 2 tanks were available for purchase. The cost of building 29 additional Challenger 2 tanks was assessed as being greater than the M1 costs as it would require restarting the Challenger 2 tank production line for a one-off, unique production run.
Based on the preliminary capability and cost analysis undertaken by Defence, two contenders emerged as preferred options to replace the existing Leopard AS1 Main Battle Tank capability. Those were: the ABRAMS M1A1AIMS Main Battle Tank; and the Swiss RUAG PANZER 87/WE Main Battle Tank, an updated version of the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank.
The remaining, lesser preferred options considered (which included the Leopard 2A4, 2A5 and 2A6 variants) were not considered as competitive in terms of operational capability, as these would have been supplied as aging, and second hand tanks, of lesser capability. To provide an equivalent tank and support systems package to the M1A1, 59 Leopard 2 tanks would require Baseline Werterhaltungprogram (WE) configuration without 2nd Generation gunner’s Forward Looking Infra-Red (2Gen FLIR) or network centric warfare (NCW) potential assessed as similar to M1 acquisition costs but with much higher commercial risk; WE configuration with an appropriate NCW package, 2Gen FLIR sights and mine protection (required for Leopard 2 due to presence of ammo in crew compartment) package assessed as being substantially more expensive than the M1 Foreign Military Sale cost with high delivery schedule and commercial risk.
On 10 March 2004, the then Minister for Defence Robert Hill announced that the ABRAMS tank offered lower acquisition costs, comparable operational costs to at least one of the competitor solutions, and a lower through-life support cost than alternative options. The Minister also noted that the tank was chosen because it provided, apart from the cost elements, the highest overall survivability, the greatest through-life support potential and excellent midterm network centric warfare potential.
The scope of DMO Project Land 907 did not fully replace the existing Leopard capability, in that the project did not cater for mine ploughs, which may be funded using DMO Project Land 144 or the Minor Projects programme. Project Land 907 also did not provide for armoured vehicle launched bridges, which was a requirement prior to Second-Pass Approval, but left out of the Operational Concept Document versions following Second-Pass Approval. The ANAO was informed that Land 907 Phase 2 may consider added capability for procurement at a future time.
As of November 2008 the Australian Defence Force had 103 Leopard tanks. Of these, 30 had been offered as part of the decommissioning process; and the department retained 26 for target practice. As at 7 September 2009, 18 Leopard tanks have been partly decommissioned with all fluids drained, power pack removed, main gun rendered innocuous and classified items removed. It was anticipated decommissioning of all tanks will be completed by the end of 2011.
Minister for Defence Peter Dutton confirmed a $3.5 billion investment in the Main Battle Tank Upgrade (Land 907 Phase 2) and Combat Engineering Vehicle (Land 8160 Phase 1) projects. The sale was originally approved by the US State Department in April 2021. In late April 2021, the US State Department approved the sale to Australia of 160 M1A1 tank hulls from stock. Those frames will be used to produce the ADF's next tank fleet including around 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams main battle tanks. This acquisition represents a major upgrade to Australia's heavy armour capability. It is being managed under Land 907 Phase 2 (the tank upgrade) and Land 8160 Phase 1 (the combat engineering vehicles).
Army will receive up to 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, 29 M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles, 17 M1074 Joint Assault Bridge Vehicles and an additional six M88A2 Armoured Recovery Vehicles. The first vehicles will be delivered to Australia in 2024, with the projects expected to achieve initial operating capability in 2025.
Enhancements to the Australian Defence Force’s combat capability will be delivered by the Government through the purchase of evolved Abrams tanks and combat engineering vehicles. Minister for Defence Peter Dutton announced 12 January 2022 a $3.5 billion investment in the main battle tank upgrade (LAND 907 Phase 2) and combat engineering vehicle (LAND 8160 Phase 1) projects.
Army will receive up to 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, 29 M1150 assault breacher vehicles, 17 M1074 joint assault bridge vehicles and an additional six M88A2 armoured recovery vehicles. Dutton said the M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams would provide critical protection and firepower for the ADF in land operations. “Teamed with the infantry fighting vehicle, combat engineering vehicles, and self-propelled Howitzers, the new Abrams will give our soldiers the best possibility of success and protection from harm,” Mr Dutton said.
“The M1A2 Abrams will incorporate the latest developments in Australian sovereign defence capabilities, including command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems, and benefit from the intended manufacture of tank ammunition in Australia.The introduction of the new M1A2 vehicles will take advantage of the existing support infrastructure, with significant investment in Australian industry continuing in the areas of sustainment, simulation and training.”
Chief of Army Lieutenant General Rick Burr said tanks and combat engineering vehicles were essential to Australia’s ability to contribute to a credible land combat capability integrated with joint and coalition forces. “The main battle tank is at the core of the ADF’s combined arms fighting system, which includes infantry, artillery, communications, engineers, attack helicopters and logistics,” Lieutenant General Burr said. “Because of their versatility, tanks can be used in a wide range of scenarios, environments and levels of conflict in the region. This system is the only part of the ADF that can successfully operate in medium to high-threat land environments. “The M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams protection, accurate and lethal fire, mobility and situational awareness cannot be delivered by any other platform. There are no other current or emerging technologies - or combination of technologies - that can yet deliver the capability currently provided by a main battle tank.”
William Leben writing for ASPI's Strategist argues that currently, there is a debate between those who think Australia needs an armoured land component and those who are sceptical about the future utility of tanks. William Leben said Australia needed to develop and implement innovative concepts for its land force. Such a debate is essential regardless of where one stands on the future of armour. Former major generals Jim Molan and Adam Findlay and other Army officers have been vocal in advocating for armoured capabilities. Tank advocates argue that tanks and armoured vehicles are essential building blocks of 'combined arms' approaches to warfighting.
A deliberate decision was made to reduce the amount of training ammunition purchased and to procure six Advanced Gunnery Training System Simulators to reduce the amount of live ammunition required to train for, and maintain, gunnery skills. A footnote in the Audit Report also highlighted that training and war stock ammunition had been purchased and deemed suitable for service by the Ordnance Safety Group, noting the cost limitations and reliance on external (presumably overseas) agencies. This issue of reliance on overseas ammunition manufacturers has been partially addressed by Australian-owned weapons and munitions company NIOA recapitalising the 120mm tank ammunition. This recapitalisation work extends the life of type of M1028 canister tank ammunition, but there does not appear to be an intent to future manufacture of additional tank ammunition natures at Benalla.
M1A1 AIM Abrams Tank
The Abrams tank replaced the Leopard tank in the Australian Defence Force, as part of the LAND 907 Tank Replacement project. The Abrams tank will provide modern, survivable and interoperable tank capability that will be supportable until at least 2020. The project includes the acquisition and through-life support of 59 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, seven M88A2 Hercules recovery vehicles, simulators, tank transporters and fuel trucks.
The M1A1 AIM Abrams has the firepower [a 120mm smoothbore cannon], mobility and survivability to provide the key component in the combined arms team. The Army’s operational fleet of Abrams was held by Army’s three Armoured Cavalry Regiments in Adelaide, Brisbane and Townsville. Additionally, vehicles for training purposes were also held at the School of Armour in Puckapunyal and the Army Logistic Training Centre at Bandiana.
The Abrams AIM is a complete rebuild of the M1A1 tank, whereby they are completely disassembled, inspected, and where necessary refurbished, and reassembled. The AIM process takes an older combat system, and replaces it with a digitised, integrated combat system. During the AIM rebuild process, 86 percent of the component parts of each Australian tank were replaced as new, and the remaining 14 percent are returned to the original equipment manufacturer for inspection, and if required, replacement prior to reinstallation.
On 10 March 2004, the then Minister for Defence Robert Hill announced that the ABRAMS tank offered lower acquisition costs, comparable operational costs to at least one of the competitor solutions, and a lower through-life support cost than alternative options. The Minister also noted that the tank was chosen because it provided, apart from the cost elements, the highest overall survivability, the greatest through-life support potential and excellent midterm network centric warfare potential.
Minister for Defence Hill said "The best method of purchase was through the United States foreign military sales program. It offers lower acquisition costs, comparable operational costs to some of the competitors, or at least one of the competitors, but a through life support and cost risk that was also lower. The tank was chosen because it provides, apart from that, the highest overall survivability, the greatest through life support potential and excellent mid term network centric warfare potential.
"So the Government has responded to what we think is the reasonable request of Army that we provide a capability that will help harden our Army particularly in terms of protecting troops on the ground, provide the increased survivability that’s necessary in relation to adversaries with modern light anti-armour weapons. Seemed to the Government that really protection of our forces when we send them overseas is the highest priority and to contemplate sending them into an environment where they don’t have adequate protection against what is now a proliferation of these light army anti-armour weapons would be irresponsible. So on that basis we believed given the existing Leopard tanks were becoming increasingly vulnerable to such weapons, apart from all of the issues of increased through life support costs of the Leopard, that it was time to update that capability. And after an exhaustive series of studies, we’re confident that we’ve made the right choice to provide that extra support to the Australian Army for at least the next few decades."
Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, Chief of the Army, stated "we feel that the replacement of the current Leopard 1 tank means that the land forces will have the protection and the fire power to accomplish any likely missions without undue risk. As the Minister has explained we see the proliferation of readily available, quite lethal anti-armour weapons on the battlefield has made Leopard very vulnerable and frankly dangerous to operate on the likely environments that we may face into the future. And the acquisition of this tank, the Abrams M1A1 AIM (D) means that the land force will have a very robust and survivable tank offering great reliability, excellent through life support and outstanding network centric warfare potential. We believe that this tank offers an outstanding package. It’s the best value for the Commonwealth’s money, as it provides the best combination of tank capability, support, sustainment, extensive simulation and a comprehensive training package. This tank is proven in design, in current production, will be in production for a considerable period of time in the future and is proven in use. It will be in use well into the 2020s.
"Army feels that we need to make sure that our soldiers when they are deployed have the equipment they need to do the job with minimum risk and the best chance of success. Even on peace keeping missions the proliferation of hand held anti-armour weapons means that it is a very lethal environment and we believe that we’re going to put our people in harm’s way, we want to make sure that they have the best equipment. They deserve the expectation that they will succeed and survive. As many of you would understand, the bottom line of an Army is close combat using combined arms teams. And in a combined arms team of infantry, armour, artillery, engineers, now army aviation and all of the other combat support and combat service support elements, we use the strengths of one in a particular environment to protect the vulnerabilities of the other. And frankly at the moment our team is out of balance. The balance is going to be restored by the acquisition of the M1A1 AIM (D)."
On 11 March 2004, the then Minister for Defence Senator Robert Hill, stated in parliamentary debate "I know the Labor Party does not like it because it is made in America. If the Leopard tank had been chosen, if the German manufactured tank had been chosen, it would have been a much more muted response. But the concept of the ADF getting the best tank available in the world—which is the American tank—is too much for this Labor Party, under the leadership of Mr Latham, to withstand.... You could ask the question: does Labor support tanks to protect our infantry or does it not? In the last two years of this government has Labor produced one single defence policy? No—just carping, whinging and whining but never anything constructive....
"Why does Labor not want the best deal, a deal under the FMS? Because it is a deal, of course, with the United States of America. Why should we be embarrassed about the fact that our strategic relationship with the US gives us the opportunity to get a product such as this on an exceptionally good basis—not only the initial purchase price but the whole-of-life support cost? It ought to be something that should be applauded. Why is it not being applauded? Because the deal is being done with the United States of America."
The Australian Army began the process of acquiring a new main battle tank (MBT). But this acquisition was contrary to the policy announced in the 2000 defence white paper when the Government said it had 'decided against the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high intensity conflicts'. So why buy tanks now when military interventions like those in East Timor, Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands have seen only one Special Forces soldier killed? Why buy new tanks when there are calls for budget surpluses to be spent on education or health?
Would the Army use new tanks? Australia has not used tanks in East Timor, Afghanistan or the Solomon Islands. They were, however, crucial to operations once introduced in Vietnam in 1968. So are new MBT needed now? If Australia is going to supply armoured units for coalition operations overseas, then these tanks also need infantry—most commonly mechanised infantry—to accompany them. Australia's current mechanised infantry vehicles do not have comparable mobility or protection to these tanks. Force numbers may also be a problem. A rule of thumb is that for each tank unit, two mechanised infantry units are needed. Australia has one mechanised infantry unit—at less than full strength. Does Australia need a second mechanised battalion, how will it be raised, how much will it cost, and will Australia use that battalion if the cost is paid?
Are tanks the right weapons? Canada has decided to dispose of its Leopard tank fleet and replace its tanks with US developed 18-tonne Stryker armoured gun systems armed with 105mm guns. The Stryker is a wheeled armoured vehicle, very similar in appearance to the Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV). Australia has several hundred ASLAVs, but none armed with 105mm guns. Would a more sensible acquisition be 105mm gun-armed ASLAVs rather than tanks?3 The purchase would be around $200 million cheaper, though these vehicles are not as well protected as an MBT.
Acquiring advanced MBTs could send mixed messages to countries in our near neighbourhood. Although Malaysia is acquiring equivalent T80 MBTs, within the region questions may still arise as to why the Australian Army is acquiring a heavy armoured capability at a time when the government had stated that 'the threat of direct military attack on Australia is less than it was in 2000'.
What is the threat? Domestically, even given of the threat of terrorism, questions could be asked about the rationale for a shift away from an Army that is light infantry in nature (troops operating from helicopters, on foot or from lightly armoured air transportable vehicles) suitable for rapid deployment. In the public mind the threat is a terrorist with a car-bomb, not someone driving another MBT. Would more police officers be better for countering terrorists? Internally the Australian Army has always identified a need to retain heavier capabilities, but the public has not always heard the message.
New advanced MBTs could offer Australian troops more protection in certain combat situations. They would also make Australian troops more capable in some conflict scenario against an identifiable enemy. Apart from the costs (financial and political) it is arguable that Australia already has light forces suitable for coalition operations and interventions to support regional neighbours. It could also be argued that the issue of whether these tanks are appropriate or necessary in the Australian strategic environment is, therefore, a matter requiring further public assessment.
In making the choice to replace the Leopard fleet, three platform types were considered, namely: the LEOPARD 2 and LEOPARD 2 variants, ABRAMS variants and CHALLENGER 2. In March 2004, the then Minister for Defence announced that the ABRAMS tank offered lower acquisition costs, comparable operational costs to at least one of the competitor solutions, and a lower through-life support cost than alternative options. The Minister also noted that the tank was chosen because it provided, apart from the cost elements, the highest overall survivability, the greatest through-life support potential and excellent midterm network centric warfare potential. Network centric warfare is a means of realising more effective war fighting ability. This concept involves the linkage of engagement systems to sensors through networks and the sharing of information between force elements. It has two closely related and mutually reinforcing dimensions: the human dimension andthe network.
The Armoured Battle Group deficiencies were addressed surprisingly quickly. According to the detailed Australian National Audit Office Audit Report No.1 2007–08, by 2007 Project Land 907 had delivered 59 M1A1 ABRAMS Main Battle Tanks, associated support vehicles, training equipment and a logistic package of support equipment, spare parts, ammunition, facilities and initial training. The budget was considered by Government in October 2003, approved for entry to the Defence Capability Plan in 2004 and the first batch of tanks and recovery vehicles arrived in Australia September 2006.
The project was effectively managed by the DMO to deliver an improved, replacement capability for the ageing Australian Leopard AS1 Main Battle Tanks. The teamwork required to deliver the capability, incorporating multiple Groups within the DMO and Defence, was successfully managed to ensure that the capability was delivered on schedule, to the Army by July 2007.
Defence advised that the M1A1 AIM tanks provided for Project Land 907 were selected from stocks that had been pre-positioned in Europe by the US Defense Force to serve as war stocks. The first batch of tanks and recovery vehicles arrived in Australia in September 2006, following their use with training Australian instructors in the US. The six gunnery simulators and one driver training simulator were delivered, and were in use training Australian Army personnel. Tank transporters and fuel trucks were progressively delivered, and used to support tank training operations in Australia. The final delivery of tanks from the US occurred in March 2007.
The Abrams tank is fitted with advanced composite armour, which provides substantial defence against enemy fire and Improvised Explosive Devices. Fuel and ammunition reside in separate compartments to protect the crew from the risk of the tank's own ammunition exploding if the tank is damaged. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) purchased the Tank Urban Survivability Kit which greatly enhances the Abram's survivability in complex terrain. Defence chose to specify that there should be no depleted uranium in the tanks destined for Australia. In this regard, the US Government manufactured an alternate, comparable armour choice for ABRAMS tanks, which does not rely on depleted uranium.
The Abrams is fitted with an onboard digital fire control computer which enables the gunner to 'point and shoot' to engage targets. This capability coupled with an advanced sensor suite, allows the Abrams to engage targets at extended ranges, day or night, even in adverse weather conditions.
Defence highlighted network centric warfare as an interoperability issue. This was because network centric warfare required data movement rather then traditional voice in communications equipment. Due to this, it was identified that it was a challenge for some of the older systems to be able to host the data. This has necessitated a move to more modern equipment. Defence stated that in 2005, to address this integration issue, it created the Network Centric Warfare Program Office to develop the battlespace architecture to ensure that any new projects have the requisite interoperability already in place.
The level of situational awareness and the bandwidth in communications that goes into an Abrams tank today is considerably more than anything on the old Leopard tank. It is not totally surprising with the complexity of the communications suites and the situational awareness that you have on board, it was not possible to synchronise completely the communications and situation awareness to give it its full capability. The SINGARS radio used in the Abrams tank can talk to the existing communications equipment. The real issue with the tank was not actually the communications; it was the interface between the FBCB2 Blue Force Tracker (the battle management system) and BCSS (the battlefield command support system) and the ability to pass data across networks.
To support the Abrams, the ADF has produced seven M88A2 HERCULES (Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and Evacuation System) armoured recovery vehicles. The HERCULES is a fully-tracked heavy armoured vehicle which performs hoisting, winching and towing as part of recovery operations and evacuation of heavy tanks and other combat vehicles. The Abrams is also supported by Heavy Tank Transporters to fulfil its logistics requirements while on operations. A range of simulators have also been procured to assist in training and crew preparedness.
The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is responsible for purchasing and supporting the Abrams Main Battle Tank, HERCULES, Heavy Tank Transporters and Simulation Systems, under Project LAND 907.
The project to acquire the ABRAMS tank capability effectively reduced acquisition and development risks by procuring equipment that was part of a fully developed ‘military off-the-shelf’ US Government programme. In parallel, Defence did not vary the product performance specifications during the acquisition, which served to ensure the delivery of the required capability on time, to budget, and to the required quality.
Honeywell Aerospace signed an agreement 16 November 2021 with TAE to provide total logistics support for the Honeywell AGT1500 engines for the Australian Army’s fleet of M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks. The local support is expected to lower sustainment costs, improve availability, significantly reduce downtime for the repair and overhaul of the engines, and increase operator and maintainer training for the Australian Army. Repair and overhaul will be carried out at TAE’s RAAF Base Amberley facility.
Australia had a fleet of 59 tanks; in 2022, the Coalition government said these would be replaced by 75 upgraded versions from 2024. Australia has tanks to spare. The current fleet of 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks, none of which were presently deployed, is due to be replaced with a new variant (the M1A2) beginning from 2024. Australia had already committed $388 million in military assistance to Ukraine including 60 Bushmasters, 14 M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers and six M777 howitzers.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been pressed on whether he will provide further military assistance to Ukraine in light of the response from other European countries. The United States and Germany on Wednesday agreed to send dozens of Leopard 2A6 tanks to the war-torn nation to fight the conflict that is into its 12th month. Denmark and Germany flagged they were also open to supplying Ukrainian forces with the same tanks following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's pleas.
Australia should consider following Britain’s lead and send tanks to Ukraine, Kyiv’s ambassador to Australia said 13 January 2023. Renewing appeals for military aid, Ambassador Vasyl Myroshnychenko urged the government to dispatch extra armoured Bushmasters and troop carriers, as well as ammunition. Myroshnychenko said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government should consider sending some of its M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.
Ukraine's Ambassador to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko told Sky News Australia the tank delivery would be "instrumental" to helping Ukraine win the war. “They will be very important on the battlefield," he told the Bolt Report host Andrew Bolt on 26 January 2023. "The tanks will enable us to drive Russians out of Ukraine and help us free the land and restore sovereignty."
Leo Purdy, a military fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy, said the Abrams could technically outmatch the Soviet-era T-62, T-64 and T-72 currently on the battlefield. And they were at least on par with Russia's third-generation T-80 and T-90s on a tactical level, he said. "In simple terms, these tanks will provide improved firepower, protection and mobility to the Ukrainian armoured forces over the Soviet-era 'T series' tanks," Purdy told the ABC 27 January 2023. "At the tactical level, Western tanks will provide a qualitative advantage.
"Tank technology is important, however how they use them — for example, the doctrine to guide how they fight, and how they are supported — is equally, if not more so [important]," Purdy said. "If the tank crews are poorly trained and they do not employ their tanks using a combined-arms fighting approach with adequate logistics support, then tanks become vulnerable."
"While I expect Ukraine will no doubt appreciate these tanks, having three different kinds of Western tank (and potentially multiple versions of the Leopard 2), in addition to the various Soviet-era 'T' series tanks will cause some logistic headaches as it will require three different sets of training for both the crews and the maintenance teams," Purdy told the ABC.
Misha Zelinsky, Columnist at the Financial Review, argued: "A world where big countries subjugate smaller ones is a bad one for Australia. Helping Ukraine beat Vladimir Putin is not charity, it’s good defence policy. ... Having Australian tanks collecting dust while a murderous madman swallows a democracy can only make sense if we foresee imminent war at home. Otherwise, why are we keeping them?... anyone opposing sending weapons to Ukraine should admit they’d prefer to see Aussie tanks cruising around the outback than doing their job protecting our security."
Retired army major-general Mick Ryan said Australian tanks should only be supplied to Ukraine if the Albanese government was going to replace them, amid suggestions the defence strategic review will recommend cutting back on new armoured vehicles. Anthony Albanese said Australia won’t be “fighting a land war defending western Queensland” in the foreseeable future.
Ukrainian defense minister Oleksiy Reznikov appealed to Australia on 28 May 2923 to join the “tank coalition”. “Dear Australian friends, throughout history you have repeatedly proven that Australians are a nation of freedom-loving warriors who always stand up to a bully,” he said. “You are 15,000 kilometers away, yet we are very close in our shared values and readiness to defend them. That’s why during the first months of the Russian aggression Australia was the largest contributor to Ukraine outside of NATO. Your Bushmasters have been incredible in real combat operations. But our fight for global freedom is not over yet, and we still need your support. I encourage you today to join the international tank coalition for Ukraine. In addition to tanks, we would be honored to receive the Australian Hawkies. They could prove invaluable to our troops during the counteroffensive.""
Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle
Australian Bushmaster armored personnel carriers were effectively used by assault units on the Bakhmut direction, the General Staff reportd 09 April 2023. "These vehicles have proven themselves well as a vehicle for moving infantry and evacuation," says Armed Forces serviceman Andriy. "They are quite maneuverable and passable, which is important for the performance of the assigned combat tasks. And they help save the lives of our boys. Thank you to our partners for your help!"
Australia, the largest non-NATO contributor to Ukraine’s war effort, has supplied missiles and Bushmaster armored personnel carriers. They have a special ‘V’-shaped floor designed to spread the impact of an explosion more effectively than a conventional flat floor. A group of up to 70 Australian defense force personnel has also been stationed in Britain to help train Ukrainian troops. Bushmasters can cost anywhere between $500,000 to $2.4 millon.
A total of 90 Bushmasters, an armored vehicle capable of transporting up to 10 soldiers that has taken on legendary status among Ukrainians. Given Australia has built nearly 1200 Bushmasters, surely the 1000 or so in the depot would be better off helping fight for democracy.
Ukraine’s ambassador to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko 24 September 2022 labelled the Bushmaster armoured vehicles as “phenomenal” assistance to the Ukrainian army soldiers fighting to repel Russia’s invasion. “Australia is really spending out with the support provided so far, but we need more, we’re at this stage of war where we need more ammunition, artillery and more Bushmasters,” he said. “They’re saving lives, they help transport people from the frontlines, it’s important to continue supporting Ukraine.”
Ambassador Myroshnychenko told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. on January 27, 2023 he hoped Canberra will boost military assistance to his country. “Australia can choose to send more Bushmasters,” he said. “What is important is that Australia continues supporting Ukraine. We are extremely thankful for what Australia has done so far, especially the last package, which was announced in October, where another 30 Bushmasters were allocated. The troops, which are now in Britain, will be training Ukrainian soldiers. We are thankful for that. it is really a big help.” Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, called for Australia to reopen its embassy in the war-torn country, saying 24 February 2023 he would like to see the ambassador returning on a Bushmaster armoured vehicle. Speaking at a televised news conference to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Zelenskiy said his country and Australia had a good relationship that had led to a lot of support during the conflict. “I have had a huge deficit with armed vehicles – I don’t want to share all of the information [about] how many we have got from Australia, but anyway we’ve got it and that is great."
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had been pressed on whether he will provide further military assistance to Ukraine in light of the response from other European countries. "I will be in Bendigo later today (Friday) looking at Bushmasters which Australia has provided, which have made an enormous difference," Mr Albanese said. "As well as Bushmasters, a practical difference on the ground, making a difference for the people of Ukraine in their struggle, which is not just for them. They are struggling and fighting for the rule of law."
The Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle – Medium (PMV-M) is sustaining jobs in Australia and saving lives on deployment in dangerous environments. The locally produced vehicle can rapidly deploy up to ten battle ready troops in all environments and is blast resistant. Its innovative cabin design gives it the flexibility to serve many roles.
The Bushmaster is built to carry and sustain a nine man infantry section, with room for one more passenger. It is fully air-conditioned and can sustain itself for a period of up to three days. The Bushmaster carries one complete spare wheel and all fitted wheels have run flat tyre inserts and a central tyre inflation system allowing them to continue travelling with punctures.
The Bushmaster uses an armoured v-shaped hull to protect its passengers from landmines and other explosive devices. The sloped sides on the bottom of the hull act to deflect blast upward away from the vehicle. The vehicle's welded one-piece shell is designed to protect troops against all small arms fire. Windows also carry similar ballistic protection. The Bushmaster's fuel and hydraulic tanks are positioned outside the crew's compartment to protect troops from possible fires. There is also a protected emergency fuel tank so the vehicle won't be left stranded.
The Defence Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) is responsible for purchasing and supporting the Bushmaster PMV under LAND 116 Project Bushranger. These vehicles are being built in Bendigo in country Victoria. It is delivering over 1000 PMV-Ms to Army and Air Force. Seven variants of the Bushmaster have been purchased: troop, command, mortar, assault pioneer, direct fire weapon, ambulance and air defence. A new general maintenance variant is being created by modifying the assault pioneer variant and an electronic warfare variant is also being developed.
The Australian Defence Force ordered another 78 freshly made Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles in May 2023 from French supplier Thales’ local Bendigo factory, worth $160 million, after pruning back orders for other armoured vehicles from German firm Rheinmetall’s Queensland facility. The order comes after Defence gifted around 90 of the highly-popular, user-friendly armoured trucks to Ukraine to prop up the fight against the Russian invasion.
General characteristics Weight: 12,500 kilograms Length: 7.18 metres Width: 2.48 metres Height: 2.65 metres Crew: One - with up to nine passengers Overall performance Engine: Caterpillar 3126E Operational range: 800 kilometres Maximum speed: Over 100 kilometres per hour Armament: Gun ring for 5.56 millimetre and 7.62 millimetre machine guns There were many lessons for the Australian Army from the 2003 war in Iraq. Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) is required when the adversary has a capable air and missile force. In the 1991 Gulf War, the main threat was from the Scud series of missiles. In 2003, there were also Chinese produced Silkworm missiles that were used to attack military and civilian targets. The issues that Army Headquarters planners faced with the Australian Army’s GBAD Systems were similar to those affecting the Armoured Battle Group. The Rapier system, originally introduced into service in 1980, was obsolete as it was incompatible with other coalition air defence systems.
The coalition aircraft had upgraded their identification friend or foe (IFF) systems to Mode 4. This system works as an encrypted automatic challenge/response and ensures that systems equipped with IFF do not engage each other. Without Mode 4 IFF on the Rapier system, there was potential for fratricide (an issue that later occurred with the US Army Patriot system). A worrying trend shared with the Armoured Battle Group was the lack of sufficient reserves of ammunition.
The second GBAD System, RBS 70, was committed to providing short range defence of HMAS Kanimbla and it also suffered from ammunition shortages. The air defence force package had exposed the fact that Rapier was already obsolete and that RBS 70 was required to provide defence of the Royal Australian Navy. The air defence package was used, but not in support of land power.
Yhe Australian Army addressed the obsolescence issues associated with the GBAD capability, but it was not alone in neglecting its air defence capability during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Australian Army project to replace the RBS-70 was Land 19 Phase 7B. The Land 19 Phase 7B solution is capable of either independent operations or to integrate with the Project AIR 6500 Joint Air Battle Management System. Land 19 Phase 7B achieved First Pass Government approval in February 2017 and the selected system is the National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS), enhanced with Canberra-based CEA Technologies' Active Scanning Electronic Array (AESA) radars. This includes the latest Mode 5 IFF. The project had a planned Initial Operational Capability of FY2022-23 as of July 2019.
This is a transformational capability. NASAMS can engage targets beyond line of sight, take targeting data from the joint force and the CEA radars are world leading. A benefit of this capability is that it shares a missile type with air forces such as the Royal Australian Air Force. The Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is manufactured by Raytheon Australia, which is also a strategic partner for the Sovereign Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise. It has taken almost exactly 20 years, but the Australian Army is poised to address the deficiencies with its GBAD capability, including the crucial issue of ammunition. Finally, the modern Reconnaissance Battle Group warrants examination.
There were many lessons for the Australian Army from the 2003 war in Iraq. The Reconnaissance Battle Group was the force option that Army Headquarters’ planners examined in the greatest depth, as it was one of the ADF assets that US Central Command planners consistently expressed a keen interest in. The US planners had identified a capability gap in their force structure, which was the security of the western flank of the 1st Marine Division during its drive on Baghdad. In response, the US looked to the Australian Army to remedy the problem. This was an ideal task for light cavalry, and ‘AHQ pushed for the deployment of an Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV) based contingent’.
There were similar obsolescence issues with the ASLAV, which plagued all of Army’s force options. If it was to provide any useful degree of protection to their crews, the ASLAV required an upgrade to its very thin armour. The pre-2004 ASLAV’s armour provided protection against the 7.62 ball round. However, all light anti-armour weapons were capable of penetrating its armour. Critically, the vehicles also lacked Spall Liners, which prevents armour piercing ballistic projectiles and any metal 'spall' fragments from explosive impacts, penetrating into the vehicle's interior and injuring anyone inside. Land 112 Phase 4 was intended to address these deficiencies, but at that time the upgrade had not yet begun’. As the USMC order of battle contained similar vehicles, initially it was assumed that the ADF could deploy a smaller logistic footprint.
Ultimately it was the size of the contingent that made it undeployable; it was originally proposed to deploy 2,000 personnel. As with the Armoured Battle Group, an establishment limited to 600 personnel was politically viable. Unfortunately, a force of this size would not have been large enough to balance force security requirements with mission objectives. So, while there were similar problems for all force options, ultimately it was the size of the force that made it unpalatable for the CDF to take to Government. I will now analyse how the Australian Army has addressed the problems with these three force packages in the intervening 20 years. The new combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRVs) for the Reconnaissance Battle Group were procured under Land 400 Phase 2 at second pass in 2018. Initial Operating Capability was scheduled for December 2022 and Final Operating Capability was scheduled for June 2027. Ultimately, Rheinmetall Defence Australia will produce 211 Boxer CRVs.
The manufacture and assembly of the Boxer CRVs will progressively transfer from Germany to Australia, with the first 25 Block I CRVs manufactured and assembled in Germany. The final 186 Block II vehicles’ manufacture and assembly will occur in a purpose-built facility known as the Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence in Queensland. The Australian workforce involved in the construction of the vehicles will also be used to support sustainment, progressive development and upgrades to the Boxer. The same workforce will be used to support potential export opportunities. The ANAO Report highlighted that there have been challenges with the project. Specifically, there are potential schedule delays due to modification of the turrets and protection requirements; a situation reported by the ABC in 2021.
US Army Renames It First New Mobile Protected Firepower, the M10 Booker
Leopard 2 MBT Revolution / Advanced Technology Demonstrator
In deployed operations, today's armed forces have to be able to move, shoot and communicate in a variety of very tough environments, posing major challenges to modern military vehicle systems. A whole host of threat scenarios, ranging from high-intensity conventional combat to post-conflict peacekeeping missions and the constant, incalculable risk of asymmetric attack, make having adequate force protection measures in place imperative. Rheinmetall is one of Europe's leading suppliers of armoured tracked vehicle systems in all weight classes. The portfolio includes the KF51 Panther, MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator, the IFV Lynx, AEV 3 Kodiak, the LRV Wiesel, just to name a few.
The MBT Revolution was a proposed modular upgrade package to the Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks. It was developed by Rheinmetall. This MBT was first revealed in 2010. It is also referred as Leopard 2A4 Evolution, as a number of sources confuse the Leopard 2 Evolution as the Leopard 2 MBT Revolution. The Leopard 2A4 was the most widespread version of the Leopard 2. It is still used by a number of countries in large numbers. So the market for upgrades remains substantial.
The IBD Deisenroth Engineering Evolution, which only featured AMAP armor upgrades, was unveiled at the CANSEC 2009 show in Ottawa, Canada. Rheinmetall have since introduced a new version of the Leopard 2 Evolution, called “MBT Evolution“. The MBT Revolution was unveiled at Eurosatory 2010 and featured an AMAP Armor package and a new digital architecture. The Leopard 2 MBT Revolution package has also been improved and is now marketed as the “MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator“.
The modular armor extends the length of the turret and most of the hull for improved protection in built-up/urban area’s. The rear section of the hull is fitted with cage armor. Mounted on each corner of the turret is a Situational Awareness detection unit with Laser Detection and warning (soft kill Active Protection). Mounted above these units is Rheinmetall’s ROSY Rapid Obscurant System. It is able to lay down a smoke screen blocking the tanks Infa-Red signature.
The tank's firepower has been improved with a new Commanders sight, digital fire control and battlefield management system. Other new features include air-conditioning for the crew and an auxiliary power unit. Rheinmetall have also developed the “Commanders Brake”. This allows the Commander to stop the tank should the driver be incapacitated.
Despite the weight of the tank being increased to 62.5 tonne, there has been no upgrades in the vehicles mobility. It retains the original 1500hp MTU diesel engine and suspension of the Leopard 2A4.
The Leopard 2RI (Republic Indonesia) is a version of the Leopard 2A4 MBT upgraded by Rheinmetall with parts of their Revolution package. The first prototype of the Leopard 2RI was presented at Eurosatory 2014, but the final configuration has still changed after. The ROSY smoke screen system has not been adopted and a different types of headlights and driver night vision camera have been chosen for the final configuration. Another change compared to the older configuration might be made to the hull – the current Leopard 2RI appears to lack any sort of specialized mine protection kit, which according to older sources was part of the Leopard 2RI at Eurosatory 2014.
Aside of the addition of AMAP composite armor designed by the German company IBD, the Leopard 2RI also features electric turret drives instead of the previous hydraulic ones and an air-conditioning unit. The gun brakes have been improved, allowing the tank to fire the current generation of high-pressure APFSDS ammunition. The fire control system has been improved to allow firing programmable HE ammunition. Overall the Leopard 2RI should weigh slightly less than sixty metric tons, based on lacking a few features of the sixty tons Leopard 2 Evolution (IBD’s armor testbed, on which Rheinmetall based it’s Revolution tank).
Poland has operated the Leopard 2A4 since 2002 and will have the most modern exported Leopard 2 Tank model in NATO service. The Leopard 2PL is the new designation for the modernization and upgrade of the 128 Leopard 2A4 delivered between 2002 to 2003. On public display for the first time at the MSPO Defence Expo 2016, it includes elements of the Leopard 2 MBT Revolution package.
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/11/chile-to-upgrade-leopard-2-tanks.html">Chile to upgrade Leopard 2 tanks
Leopard 2A4CHL
Armored Cavalry is a weapon especially suitable for distant fire combat, for scouting and maintaining contact with the adversary, for encounter combat, tactical liaison and obtaining surprise. It is eminently used to seek the decision. It is characterized by its tactical mobility, firepower, flexibility, protection provided by the armor of its means and by the power of crushing and shock.
Its use has an essentially offensive and fast character. Normally, its units are integrated into combat teams with armored and mechanized infantry means, thus achieving maximum flexibility and adequate complementarity on which success in the maneuver rests. There are also within this weapon exploration units of different magnitude, characteristics and composition according to the scenario where they will be used. Within these it has armored, mounted and mountain exploration units.
As of 2022 Chile's country's tank fleet was represented by 170 vehicles, of them 30 units of the Leopard 1V tanks and 140 Leopard 2A4 tanks, or the modernized Chilean version Leopard 2A4CHL, which received new electronics, sighting devices, as well as the Rhl 120/L55 gun, like the Leopard 2A6.
The Leopard 2 is a modern third generation German main battle tank. The first prototypes of the vehicle were created in 1973, and series production started in 1979 and continues to this day. To date (2018), 3,480 such tanks have been produced. The Leopard 2 is powered by a 1500 hp MTU MB 873 Ka 501 engine. The vehicle's armament is a single Rheinmetall Rh-M-120 cal. 120 mm and 2 machine guns MG3 cal. 7.62mm.
The Leopard 2 was created in response to the demand for a new main battle tank announced by the Bundeswehr in the early 1960s. The new vehicle was to replace the Leopard 1 tanks in the West German army. Initially, cooperation with American companies (for example, Chrysler) was carried out on a project designated MBT-70. However, after a few years, the cooperation was completed and further work was focused exclusively on the German companies. Despite a very long process of analytical, study and experimental work lasting almost 15 years, the Leopard 2 introduced to the line in 1979 turned out to be a revolutionary construction and surpassed the Soviet constructions of the time.
It is considered by many analysts as the first third generation tank, which includes, for example, the M1 Abrams, the French Leclerc or the much later Russian T-90 tank. The Leopard 2 is characterized primarily by mobility and maneuverability unprecedented in tanks of this class before 1979, thanks to the use of a powerful 1500 hp engine. He also has very good armor, using composites and SKO (fire control system). It was also armed with the excellent Rh-M-120 cannon, which in the 80s and 90s of the 20th century became a standard for many NATO countries.
The A 4 version, which first appeared in 1985, has very advanced armor. and improved compared to previous SSKs, as well as improved armor on the turret and on the front of the fuselage. It is also the most exported version.
The Leopard 2A4CHL is the upgraded Chilean version of the Leopard 2A4 ordered by Chile in 2007. Chile had originally sought to buy the tanks from Switzerland, but the sale of 93 tanks was canceled in November 2005. The Chilean Army acquired 132 Leopard 2A4s upgraded to the Leopard 2A4CHL standard (plus 8 to be used as spares) from German stocks in 2007. Fully 132 of these tanks will also be modernized, and will form 3 groups within Chile’s northern armored brigade. The remaining 8 tanks will be used as replacements, and/or for simulation and training. The Leopard 2s will replace the Chilean army’s Leopard 1 tanks. About 70 were bought second-hand from Germany, and over 200 were bought second-hand from the Netherlands in 1998-99.
Upgrades include new electronics, sighting and information systems meant to elevate the Leopard 2A4's networking capability to be equal to that of the Leopard 2A6, a new suspension system and the upgrading of the tanks main gun to the L55 smoothbore cannon used on the Leopard 2A6. Other upgrades are remote weapon stations over the gunner and commander hatches fitted with the MG3 and HK GMG. The Leopard 2A4CHL also has improved roof and side turret armour and can be uplinked with Chile's battlefield control network.
At low air pressure (a result of the high altitude in the Andean mountains) the turbocharger has to make more rotations per minute in an attempt to transport the same amount of air, which will still fail in most cases due to the air being extremely thin. Less air being delivered to the engine will reduce the efficiency of the fuel combustion and increase fuel consumption. As there is less air to transport the heat, several interal engine components and the fuel system will get hotter. The higher temperatures of the fuel system and the higher drive of the turbocharger will reduce the lifetime of said components. This is a common problem with all combustion engines being used at high altitudes.
On the Leopard 2A4CHL the German company MTU installed a special "high altitude kit", which consists of a number of modified powerpack components to deal with the low air pressure and the higher temperatures. If the temperatures still rises above a certain threshold, the engine will slightly throttle in order to prevent overheating.
Chilean state-owned manufacturer Famae selected OIP Land Systems (an Elbit Systems company) to modernise the fire control system (FCS) of the service’s LEOPARD 2A4s, and their associated simulators, plus the sighting and targeting systems of the MARDER 1A3 fleet. FAMAE (Fábricas y Maestranzas del Ejército) is a Chilean state-owned firearms manufacturer. Its products are used by the Chilean armed forces and the Carabineros police force. Turkish defense companies Aselsan has also been selected to provide new internal communications systems for both vehicles.
OIP must therefore develop the basic and conceptual engineering, before making the modifications that allow installation of the new observation and targeting system.
Many member countries of the European Union reduced the number of MBTs and left them in extended storage conditions. It is so, even some countries made a major mistake by removing tank units from their institutional structure, a fact that was being reversed with the support of Germany, especially in the instruction and training of its crews. In view of situations of this type, it is important to keep in mind that one thing is to alienate or leavethe material out of service, which could later be recovered through acquisitions relatively quickly, but a completely different matter is the loss of the skills and knowledge of the staff, which is not easily recovered, therefore external support will be required.
There is a large number of modernization projects and system improvements of weapons that are in development and others that were developed, but arewaiting for resources to materialize them. Thus, the tank material that ac-is currently in service in the world, it already has many times its successorswaiting to start construction. Ukraine in 2014 once again demonstrated the need for tanks and armored vehicles in general, both in quantity and quality.
The interesting thing about the Polish Leopard 2A4 modernization is that it has already been implemented in these tanks, being some of the aspects that are required to implement in the Leopard 2A4 material in Chile. As an example is the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), driver's backup camera, air conditioning, new thermal sights, etcetera.
A mid-life upgrade has been planned for the LEOPARDs (approximately 170 units) and MARDERs (approximately 280 units) since their acquisition some 15 years earlier. Chile planned to take its Leopard 2 A4 main battle tank (MBT) fleet through a midlife upgrade program (MLU), including replacing turrets with new electrical and digitized versions.
These tanks equip the Chilean Army's armored brigades deployed in the country's northern regions. The MLU would include improved modular armored protection; a remote-controlled weapon station; and new electronics for sighting, targeting, and communications. Chile is also considering replacing the Rheinmetall L44 120 mm gun with the larger-caliber L55 version.
While defining the requirements for the MLU, the Chilean Army since 2013 had been requesting and studying information on potential solutions from firms including French-German KANT, Germany's Rheinmetall, and Switzerland's RUAG Defence. In 2018, the Army’s Directorate of Projects and Investigations (DIPRIDE) initiated the ‘PROACO’ programme, to develop modernisation plans for the upgrade. An estimated budget of $7 million (€5.9 million) was approved for development of prototypes and in 2020 the Army assigned the project to FAMAE.
The May 2023 “Tarapacá” Exercise brought together military personnel and means from units of the VI Army Division (VI DE), such as the Leopard 2A4 , Marder 1A3 and artillery and engineer material. The exercise, organized by the 2nd Armored Brigade (BRIACO) "Cazadores" and the Headquarters of the VI DE, is of a tactical nature, in which they must apply their professional knowledge and skills to fulfill the missions entrusted. The above contemplates day and night actions. The main objective is to check the capabilities of combat-ready armored units in a short time.
“Professionally it has been a very profitable exercise. It has been one that quite simulates a real case, in which the units are fulfilling various functions. The FTX "Tarapacá" simulates this problem and how it solves it through the 1st Armored Brigade "Cioraceros", in Arica" , explains Captain Raúl González M., Commander of the Fundamental Unit Combat Team "Sentinel" of the 2nd Armored Brigade "Hunters".
But having the knowledge and the means is not enough . The desert is one of abrupt and treacherous changes, to which they must adapt quickly, especially in a crisis situation. Captain González explains that “the great difficulties are inherent to the environment, a product of the camanchaca that is produced in the area, causing low visibility and extreme temperatures. That is why we have had to adapt to be able to fulfill the mission with all these inconveniences . Of course, that causes a greater amount of coordination, training and practice, but we have been able to correct it. The professionalism and resilience that he has within this exercise has been demonstrated ” .
Leopard 2R Heavy Mine Breaching Vehicle
The Finnish Leopard 2R Heavy Mine Breaching Vehicle are modified Leopard 2A4 tanks used to clear a path through a mine field. The Leopard 2R Heavy Mine Breaching Vehicle is meant for creating paths through minefields for advancing forces. A Leopard 2R has no turret and is equipped with a distinctive British-made frontal mine plow, along with three leveling skids [the arms in front of the plow] to control the depth of the blade. The Finnish firm Patria had converted ten regular Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks into the mine-breaching variant. Helsinki then sent the six that remained operational to Ukraine. Finland’s Defense Ministry said that the vehicles were difficult to operate on its soil, particularly in the winter.
To combat armored vehicles, armies bury mines, in particular shaped charge tank mines, in the attack area or above ground installed in connection with a sensor monitoring a certain path section. As soon as a tank drives over a mine or enters the monitored path section, the mine is to be ignited, for which purpose ignition devices have so far mostly been provided for the buried mines, which only respond to the pressure forces exerted by the weight of the rolling tank. Such mines block terrain and hinder or prevent troop movements. Therefore, a military force must at least be able to clear a passage through a minefield.
The essence of minefield breaching operations is speed. The fear that haunted Coalition planners in the Gulf War was that the Iraqi minefields and obstacles would delay Coalition forces long enough for Iraq to deploy chemical weapons. One of the fastest ways to breach a minefield is with explosives. The British system, the ROYAL ORDANCE GIANT VIPER™, uses eight rockets to carry a 67 mm diameter, 230-meter hose filled with aluminised PE6/A1 plastic explosive across a minefield. When it has landed, it is detonated in a spectacular explosion, clearing a gap 183 meters long and 7 meters wide. It will destroy most mines unless they have double-impulse fuses or are blast proofed.
Similar line breaching systems are in use with the U.S. Army and marines, who use the M58A5 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC), and the Chinese Army which has a 425 mm Type 762 tank chasis mounted twin rocket system. One rocket in the Chinese system will clear a lane 130 meters long and 12 to 22 meters wide. The American MICLIC is trailer mounted like the GIANT VIPER™, and will clear a path 13.7 meters wide and 100.6 meters long.
Against modern mines, such pyrotechnic clearing means are also not very effective, because they have a high resistance to blasting. Such sudden and powerful position changes of the type produced by detonating explosive, are absorbed by a shock blocking device fitted into land mines and consequently detonation is prevented.
When there is not a lot of time for an army to clear a minefield, it will often employ the use of certain machines to roll through and clear a safe path. Military forces employ several kinds of mine-clearing machines to clear out or detonate mines. Some machines are specifically designed for the task of mine clearance, while tanks can also be fitted with certain mine-clearing devices.
Conventional demining with a metal detector and a mine detector is time-consuming and dangerous. Many types of mine clearing apparatuses are known and have been put to use for clearing minefields. These apparatuses include flails, rollers and plows. One of the more effective methods uses a flail—a set of long chains attached to a rotating drum held out on arms across the front of the tank—to beat the ground. The clearing is done when the rotating flail detonates the mines by milling and hitting the ground.
All of these devices are adversely affected by power limitations imposed by the choice of push vehicle which limits the width of cleared lane or the depth from which mines can be cleared. In response to this limitation for a tracked combat tank, most devices attempt to clear only a track width lane on each side to allow passage of the tank. Since modern mines are effective against the full width of the tank and since following vehicles cannot travel exactly in the path of the clearing vehicle, track width clearing devices have limited effectiveness in creating a breach through a mine field.
The most effective clearing method consists of removing the mined ground with the entire width of vehicle, but high technical expenditure and effort are required for this. In this clearing method soil and mines are hurled to the front and sides and consequently absolute mine-free corridors are formed. However, the clearing speed of this method is not very high.
The few devices which attempt to clear the entire width of the pushing vehicle are faced with disposing of the large amount of spoil material which accumulates on the moldboard of the apparatus. Those devices which use teeth to lift mines from the soil deposit the mines along with the spoil against a moldboard. All of these apparatuses tend to be heavy if designed to clear land mines and are likely to be seriously damaged by detonation of a mine. Such detonation is also likely to occur in close proximity to the vehicle, whereby the vehicle could be disabled.
Mine detonation under or against a mine clearing apparatus is likely to so damage the apparatus as to not only render it ineffective but also cause the device to severely impede the movement of the vehicle. Since such an event is likely to occur while the vehicle is being fired upon by an adversary, it is highly desirable that the crew be able to disengage the mine clearing apparatus quickly without dismounting from the vehicle.
The heavy weight of these devices, the weight of the spoil and the difficulty of pushing large teeth through the soil to lift buried mines has resulted in power/transmission requirements so severe that no standard combat vehicle can push prior art full width clearing apparatus to excavate and remove buried mines from a mine field.
The mine clearing rake is triangularly shaped when viewed from its top. When installed, the mine clearing rake points forward, and the base of its triangle is parallel with the moldboard. The mine clearing rake is designed to be used primarily in sandy or loose soil for plowing up both surface laid and buried land mines. Each side of the mine clearing rake has a row of teeth extending diagonally from the apex to the rear of the mine clearing rake. When the moldboard is lowered, the mine clearing rake teeth dig into the ground.
The task of the Leopard 2 clearing tank is to clear lanes of mines and unexploded ordnance, so that assault and other equipment can advance unimpeded. "It is a sure work animal on the battlefield. Frontline tricks. These will pave the way for actual battle tanks to reach the front, said Finland's Defense Minister Mikko Savola. the clearance tanks were built on the Leopard 2A4 tank platform. The clearance tank in question is also known in the world as Leopard 2R.
The moving turrets in clearing armored vehicles have been replaced by fixed and immobile superstructures. Also, in general, the main weapon of tanks, i.e. the cannon, has been removed and replaced with sturdy clearing and plowing equipment. The wagon is armed with one heavy 12.7 mm machine gun. A lane marking system is also installed at the back of the wagon, so that the following equipment detects a safe route.
The Leopard 2R is powered by a turbocharged diesel engine that produces a "light" 1,500 horsepower. The maximum speed of the trolley is 72 km/h. The wagon weighs 49–53 tons. The Leopard 2R's personnel consists of the coach's leader, instructor and pioneer.
In 2002 Finnish requirements resulted in a contract to buy 124 Leopard 2 A4 MBTs from German military reserve stocks. Not all the vehicles were scheduled for use as MBTs. Only a batch of one hundred vehicles was assigned to the MBT role, with twelve more being used as a spare-parts reservoir. Six vehicles were to be converted to the bridge-laying role (Leopard 2L), and another six were to be converted into armoured engineer / mine breaching vehicles (Leopard 2R). All in all, Finland bought a total of 139 Leopard 2 A4s from the first to sixth production batches. Modifications to the wagons have been made by Patria, which operates in the defense, security and aviation industry. The Finnish state owns the majority of Patria.
Finland will deliver more defence materiel to Ukraine. The President of the Republic decided on the matter on 23 March 2023 on the proposal of the Government. This will be the 14th package of defence materiel to be delivered to Ukraine. It is estimated that to replace the defence materiel capabilities in this package will cost Finland EUR 161 million. The combined value of all defence materiel packages submitted so far is about EUR 910 million.
As part of international cooperation on Leopard tanks, Finland will hand over three Leopard 2 armoured mine-clearing vehicles to Ukraine, including training related to their use and maintenance. In an earlier package, Finland also delivered three Leopard 2 armoured mine-clearing vehicles, which means that the number of these vehicles sent to Ukraine is now six. The package also contains heavy weapons and munitions. "For Ukraine, all materiel aid is vital in defending the country. We will continue our determined efforts to support Ukraine in repelling Russia’s brutal invasion", said Minister of Defence Antti Kaikkonen.
The Leopard 2R supplied by Finland entered the 47th separate mechanized brigade of the armed formations of the Kiev government. Ukraine launched its long-touted counteroffensive against Russia 04 June 2023, attempting to use Western-supplied tanks and other military hardware to pierce through Russian defensive lines. Moscow reported repelling a number of Ukrainian attacks and said Kiev paid a heavy price for them without scoring any major victories.
The Ukrainian army lost half of the specialized Leopard 2 mine-clearing tanks that were provided by Finland, the country’s media outlets reported 12 June 2023, citing images from the conflict frontline. The loss was mentioned on 12 June 2023 by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat (HS), which said its military fact checker, John Helin, had confirmed the authenticity of photos of the damaged armor circulating online. Three vehicles with distinctive features were photographed on the frontline, after reportedly being hit 08 June 2023 during an attempted offensive near the village of Malaya Tokmachka in Zaporozhye Region. But the tanks still look relatively intact in the pictures and seem to be repairable.
Forbes suggested that the possible imminent “extinction” of Leopard 2Rs was not a big deal, since Kiev has other vehicles meant for the same role in its fleet. Other specialized vehicles, which appeared to share the Finnish armor’s fate, were identified by the outlet as the Soviet IMR-2 and the German Bergepanzer.
Leopard 2A7 EDA
The first upgrade concept of the KMW is the Leopard 2A7 EDA. This program focuses on the modernization of all Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A5+ MBTs of all European users to the A7 standard. The unification to the latest type of Leopard 2 would come with the benefits of standardized parts easier to obtain by the users, a common logistical chain. There would be even an easier way to obtain the MBTs via rent, lease, and sales. The EU wants to preserve the number of at least 5,000 MBTs in the line, thus there is a huge possibility that the KMW could open its production and take orders for completely new tanks.
In spring 2017, the European Defence Agency (EDA) launched the ‘OMBT-Leo2’ project, a new Pooling & Sharing initiative which aims at optimizing existing Main Battle Tank (MBT) capabilities in Europe with an initial focus on the Leopard 2A4. The concept foresees the offer of surplus Leopard platforms available in certain Member States (the ‘providers’) and transfer them (lease, rent or sell) together with an upgrading package to one or several other Member States (the ‘receivers’) interested in acquiring and introducing in-service this type of capability. The Pooling & Sharing of training, exercises and maintenance between providers and receivers, using already existing facilities, is also part of the concept.
The Agency issued a Request for Information (RFI) on 22 September 2017 to the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) and National Defence Industry Associations (NDIAs) of EU countries, encouraging the European defence industry to consider creating cross-border industrial partnership.
Upgrade of legacy MBTs to the latest technical standards would have a positive impact for European defence industry in the area of land systems. It would also contribute to the maintenance of technological excellence of the European Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). This RFI encourages the establishment of European multinational cross-border industrial partnerships as the preferred mechanism to exploit this opportunity. Additionally, EDA considers this programme as a suitable vehicle for enhanced access for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) to the cross-border supply chain.
The business case will have to provide information on the content and cost of the Integrated Logistics Support package provided by industrial partners covering recurring/scheduled maintenance as well as estimated figures for the Life Cycle Costs of the upgraded tanks. With the support provided by EDA on updating the business case, interested Member States will further evaluate the possibility of acquiring/upgrading this up-to-date version of the tanks.
The Pooling & Sharing of training, exercises and maintenance between providers and receivers, using already existing facilities, is also part of the concept. Upgrade of legacy MBTs to the latest technical standards would have a positive impact for European defence industry in the area of land systems. It would also contribute to the maintenance of technological excellence of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). Additionally, regarding economies of scale, Member States owning and operating for national purposes the same type of MBTs, can opt-in for upgrading their in-service fleet.
The purpose of the PMC is to gather accurate information regarding possible commercial solutions for upgrading Leopard 2A4s up to the 2A7 or equivalent version, in-line with existing technical standards and requirements. Participants are asked to respond to the PMC with proposed solutions that are sufficiently detailed and include a realistic price range and possible timelines.
The objective is to reach out to the full European defence industry spectrum and ensure the collection of comprehensive and accurate cost data. To this purpose, the PMC will be disseminated via the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) and EU National Defence Industry Associations (NDIAs). Industry will have to submit their responses to the PMC until 18 July 2019. Only responses covering full system-level solutions will be taken into further consideration.
EDA encouraged the establishment of European multinational cross-border industrial partnerships as the preferred mechanism to exploit this opportunity. The Agency also considers this programme as a suitable vehicle for enhanced access for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) to the cross-border supply chain. The PMC follows EDA’s Request of Information (RFI) in 2017 through which a first contact was established with industry on this concrete programme.
In order to support the PMC, EDA organised a business-to-business (B2B) workshop at its premises in Brussels. The aim of the May 2019 B2B workshop was to promote cross-border cooperation within the EU and enhance mid-caps/small and medium enterprises’ access to defence contracts in general, and to the future OMBT-Leo2 programme (contractual) implementation in particular, by facilitating initial contacts between industrial stakeholders with relevant expertise (at full-system and / or subsystem level), in this field. Specific criteria for participation of interested industries will be part of the communication and each request will be assessed by contributing Member States experts and EDA, on a case-by-case basis.
The information gathered through the PMC will be assessed by EDA and governmental subject matter experts. The results of the assessment will further support contributing Member States in their national decision, and EDA in the awarding process of possible future contracts.
Leopard 2A9
The AX (or A9) should be the last Leopard 2 before MGCS runs. Apparently, the MGCS is supposed to be so fundamentally different that it will probably take a while before the system is successfully introduced. Therefore, it probably needs a lot of lead time. The project will certainly not be stopped for political reasons. However, one could think about it. It's actually an answer to the T-14 Armata. And so he now probably lacks the opponent, because the Armata is obviously a bad design, which - if at all - will probably only make it onto the field in small numbers.
The Leopard 2AX project itself should be ready in a few years. And this means that all plans for the MGCS to create a replacement for Leopard 2 and Leclerc are postponed for a very long time. The Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) is coming, but the combat-readiness date set for 2040 leaves some European armies in a somewhat difficult position. With the 20 years until the full introduction of the MGCS by KMW and Nexter, something has to be done in order to maintain the combat readiness of states that do not have as many MBTs as they would like or who will need to upgrade aging vehicles in the near-term.
The Leopard 2Ax project’s main goal is to deliver a tank that answers the needs of a modern battlefield, but at the same time solves the issue of increasing the mass of the vehicle, while providing acceptable levels of protection. KMW will have to evaluate whether the original Leopard 2 turret can be further improved or ditched for a completely new one. A similar concept led to the creation of the MGCS, previously known as the European Main Battle Tank (E-MBT). The tank resolves the issues of weight by fitting a light turret with the Leclerc’s automatic loader to the Leopard 2 chassis.
At the international defense exhibition DEFEA 2023 in the city of Athens, a subsidiary of the German Engineering Bureau Deisenroth Hellas (EODH), owned by the IBD (Deisenroth Engineering) concern, presented a prototype of the heavy advanced protection system "ASPIS" (Advanced Integrated Platform Protection System), based on the battle tank of the Leopard 2 series, which received the designation "AX" back in 2018/19.
In the prototype, an active protection complex is used, consisting of autonomous radar sensors distributed on the roof of the tank turret, so that when an active danger approaches at a high elevation angle, guided active protection projectiles could detonate at the right moment at a distance from the tank. In general, this protection system is not new, it was implemented back in 2013, in the ESPACE (Enhanced Survivability Package Advanced Combat Environment) project from the same IBD concern, to some extent, this project gives rise to the ASPIS system.
The ASPIS system is a logical extension of the AMAP active protection, and consists of a complex hybrid combination of passive and active protection, a tank forward projection designed to counter modern threats such as man-portable anti-tank guided missiles, kinetic and high-explosive munitions of a potential enemy, as well as has increased protection against armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles. The outer layer of the system is complemented by specially designed surfaces to reduce the signature, which, thanks to their geometry and special coatings, provide a reduction in the thermal and electromagnetic signature, in case of penetration of the protection, this special layer provides a sharp reduction in the number and degree of dispersion of fragments.
Case length, mm: 7720
Length with gun forward, mm: 9670
Width, mm: 3900 (?)
Height, mm: 2480
Clearance, mm: 490
Booking: Anti-shell combined, Combined, with elements of reactive armor
Armament:
- Main gun: 120 mm Rheinmetall L44 cannon
- Elevation angles, degrees: -9…+20
Ammunition:
- Shots: 42
- Guns: 1 machine guns 7.62 mm
- Additional armament: Smoke grenade launcher, pcs.: 16 (2x8)
- Additional armament: Advanced Active Protection "AMAP"
Information and control system: Yes
Integration with an external battle management system: Yes
Engine type: MB 873 Ka-501
Engine power, l. p.: 1500
Highway speed, km/h: 72
Power reserve on the highway, km: 550
Specific power, l. s./t: 24.2
Suspension type: individual torsion bar
Climbability, degrees: 30
Overcoming wall, m: 1.1
Crossable ditch, m: 3.0
Crossable ford, m: 0.8
The tank was renamed from “Revolution” to “MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator” for 2016. The MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator was fitted with a new modular Hard-Kill Active Protection System. Mounted along the turret sides, each module consisting of sensors for detectubg incoming threats and countermeasures for defeating the threat. The system waa developed by rhe German company Defence Aid Suites (HK-DAS) ADS GmbH, founded in 2006 and is part owned by Rheinmetall.
The MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator also improved firepower with the Rheinmetall L55 120mm smoothbore main gun. The “L55” designation refers to the length of the gun in calibres - the barrel length divided by the bore calibre. The L55 Smoothbore is 6.6m in length and is 1.32m longer than its predecessor, the L44 used on the Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A5, producing a higher muzzle velocity projectile. The higher muzzle velocity increases the round's range and improves accuracy.
https://www.guerra-acorazada.blog/la-familia-de-carros-de-combate-leopard/The Leopard-2 Main Battle Tank Family RUAG Leopard 2 MLU RUAG pursued the Leopard 2 Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) in response to a request from Finland in 2010. MLU is based on P2 of the prototypes of Pz 87 WE. The project was canceled in 2015. The Swiss Army did not consider this upgrade, hence RUAG has proposed it to foreign customers. But there is little chance that the Leopard 2A4 would ever receive the RUAG MLU.
One area of expertise of RUAG is the modernisation and further development of tracked vehicles. The portfolio includes amongst others the armoured engineering vehicle, bridge laying vehicle and infantry tank. This expertise also includes the upgrading of M109 artillery systems and Leopard 2 A4 MBT. As general contractor or in cooperation with system vendors RUAG realises projects all over the world.
In 2013 a new "Leopard 2 Mid-Life Upgrade" package for Leopard 2 A4 was presented by the Swiss company RUAG. The Leopard 2 with the license plate M+0810, manufactured by Krauss-Maffei in Germany, was one of the two test vehicles for testing in Switzerland and then for the training of technicians and in the first officer school in 1987. Then the vehicle went to RUAG as a test vehicle. After 2010, RUAG used this to produce a prototype of a Leo 2 with increased combat value and additional armor as a possible export model and basis for the Leopard 2 MLU (mid-life upgrade).
Around 2004, the Leo 2 with the license plate M+77473 was converted for the Swiss Army's project "Leo 2 maintenance" and used for troop trials. After 2010, the vehicle was rebuilt by RUAG as a prototype Leopard 2 MLU (mid-life upgrade) for Finland, which showed interest in a modification of the Leo 2. Since Finland later decided to upgrade Leo 2 in Germany, the project was canceled.
The Mid life Upgrade was commissioned by the Swiss army for the Panzer 87 and not the Leopard 2A4, but those vehicles are almost the same. The first vehicles proposed by RUAG was the Panzer 87 Werterhaltung which was considered too expensive for the Swiss army who decided to go with a simplified version of the Panzer 87 Werterhaltung also known as the Pz 87 WE.
The original version was offering a upgraded protection of the turret, but since Switzerland was not intending to go in war with anyone, even as peacekeeper, or feeling any threat by neighbouring countries, they decided the original Pz 87 protection was enough.
RUAG decided to go on their way and development the Mid Life Upgrade which was also proposed and tested by Switzerland as an export venture, as this upgrade was mainly making the Panzer 87 even more protected. This upgrade was compatible to the Leopard 2A4 which is used by many country. but those countries also made their own upgrade on the Leopard 2A4 to improve the protection.
With the midlife upgrade programme (Swiss Armed Forces designation: WE) RUAG Land Systems Ltd. and partners succeeded in developing a modular and further upgradeable program for the main battle tank Leopard 2 (Swiss Armed Forces designation: Pz 87 Leo). The new Leopard configuration (WE) was both tactically and logistically successfully tested in tough military missions. The modularity and upgradeability are the most prominent features of the programme, fulfilling the military and also the political demands of a weapon system of the future.
-
An integrated, state-of-the-art command and control system
The electrical turret drive with digital controller assures further upgradeability, increases the safety of the crew and reduces maintenance work.
By retrofitting the existing commander's periscope, night vision is optimised. The chosen technical solution allows the periscope to remain in the same place.
All control and command functions are centralised on the commander's new control panel.
The new self-contained observation and weapon station (ABWS) on the roof of the tank and the upgradeable, modular protection concept with roof protection, front and side protection together with the mine protection assures the adaptability of the Leopard 2 to the changing demands.
Command and control functions, protection and fire power can be adapted to the requirements and focal points of military missions.
The MLU package not only improved the overall performance of the vehicle, but further extendeds the useful life of the Leopard 2A4. The kit consists of new composite packages to improve protection by reaching current standards and an improved fire control system.
The core of the Leopard 2 upgrade was a 100 % digital and vendor-independent. The advantage: Full-hunter-killer capability day or night. An open archi- tecture provides easy integration of your individual reconnaissance, command and weapon systems. Open, fully digital interfaces enable effective transmitting and receiving of voice, image and data signals without mandatory vendor lock-in. Full-hunter-killer capability by day and night with the integration of individual components and subsystems was thanks to open interfaces and fully digital performance.
The tanks updated with this package featured the 120 mm L / 44 cannon, 7.5 mm coaxial machine gun and 12.6 mm remote machine gun mounted on the turret (these are calibers mainly used by the Swiss Army). The commander also has a new 360 ° panoramic optic with thermal sensor.
RUAG also added a new modular armor package with composite armor. This is mounted on the front and sides of the hull and turret for fighting in urban areas. Modular side armor can defeat RPG-7 attacks and AP rounds at level 6, STANAG 4569. The modules to be applied to the tank can be tailored according to the threat present in a given operation, and damaged modules can be easily replaced in the field. There are also laser warning sensors in the kit.
The nature of armed conflicts has changed: Scenarios involving threats and different deployments have become more diverse, and asymmetric conflicts have gained in importance. This change also varies in line with the demands in terms of the safety of emergency forces. RUAG developed high-tech systems to completely and effectively protect armored vehicles in a way that is customized and tailored to the specific operation at hand.
RUAG solutions offer comprehensive protection against large-caliber munitions, anti-tank grenade launchers, guided missiles, improvised explosive devices, and mines. Because soldiers in armored vehicles must be well protected against a wide variety of threats – it is a matter of life and death.
RUAG offesr lightweight and modular add-on components as well as effective upgrade solutions for protection against symmetric and asymmetric threats. Due to many years of expertise in connection with maintenance and value enhancement programs, RUAG knows vehicle structures and materials inside out. In order to develop the best possible solution for every requirement, RUAG maintains close partnerships with a wide range of OEMs – from planning and qualification to realisation. Always with with the aim of guaranteeing the best possible protection for the crew.
For the protection of armored vehicles against artillery bomblets RUAG has developed the RoofPRO system, which can be installed on existing vehicles. The RoofPRO roof protection offers high protection against multiple hits without affecting the vehicle‘s functionality. It can be adapted to almost any vehicle structure and is characterized by its low weight.
SidePRO-ATR is a fully passive protection system against anti-tank rockets, guided missiles, large and medium calibre KE-projectiles and large IEDs (EFP). The protection modules can be mounted as an add-on solution or fully intergrated into the vehicle structure. The used technology is scalable to counter larger threats in order to meet specific customer requirements. The sensor aperture is a weak point in some tanks, and this provides protection. Photon wavicles are small relative to the size of incoming KE etc projectiles. Evidently not ideal, since this solution is not seen elsewhere.
RUAG's hull armor protection is based on German technology. RUAG bought 51% of the stocks of the company GEKE Schutztechnik GmbH in 2009. GEKE/RUAG's armor is supposedly used on the Boxer (roof armor), Puma (roof armor, mine protection) and Leopard 2 (mine protection of 2A6M, supposedly also unknown armor for the Leopard 2A7+).
Due to their very high penetrating power, hand-held anti-tank weapons (PzAbwHWa) equipped with a shaped charge warhead pose a serious threat, particularly to lightly to medium-heavy armored vehicles is widespread worldwide.
The protection of light and medium-heavy armored vehicles against such hand-held anti-tank weapons is only possible to a very limited extent or is no longer possible with conventional reactive and, in particular, passive protection systems, because the payload of the vehicles is limited and the surface weight of the armor required for protection is too high. The lighter vehicles only have thin walls, since the basic vehicle protection is usually only designed against small caliber armor-piercing ammunition with a caliber of up to 14.5 mm. Therefore, various reactive protection systems, i.e. protection systems that work with explosives, have been developed in order to reduce the basis weight required for protection.
For example, the HL protection of medium armored vehicles with a basic protection of approx. 30-50 mm armor steel equivalent with passive protection systems requires an additional surface weight in the order of 500 kg/m2 and with previously known, already powerful reactive protection systems still an additional basis weight in the order of 300 kg/m2 against the threats of the PzAbwHWa.
Since the early 1970s, arrangements have been known against both shaped charges (HL threat) and kinetic energy projectiles (KE threat) in which pyrotechnically accelerated elements laterally disrupt the impacting or penetrating threat and thereby reduce the Penetration performance takes place. Such arrangements are referred to as reactive protection when initiated by the impinging threat, and as active armor when triggered. In the case of reactive arrangements, it is very predominantly the case that the explosive is coated with one or more layers, one or both sides, mostly with metal plates. With appropriate dimensioning, such arrangements are effective both against shaped charges and against KE projectiles and are used as protection modules in many armored vehicles worldwide.
Since the early 1970s, arrangements have been known against both shaped charges (HL threat) and kinetic energy projectiles (KE threat) in which pyrotechnically accelerated elements laterally disrupt the impacting or penetrating threat and thereby reduce the Penetration performance takes place. Such arrangements are referred to as reactive protection when initiated by the impinging threat, and as active armor when triggered. In the case of reactive arrangements, it is very predominantly the case that the explosive is coated with one or more layers, one or both sides, mostly with metal plates. With appropriate dimensioning, such arrangements are effective both against shaped charges and against KE projectiles and are used worldwide as protective modules in many armored vehicles.
RUAG's armor protection employes at least two layers of a pyrotechnic material of the same or different proportions and/or thicknesses are arranged at a distance from one another either freely or in a housing made of a non-metallic material such as rubber, at an angle to the direction of the fire. This pyrotechnic protective structure consists of a carrier of any shape that is inclined in the area where the threat impacts or is active, and on which pyrotechnic layers are applied on both sides. The ignition of both layers creates shock waves and reaction gases and accelerates both towards and towards the penetrating threat. In the case of shaped charges, this disrupts both the front, powerful jet elements and a crucial part of the entire jet length, thereby losing their penetrating power. The pyrotechnic structure is at least approximately in dynamic equilibrium over the entire period of action and does not exert any end-ballistically relevant or destructive influences on its surroundings, i.e. neither on the outside area nor on the structure to be protected itself. The size of the required area results from simple kinematic considerations of the penetration process. In the case of armored vehicles, this ranges from all-round protection, including movable or fixed aprons, to roof protection.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
