European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

[muttbutt]

RM released this late last year. MGCS=Main ground combat system= the supposed Leo III MBT.

 

[Grey Havoc]

More like Leopard 2.5, it seems to me.

 

[muttbutt]

More like Leopard 2.5, it seems to me.

I don't think the illustration with the 130mm gun is supposed to show the final MGCS.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I found this while looking around.... that is one SCARY looking shell.

How does the 130mm compare to the 140mm (next to a 120mm below)?

 

[cluttonfred]

Just wondering, is there really a market for tank supergun at this point in time? Seems very 1980s to me....

 

[Tony Williams]

The 125mm gun in the Russian T14 Armata tank is, according to some, an interim solution - they are aiming at something bigger, maybe 152mm.

 

[cluttonfred]

Well, the former Soviet military was not known for the economics of some of their decisions, and presumably the Russian military has maintained that tradition. Not that other countries, most especially the USA necessarily do better, mind you. But when tank that costs $9 million (1999 M1A2 Abrams price adjusted for inflation) or more can be taken out by missile that costs $250,000 (price of current generation Javelin) or less, does the next generation tank really need a bigger and better gun for tank-vs.-tank combat? It reminds me of the stubborn efforts by some to maintain old technology in the face of new developments, like the Italians retaining the Fiat CR.42 in front line service for far too long--a fantastic biplane still being built when the day of the biplane was long over.

 

[Grey Havoc]

More like Leopard 2.5, it seems to me.

I don't think the illustration with the 130mm gun is supposed to show the final MGCS.

Sorry, should have looked at that slide more carefully.

 

[muttbutt]

Some more images have popped up on the interwebs.

 

[Avimimus]

I wonder if a larger higher velocity round is better suited for getting past active defences? It certainly has the potential to fire at longer range (i.e. as improvised artillery) or fire more effective gun launched missiles - but that is more of a Russian approach than a German one isn't it?

It is interesting how that slide implies the superiority of the Armata.

The turret *is* said to have growth capability - so there might eventually be an upgunned variant. The technology for such a gun appear to be quite mature (Russia has had working prototypes for about 25 year - which is a long time even if you assume the program was on hold for a decade). I suspect that their reason for talking about the capability (and building it in) is to deter an arms race... i.e. "don't bother to up armour your tanks. If you do we'll field a bigger gun quickly."

 

[muttbutt]

Rheinmetall to unveil 130mm smoothbore tank gun at Eurosatory

Rheinmetall is developing a 130mm smoothbore tank gun that will be unveiled at the Eurostatory exhibition in June, company officials have confirmed to IHS Jane's .

According to Werner Kraemer, president of Rheinmetall Waffe Munition's executive board, the new 130 mm gun should be in production by 2025.

The new tank gun is intended to be a match for the current and new generations of Russian armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), including the T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT).

A new MBT turret is also being designed alongside the new gun. The new turret design is understood to be based on an existing Leopard 2 MBT turret reconfigured to cope with the new weapon.

http://www.janes.com/article/60318/rheinmetall-to-unveil-130mm-smoothbore-tank-gun-at-eurosatory

 

[Void]

Well, the former Soviet military was not known for the economics of some of their decisions, and presumably the Russian military has maintained that tradition. Not that other countries, most especially the USA necessarily do better, mind you. But when tank that costs $9 million (1999 M1A2 Abrams price adjusted for inflation) or more can be taken out by missile that costs $250,000 (price of current generation Javelin) or less, does the next generation tank really need a bigger and better gun for tank-vs.-tank combat? It reminds me of the stubborn efforts by some to maintain old technology in the face of new developments, like the Italians retaining the Fiat CR.42 in front line service for far too long--a fantastic biplane still being built when the day of the biplane was long over.

Tanks usually are not destroyed by penetration or enemy fire. Especially when care is taken to prevent the ammunition from detonating inside the fighting compartment. Tanks in intense combat can be expected to be penetrated, knocked out, repaired and returned to service many times; repairing a 9 million dollar tank does not cost 9 million dollars, it isn't expensive at all and can usually be done in a very short time by a competent repair service. Especially newer tanks like the Merkava IV, which were designed with rapid repair in mind.

More tanks have probably been lost permanently because they were abandoned and blown up to prevent capture or were captured than as a result of enemy fire.

And as for tank guns they have proven generally more consistent as effective AT weapons than ATGMs, which have swung from being enormously effective to largely ineffective and back again multiple times since they debuted with the progression of technology. With APS systems now (slowly) entering service and the early combat results very promising they seem to be waning again. The potential vulnerability of anti-armour defenses anchored by light vehicles and infantry with ATGMs to heavy artillery fire is also something that has been largely been forgotten since the Cold War in the West. It has never really been tested in battle, but NATO exercises in the 80's suggested Soviet artillery would be extremely effective at neutralizing ATGMs, either directly or by laying smoke screens.

If you are worried about Russia, you definitely need to worry about artillery.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense-update.com/20160614_rheinmetall-ups-tank-firepower-with-new-130mm-gun.html

 

[TomS]

This image is pretty infomrative:

That's the old 120mm round on the right, and the new 130mm on the left. Not much difference in case diameter, but the case length is about 50% longer (just eyeballing), which translates pretty directly into propellant volume. That's going to be a very hot round (and pretty hard to manhandle -- 120mm was said to be right at the limit for manual loading and this will be much heavier.)

 

[bobbymike]

This image is pretty infomrative:

That's the old 120mm round on the right, and the new 130mm on the left. Not much difference in case diameter, but the case length is about 50% longer (just eyeballing), which translates pretty directly into propellant volume. That's going to be a very hot round (and pretty hard to manhandle -- 120mm was said to be right at the limit for manual loading and this will be much heavier.)

IIRC when I watched a M1A2 video the space for the loader to pull the shell, swing it around and load it is pretty tight so we may also be talking about an autoloader or a turret redesign.

 

[Moose]

I'd be pretty surprised if an all-new turret for the M1 family happened. Either they'll cram this in with an autoloader and a lot of tight tolerances, or the 130mm becomes the latest impetus for a new tank family.

 

[TomS]

Probably going to need an autoloader for a one-piece cartridge that big -- it's going to be around 60 pounds. Can't see that fitting in the current turret at all.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

So what is the big advantage of this over the 140mm gun designs Germany, the US, and others were testing?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So what is the big advantage of this over the 140mm gun designs Germany, the US, and others were testing?

It will be smaller.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

It will be smaller.

True but it will still require an autoloader to maintain a rate of fire comparable to existing 120mm guns and a similar amount of design work to incorporate the gun + autoloader into new variants of existing MBTs.

 

[TomS]

Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.

 

[sferrin]

Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.

One can't help but wonder though how much the larger round, combined with the mandatory autoloader, is going to reduce the number of rounds that can be carried.

 

[bobbymike]

Seems that modern propellants give this 130mm at least as much power as the older 140mm concepts.

One can't help but wonder though how much the larger round, combined with the mandatory autoloader, is going to reduce the number of rounds that can be carried.

Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

 

[sferrin]

Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)

 

[Rickshaw]

Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)

You need to remain in place to guide the missiles, when they fly directly to their targets. The size of the launch signature as such is a clear guide to where the launcher is and more than likely where the guidance package is. Not a good idea on a modern battlefield.

If a FOG-M style, vertical launch, fibre-optic or autonomous missile is used then you can hide from direct sight and fire and scoot or guide your missile safely to your target.

 

[bobbymike]

Which always gets me thinking about why no Losat or CKEM carrier?

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)

When you can outrange a tank's main gun and hit a target 3+km away in about a second of flight time shoot and scoot with a lighter vehicle seems a reasonable CONOPS

 

[Maury Markowitz]

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bEPVqF9Ms

The smoke trail points directly to the launcher, and is persistent. Shoot-n-scoot is great, but there's no way you can move a humv fast enough to avoid getting nailed by you target's wingy.

 

[sferrin]

The argument I always hear is that their launch signature was too big. (Funny though, I thought the strategy has always been "shoot-n-scoot".)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bEPVqF9Ms

The smoke trail points directly to the launcher, and is persistent. Shoot-n-scoot is great, but there's no way you can move a humv fast enough to avoid getting nailed by you target's wingy.

Upon further thought I'd bet it's the laser designator less than the exhaust trail that's the issue. You could easily put the missiles on low-profile, unmanned, "roamers" while designating targets from a manned vehicle thus keeping the launch signature away from the command vehicle. Problem is, many armored vehicles have (or will have) detectors that alert them to if they're being "painted" and from where. The laser itself is the give-away I'd wager.

 

[Mike1158]

Shirley a 130mm gun plus autoloader will be a reasonable move but replacing the M1 would be problematic when the recent record of the department of defence is considered. BTW, a move to replace the gas turbine should be a priority, most likely a good hybrid diesel setup and some batteries. Just not those from a certain brand of electric car. There was an article about a Japanese plan to compete on the battery market with an iron hybrid type that was as powerful as the alternative but easier to recycle, using none of the exotic metals. Just wish I could find the thing, ain't the internet a wonderful thing. Find it and lose it in the same day.

 

[muttbutt]

IAV 2019: Nexter tests 140 mm gun on Leclerc MBT
Samuel Cranny-Evans, London - Jane's Defence Weekly
24 January 2019

Nexter has fit a 140 mm gun on a Leclerc main battle tank (MBT) to gather data for the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) programme to replace it and the Leopard 2, Jane's learned at the International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) 2019 conference held in London on 21-24 January.

This is understood to be the first time that a 140 mm gun has been successfully integrated onto a 50-tonne MBT and conducted over 200 firings. It is expected to provide a 70% increase in firepower over a NATO standard 120 mm gun.

Nexter has resurrected past efforts to develop a 140 mm main weapon to establish which firepower solutions are best suited to meet the MGCS requirement.


https://www.janes.com/article/85934/iav-2019-nexter-tests-140-mm-gun-on-leclerc-mbt#.XEpzE_NUHYQ.twitter

 

[Cifu]

So there is two separate developent exits, the one from the Rheinmetall 130mm and the Nexter + KMW 140mm gun...

 

[GTX]

IAV 2019: Nexter tests 140 mm gun on Leclerc MBT
Samuel Cranny-Evans, London - Jane's Defence Weekly
24 January 2019

Some possible images of this - please note that I am not sure if a couple of these are actually photoshopped.

 

[GARGEAN]

They are not. Relatively old photos.

 

[Grey Havoc]

German lawmakers approve funds for new Euro fighter jet

METATEXT

www.spacewar.com

Yet MPs attached certain conditions to their approval, including a demand for a similar, German-led tank development programme to progress alongside the FCAS project.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Finally, good news.

sorry, it's in French. I did not find articles in English yet

After agreements between KMW, Nexter and Rheinmetall on work sharing on the Main Battle Tank Program MGCS (program economally and politically linked to the SCAF),

Le programme MGCS (char du futur) va enfin enclencher la première

L'Allemagne et la France vont lancer une étude d'architecture sur le programme MGCS (Main ground combat system) en mars, voire avril.

www.latribune.fr

 

[Grey Havoc]

ÐемÑÑ ÑазÑабоÑали боевÑÑ Ð¿Ð»Ð°ÑÑоÑÐ¼Ñ Ð² оÑÐ²ÐµÑ Â«ÐÑмаÑе»

Main Ground Combat System MGCS Leopard-3 ÐеопаÑд-3

btvtinfo.blogspot.com

Translation

 

[TomS]

ÐемÑÑ ÑазÑабоÑали боевÑÑ Ð¿Ð»Ð°ÑÑоÑÐ¼Ñ Ð² оÑÐ²ÐµÑ Â«ÐÑмаÑе»

Main Ground Combat System MGCS Leopard-3 ÐеопаÑд-3

btvtinfo.blogspot.com

Translation

Not sure how much I believe that description but the presence of the extra transport version would make sense. With only two crewmembers per tank, each platoon would need an APC to carry relief crewmembers to help with maintenance, provide security in a lager, and replace crew who can no longer function due to injuries or fatigue).

 

[jsport]

https://www.isl.eu/documents/flyers/EN/isl_MGCS_EN_nm.pdf

 

[jsport]

ÐемÑÑ ÑазÑабоÑали боевÑÑ Ð¿Ð»Ð°ÑÑоÑÐ¼Ñ Ð² оÑÐ²ÐµÑ Â«ÐÑмаÑе»

Main Ground Combat System MGCS Leopard-3 ÐеопаÑд-3

btvtinfo.blogspot.com

Translation

Not sure how much I believe that description but the presence of the extra transport version would make sense. With only two crewmembers per tank, each platoon would need an APC to carry relief crewmembers to help with maintenance, provide security in a lager, and replace crew who can no longer function due to injuries or fatigue).

Rheinmetall'?s future tank. Main Ground Combat System (MGCS).

Tom may well be correct as this concept would appear to be Russian propaganda...or potentially more strange a Russian future concept.

 

[GARGEAN]

Why on Earth this should be Russian propaganda? Propaganding what exactly?