Jump to content

Polish Armoured Vehicles And Their Modernizations.


Damian

Recommended Posts

 

 

@Chris

 

Also what is worth to mention, currently after Afghanistan our politicians are not so "hot" to send our troops overseas, so we are getting back to focus more on our armed forces primary mission, defending our own country.

 

So IMHO priority will be still anti air and anti missile defence, then navy modernization (because navy situation is critical), and then air forces and ground forces modernization.

 

Preparing for them means investing in tactical ABM systems, air- and sea-launched cruise missiles, and of course land forces prepared for both for rapid intervention and, if the worst comes to worst, going toe to toe with the best Russia can throw at NATO.

 

Sorry about the OT, but why on earth are Polish ppls taxpayers monney/MOD-funds used for investments in "tactical ABM systems"??

 

 

Tactical ballistic missiles (Tochka, Iskander) actually or potentially based in the Kaliningrad oblast (threats to that effect made after discussions of placing US National Missile Defense components in Poland), or even in Belarus which is being pulled back into the Russian orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

And pls do not tell any Swedish journo about Poland beeing wiling and able to go toe-to-toe with the best Russia can throw at the West or our politicians will happily slash our pathetic current defence budget to zero, and instead happily spend the monney on lowering income/corporate taxes even further or something simmilar in order to buy yet an other (upcoming) national election.

 

The Polandkava looks like a dream though. Nice job there.

 

 

Funny thing is, the Polandkava is largely of Swedish heritage which is a nice continuation of pre-WW2 tradition when we were license-producing or at least using Bofors tank, AT, AA, and even coastal artillery. Pity Poland didn't go for the Gripen instead of the F-16 because there was greater potential for joint long-term development of that plane than with the F-16, but geopolitics trumped other considerations.

 

As to being willing and able to go toe to toe with the Russkies, hopefully it's not going to come to that, but Poland's bitter historical experience (if there's another kind, we're yet to find out!) suggests allies can't be taken for granted, and in recent years the neighborhood has been feeling a bit more lonely, what with the US leaving Europe and making a "pivot" towards Asia, and the Eurozone crisis threatening to unravel the fabric of the EU itself. Hence the shift of emphasis to higher-intensity conflicts.

 

Because, if push came to shove, who'd come to Poland's aid (or the aid of the Baltic States, whose continued independence is a vital Polish national interest)? Germany comes to mind, even though historically it has been more of a source of national security problems for Poland than solutions. Moreover, the only time Germany and Russia ever came in conflict was when there was no Poland between in--when said Poland barred the way, the two neighbors plotted to divide Poland among themselves on four separate occasions--and then proceeded to slaughter one another in two world wars. So maybe Germany's figured out that having Poland around is actually not a bad idea, if only because it keeps the Russian/Red/Soviet/Russian army away from Berlin? The fact that security cooperation between the two countries is exemplary suggests as much, though if there was ever a conflict in the East that required Germany's participation, the formidable German peace movement that has never encountered a dictator it didn't like might make it difficult for the German government to do something. :(

 

Further West we have France with which Poland does have a great deal of shared military history. Poland's modern military tradition and even statehood is by and large rooted in the Napoleonic era, down to its national anthem. On the other hand, even in cases when France was interested in doing something to help Poland, it never actually succeeded in accomplishing anything of note. Napoleon did not re-establish an independent Polish state (it's not even clear that he ever wanted to), and the less is said about the French military efforts (for lack of a better word) in 1939 and 1940, the better. These days, France is playing its typically clever (and probably ultimately highly counterproductive) diplomatic game of using its relationship with Russia as a counterweight to the US and possibly even Germany (the sale of the Mistrals to Russia, for example, is enough to suggest there's something interesting going on there), so it probably can't be counted upon. :angry:

 

Even further West there's the UK with which Poland has an even stronger military bond dating from WW2 when the Polish armed forces in exile were equipped and organized on the British model and were de-facto components of the British military (in other words, they drove Shermans and flew Mustangs :D ). I recall listening to nighttime Radio Free Europe broadcasts on the Falklands War and despairing upon hearing the news of every Royal Navy ship lost--and pretty much the entire country was doing the same. However, Poland happens to be on The Continent which, as all Brits know, is wholly populated by huns, wogs, and dagoes, and the platonic admiration of the Polish contribution in the Battle of Britain has not survived the encounter with the actual Poles coming across the Channel and foisting their Eastern European ways on the unwary islanders, down to fishing carp out of park ponds. Worse, even though the UK has a Ministry of Defence, it appears to be a largely ceremonial institution not unlike the monarchy, for the actual decisionmaking power on defence matters is wielded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who appears to want to do away with the British armed forces in their entirety. With the possible exception of the Household Cavalry Troop whose contribution against the Russians would be most welcome. :P

 

And then there's America which is as close an ally of Poland as it is geographically removed, and one suffers from a certain degree of foreign policy schizophrenia. Americans, being obsessed with things electronic, are easily distracted by Reset buttons, and it always takes them years to figure out those buttons aren't actually connected to anything. Worse, the US always seems to have bigger fish to fry, the Russians often have a fish fryer of required dimensions, and then Poland becomes the spare change with which the US pays for the use of the aforementioned fish fryer. So the US support cannot be taken for granted. :mellow:

 

So, to make long story short, out-of-area deployments to places like Iraq or Afghanistan are, well, out, and heavy forces designed to fight in its own backyard are once again "in". Of course, Russia could do something nice by either becoming a normal country (not likely) or performing a disappearing act, a second round of imperial collapse (likely), but even the latter scenario would likely mean a vastly weakened, and therefore non-threatening, Russia in Ivan the Terrible-era borders, in the shorter term it might mean an upheaval as big as what we're seeing in the Middle East, with the added complicating factors of loose nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pity Poland didn't go for the Gripen instead of the F-16 because there was greater potential for joint long-term development of that plane than with the F-16, but geopolitics trumped other considerations.

 

 

I do not understand why we should purchase inferior aircraft like Gripen over superior and more perspective aircraft like F-16.

 

I do agree cooperation is important, but it should be done there, where it can end with promising product.

 

Not to mention all these lies about F-16 which were created and spread by Gripen lobby.

 

As for PL-01 concept (and all this Merkavish look), I am very against idea of a tank with powerpack mounted at hull front. It is inefficent design from protection point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And pls do not tell any Swedish journo about Poland beeing wiling and able to go toe-to-toe with the best Russia can throw at the West or our politicians will happily slash our pathetic current defence budget to zero, and instead happily spend the monney on lowering income/corporate taxes even further or something simmilar in order to buy yet an other (upcoming) national election.

 

The Polandkava looks like a dream though. Nice job there.

 

 

Funny thing is, the Polandkava is largely of Swedish heritage which is a nice continuation of pre-WW2 tradition when we were license-producing or at least using Bofors tank, AT, AA, and even coastal artillery. Pity Poland didn't go for the Gripen instead of the F-16 because there was greater potential for joint long-term development of that plane than with the F-16, but geopolitics trumped other considerations.

 

 

Having had Poland joining the "Gripen clubb" (plus Erieyes traded fore some of those Polandkavas) would have been close to the best thing that could happend to SAAB and SweAF, given the synergi effects and Polands relatively large defence budget and fighterfleet. The possibilities for all sort of cooperation ofer the ´Southern Baltic Sea area etc should have been quite substancial. Plus Poland could prolly have been a very important and valuable partner nation for the developement of the future Super-Gripen consept.

Pitty this was never to be, but politics is politics.. In Sweden just and in Poland and everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are the details on the Polekava? That long barrel shroud, just thermal cover for the gun or part of the armour package? Would this giant "stork's beak" contraption work as some from of tipping plate arrangement? 120mm L55? And so forth. S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barrel shroud is thermal cover for the gun. The concept is to make vehicle more stealthy both in terms of thermal signature and radar signature. Additionally our engineers aims to use hybrid engine so if nececary, combustion engine can be turn off and no exhaust emission will be then visible thus further reducing thermal signature of vehicle that can move on electric drive only for some time period.

 

The hull of CV90 is only a placeholder as I said before.

 

Turret is also most likely not final design yet.

 

As for main gun, nobody really knows what kind of gun it is, my bet is Rh-120LLR/L47.

 

 

My friend also spoke with one of engineers working on this vehicle. The concept behind it that our army seeks a two tank fleet configuration, where in the end we will have ~250 Leopard 2PL's as heavy/main battle tanks, and ~300 or more, of these new designs acting as a medium tank or tank destroyer.

Edited by Damian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the booming Inception-style soundtrack isn't just for movie trailers anymore.

If I understand this correctly, what we have here is a bodykit and a fourth generation MBT turret stapled to the best example of one of the worst classes of vehicles conceived in the 20th Century (right up there with dirigibles and petrol-launch-powered vehicles), slathered in composite, ERA, APS, ABC, FBI, CDC, NBC, FOX, and everything else.

I guess it's at least better than the Maus-IFV that BAe was proposing earlier...

 

So... Any bets on how heavy this thing will be? I'm going with "at least 40 tonnes." It seems as though everyone's given up on that silly "as little ground pressure as possible" idea that was popular from the late '30s to the '60s.

Edited by BabyOlifant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BabyOlifant.

 

You don't even realize how wrong you are eh? ;)

 

And no, it won't weight 40 tons, actually it is 35 tons, and without addon armor it is 30 tons.

 

And I wonder, how many times I would need to repeat that CV90 is only a placeholder untill a completely new hull, won't be ready. It is just that the work on turret was started earlier and they needed to use some sort of hull to use it as a base for turret and other demonstrated solutions.

Edited by Damian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I need to clear some things here.

 

Development cycle is separated on to several, let's call them steps.

 

PL-01 is on one of very early development steps, a mockup, model to show a general direction and eventually to test some ideas.

 

Later when requirements will be more detailed, we will have a technology demonstrator which have a higher degree of functionality, and it's purpose is to start some initial testing.

 

Then finally we have a real prototype which will be closer to a final, production configuration.

 

The real prototype should be revealed in 2016.

 

Oh and one more thing.

 

 

I guess it's at least better than the Maus-IFV that BAe was proposing earlier...

 

I suppose you mean here a GCV IFV? Again calling it "Maus-IFV" shows that you actually don't know much about GCV program, and both vehicles designed by GDLS and BAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like PL-01 concept or whatever it is - the idea is nice. Remotely operated heavily armoured turret is a step further compared to previous designs of "gun, sights and virtually no armor". Besides, it provides top protection for the crew. The only concern to me is the weight, which simply can't provide passive armor protection in the same league as other MBTs. Perhaps if active protection is both sufficiently cheap and effective, but I doubt, particularly the first... Only if you really want an air-transportable vehicle, but for Poland? Scale is up, go up to 55-60 t, add more passive protestion all round and maybe go for a 140 mm gun and you're done. This might be the basis for a HAPC/HIFV as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like PL-01 concept or whatever it is - the idea is nice. Remotely operated heavily armoured turret is a step further compared to previous designs of "gun, sights and virtually no armor". Besides, it provides top protection for the crew. The only concern to me is the weight, which simply can't provide passive armor protection in the same league as other MBTs. Perhaps if active protection is both sufficiently cheap and effective, but I doubt, particularly the first... Only if you really want an air-transportable vehicle, but for Poland? Scale is up, go up to 55-60 t, add more passive protestion all round and maybe go for a 140 mm gun and you're done. This might be the basis for a HAPC/HIFV as well.

 

I haven't seen air-transportability mentioned, and in Poland's case own capabilities are limited to C-295s and C-130s. If the US can provide assistance, then anything can be airlifted, of course :D, so weight is no object (or you can always rent a few Antonovs). I suspect the weight will go up somewhat, and the end-product may well look like something like the Japanese Type 10 MBT which weighs in at under 50 tons, has very respectable protection and a crewed turret. So maybe an equivalent level protection could be obtained at round 40 tons with an remotely operated turret.

Edited by J.Hawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BabyOlifant.

 

You don't even realize how wrong you are eh? ;)

 

And no, it won't weight 40 tons, actually it is 35 tons, and without addon armor it is 30 tons.

 

And I wonder, how many times I would need to repeat that CV90 is only a placeholder untill a completely new hull, won't be ready. It is just that the work on turret was started earlier and they needed to use some sort of hull to use it as a base for turret and other demonstrated solutions.

 

CV90 Mk. III is 35 tonnes. Why would this tank be any lighter? Given the recent trend towards bloated, overweight projects, I think it's more conservative to go heavier. I'm prepared to be surprised, though.

 

IFVs being "bad" is my own personal opinion, and I recognize that others may disagree and may even be right, but srsly their teh sux

 

 

 

 

 

I guess it's at least better than the Maus-IFV that BAe was proposing earlier...

 

I suppose you mean here a GCV IFV? Again calling it "Maus-IFV" shows that you actually don't know much about GCV program, and both vehicles designed by GDLS and BAE.

 

I'm calling it the "Maus-IFV" because it's damned heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I will just note that they have what appears to be a rigidly mounted gun (though I'm not sure) that's compensated.

Which is pretty funny considering all the effort they went into making it "stealth"...

 

EDIT: Looks like in the animation, it's short-track recoil.

Edited by BabyOlifant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm calling it the "Maus-IFV" because it's damned heavy.

 

 

Well, there's no discussion here of this becoming an IFV. The PL-01 demonstrator is supposed to lead to a fire support vehicle/tank destroyer, and at the moment there are no indications of an IFV on the same chassis. In fact, there are explicit statements the IFV will be based on a different chassis because the Polish military wants a lighter IFV, ideally with amphibious capability.

Edited by J.Hawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CV90 Mk. III is 35 tonnes. Why would this tank be any lighter? Given the recent trend towards bloated, overweight projects, I think it's more conservative to go heavier. I'm prepared to be surprised, though.

 

PL-01 weight in current configuration is 35 tons, with side armor panels and belly armor removed it is 30 tons.

 

 

I'm calling it the "Maus-IFV" because it's damned heavy.

 

You confused the maximum weight that can be handled by suspension, with the real weight which will be lower.

 

 

The only concern to me is the weight, which simply can't provide passive armor protection in the same league as other MBTs. Perhaps if active protection is both sufficiently cheap and effective, but I doubt, particularly the first... Only if you really want an air-transportable vehicle, but for Poland? Scale is up, go up to 55-60 t, add more passive protestion all round and maybe go for a 140 mm gun and you're done. This might be the basis for a HAPC/HIFV as well.

 

Engineers from OBRUM (where vehicle is being designed) desire to use completely modular armor packages.

 

Which means that the basic configuration of vehicle will weight 30 tons, level 1 armor package will weight 35 tons, and if nececary, heavier armor packages will be developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I really like PL-01 concept or whatever it is - the idea is nice. Remotely operated heavily armoured turret is a step further compared to previous designs of "gun, sights and virtually no armor". Besides, it provides top protection for the crew. The only concern to me is the weight, which simply can't provide passive armor protection in the same league as other MBTs. Perhaps if active protection is both sufficiently cheap and effective, but I doubt, particularly the first... Only if you really want an air-transportable vehicle, but for Poland? Scale is up, go up to 55-60 t, add more passive protestion all round and maybe go for a 140 mm gun and you're done. This might be the basis for a HAPC/HIFV as well.

 

I haven't seen air-transportability mentioned, and in Poland's case own capabilities are limited to C-295s and C-130s. If the US can provide assistance, then anything can be airlifted, of course :D, so weight is no object (or you can always rent a few Antonovs). I suspect the weight will go up somewhat, and the end-product may well look like something like the Japanese Type 10 MBT which weighs in at under 50 tons, has very respectable protection and a crewed turret. So maybe an equivalent level protection could be obtained at round 40 tons with an remotely operated turret.

 

Well, going from 35 t to 50 t, so if you can cram 3 of these into one An-124, that'a a pretty good deal... Anyway, I agree that a 50 t MBT, compact, an ultra-modern may be a decent contender in the passive protection department to any other MBT, but... Call me a conservative, but another 5 or 10 t of passive protection will give a serious increase in survivability, even if you will delete or reduce air transportability. However, maybe the vehicle size, I mean track width and length just couldn't support a 55 t MBT. Maybe 35 t will be increased, but not to 55 or 60, nor 50 t, but I would guess up to maybe 40 t, if CV90 is the basis (even this is optimistic). I would suggest to increase hull dimensions and go for a conventional full-size MBT, even if its in the size/weight league of T-90 or Leclerc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

CV90 Mk. III is 35 tonnes. Why would this tank be any lighter? Given the recent trend towards bloated, overweight projects, I think it's more conservative to go heavier. I'm prepared to be surprised, though.

 

PL-01 weight in current configuration is 35 tons, with side armor panels and belly armor removed it is 30 tons.

 

 

I'm calling it the "Maus-IFV" because it's damned heavy.

 

You confused the maximum weight that can be handled by suspension, with the real weight which will be lower.

 

 

The only concern to me is the weight, which simply can't provide passive armor protection in the same league as other MBTs. Perhaps if active protection is both sufficiently cheap and effective, but I doubt, particularly the first... Only if you really want an air-transportable vehicle, but for Poland? Scale is up, go up to 55-60 t, add more passive protestion all round and maybe go for a 140 mm gun and you're done. This might be the basis for a HAPC/HIFV as well.

 

Engineers from OBRUM (where vehicle is being designed) desire to use completely modular armor packages.

 

Which means that the basic configuration of vehicle will weight 30 tons, level 1 armor package will weight 35 tons, and if nececary, heavier armor packages will be developed.

 

 

I'll believe the PL-01 weight when I see the first prototypes.

 

Really? Funny, here on BAE's website, it says their GCV entrant is 63.5 tonnes, or 130% heavier than a Bradley.

 

EDIT: Oh, oops, I guess I forgot that the official threshold for "damned heavy" was 75 tonnes. My bad.

 

Damian, do you just like telling people that they're wrong?

Edited by BabyOlifant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...