M1A2's for Poland?

[Mikel2]

43 minutes ago, shep854 said:

Especially after several centuries of being the freeway between hostile powers.

[Manic Moran]

On 7/16/2021 at 9:37 AM, Damian said:

Polish Army high ranking officers. I will post interview later but keep in mind, its in polish only.

No, there are no plans to equip Leopard 2's that way. From what I understood, desired direction is to completely phase out T-72, PT-91 and Leopard 2 tanks, and replace them with M1A2SEPv3 tanks, or eventually also other MBT, because Wilk program is still formally running, and vehicles like K2PL are in game.

Its a complex matter, I will try to explain later.

Please do, I have no idea how Poland could still be in the market for vehicles like K2 if they're buying 500 M1s.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Please do, I have no idea how Poland could still be in the market for vehicles like K2 if they're buying 500 M1s.

Same way Australia is still in the market for LAND 400 Phase 3 turrets and even vehicle vendors when they're buying Rheinmetall products for Phase 2 plus a whole MILVEHCOE.

[Damian]

4 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Please do, I have no idea how Poland could still be in the market for vehicles like K2 if they're buying 500 M1s.

Ok, so I will tray to explain this.

1. Formally current purchase of ~250 M1A2SEPv3's is not part of the Wilk (Wolf) new MBT program. So formally M1A2SEPv3, K2PL, and other possible proposals are still in game within Wilk program.

However current purchase of the M1A2SEPv3's certainly mean, that within Wilk program, more M1A2SEPv3's will be purchased.

2. T-72, PT-91 and Leopard 2 fleet have certain problems. For T-72's and PT-91's many major components are not produced anymore, capability had been lost. With our Leopard 2's, same problems might occur in near future. I heard there are no spare parts, even in Germany for A4 variants, soon even for A5's, spares might be difficult to procure. This is because newest Leopard 2A7V uses completely new build hulls, with many new components, that might not fit in to older variants.

Of course we produce around 30% of spare parts for Leopard 2's ourselfs, but these are not major components, mostly stuff like cables, bushings etc. and production scale is low.

This is why we can expect that decision was made to completely rearm ground forces with M1A2SEPv3's in future.

For this we will need to procure between 500 to 750-800 tanks.

Keep in mind that goverment and army officials said clearly, this procurement of ~250 M1A2SEPv3's is a pilot program, so this most likely means, more tanks will be ordered in future.

3. It also seems that decision was made to change the way procurement will be made. From the MoD budget, R&D and procurement of locally produced weapon systems will be financed. While for foreign purchase like these M1A2SEPv3's, separate budget will be estabilished.

 

Below some materials, but they are in Polish.

 

[BansheeOne]

Quote

This is because newest Leopard 2A7V uses completely new build hulls, with many new components, that might not fit in to older variants.

Unlikely, as all of the German Leopards being upgraded to A7V standard started life as at most an A4, and in fact some are being modernized directly from the latter to the former. That may amount to a complete rebuild, but there are certainly no new-built hulls. 

I have to say different budget or not, I will believe 500-plus Abrams in addition to all the other modernization programs when I see them in the motor pool; the money still has to come from some where. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, Mikel2 said:

God, I miss Polandball postings.

[Damian]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

Unlikely, as all of the German Leopards being upgraded to A7V standard started life as at most an A4, and in fact some are being modernized directly from the latter to the former. That may amount to a complete rebuild, but there are certainly no new-built hulls. 

I have to say different budget or not, I will believe 500-plus Abrams in addition to all the other modernization programs when I see them in the motor pool; the money still has to come from some where. 

In one article it is claimed that Leopard 2A7V's have new build hulls.

 

As for budget. Now we buy 250 M1's to solve problems with T-72's. With that we can focus on other programs, most important ones are Narew, Miecznik, Orka + Borsuk.

More new MBT's should be expected closer to 2030.

[alejandro_]

Quote

In one article it is claimed that Leopard 2A7V's have new build hulls.

I think those are Leopard 2A7A1 (which will get Trophy system). 2A7V used hulls from A6.

Edited July 19, 2021 by alejandro_

[Damian]

1 hour ago, alejandro_ said:

I think those are Leopard 2A7A1 (which will get Trophy system). 2A7V used hulls from A6.

No, it is clearly stated, Leopard 2A7V uses new build hull.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/krauss-maffei-wegmann-the-ever-lasting-leopard-2

[BansheeOne]

I read 

Quote

[...] The A7V features a new hull which is fitted with improved internal protection modules, while a new protection package has been installed on the chassis roof as well as on the front glacis, bringing the protection of the chassis at the same level of that of the turret. Protection modules can be easily changed to adapt them to the evolving hollow charge threat.

[...]

as modules being swapped within the hull. The A7Vs are definitely being converted from existing ones; for example, the increase by 104 commissioned two years ago was using 20 existing A7, 16 ex-Dutch A6, 13 German and 55 A4 bought back from other NATO countries by industry.

Another 32 bought-back A4 were put into storage for future rebuilding into combat support vehicles. If you built all-new A7 hulls to put the existing turrets on, you wouldn't need those extras as you'd still have the old hulls left for the latter use; and of course the A4 turrets would probably really need more upgrades than the hulls.

I guess though that like with the axe which had both the blade and handle replaced multiple times, you could ask at which point you still have the same "old" hulls and turrets. 

[Adam Peter]

On 7/18/2021 at 10:59 PM, shep854 said:

Especially after several centuries of being the freeway between hostile powers.

And they are on the way to be the way again.

[Ssnake]

"They"?

[alejandro_]

Quote

No, it is clearly stated, Leopard 2A7V uses new build hull.

Not all sources agree. See below for Trophy APS.
 

Quote

as modules being swapped within the hull. The A7Vs are definitely being converted from existing ones; for example, the increase by 104 commissioned two years ago was using 20 existing A7, 16 ex-Dutch A6, 13 German and 55 A4 bought back from other NATO countries by industry.

Original link does not work anymore, but yes, first contract signed with Rheinmetall in September 2017 was for an upgrade of 104 Leopard 2 to A7V variant:

- 68 Leopard 2A4
- 16 Leopard 2A6
- 20 Leopard 2A7

Second contract was signed in March 2019 for 101 Leopard 2.

Note that A7V vehicles will not receive Trophy defence system because A6 hull does not have an APU. It will only be installed in A7A1.

http://alejandro-8.blogspot.com/2017/09/rheinmetall-modernizara-104-leopard-2.html?_sm_au_=iVVNHHM2T687nk7n

[methos]

59 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

Second contract was signed in March 2019 for 101 Leopard 2.

Those are not going to be Leopard 2A7Vs, but Leopard 2A6(M)A3 and Leopard 2A6(M)A4 tanks.

1 hour ago, alejandro_ said:

Note that A7V vehicles will not receive Trophy defence system because A6 hull does not have an APU.

Leopard 2A7V hulls have an APU; these tanks are not meant to receive Trophy, because it was only purchased for a single tank company for the VJTF. Trophy still doesn't meet all of Germany's requirements to be considered mature enough for a fleet-wide integration.

[Mighty_Zuk]

47 minutes ago, methos said:

Those are not going to be Leopard 2A7Vs, but Leopard 2A6(M)A3 and Leopard 2A6(M)A4 tanks.

Leopard 2A7V hulls have an APU; these tanks are not meant to receive Trophy, because it was only purchased for a single tank company for the VJTF. Trophy still doesn't meet all of Germany's requirements to be considered mature enough for a fleet-wide integration.

Sure it's about maturity? It's been in service for over a decade, with presumably over 1,000 units already produced and a contract for thousands more.

Maybe Germany just doesn't really have an APS high enough in their priorities list.

[methos]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Sure it's about maturity? It's been in service for over a decade, with presumably over 1,000 units already produced and a contract for thousands more.

Yes, I am sure that it is about maturity. Germany's standards for APS acquistion (or software acquistions in general) are very high, i.e. the German BAAINBw demands software qualification according to ISO 61508, and full access to the source code (and data libraries) to search for backdoors/intentional deficits and to verify its functionality. Nowadays Germany also strictly demands that the system fully meets STANAG 4754 (NATO Generic Vehicle Architecture).

For Trophy, Germany considered the Israeli combat experiences valid for dry environments, but not for the more humid/cold European climate, as this affects the performance of radars and electronics.

 

Trophy was purchased under as an urgent material need for the VJTF 2023, hence a lot of the conventional testing/requirements could be sidelined. For the fleet-wide acquisition of an APS, this is unlikely to happen and Israel will refuse source code access.

[R011]

22 hours ago, Adam Peter said:

And they are on the way to be the way again.

Less the freeway to Germany than a destination in itself.  The Germans really seem to have internalized the lesson they were taught in 1945 and have little interest in restoring to old borders of the Reich let alone expanding them east.  Tsar Valdimir, on the other hand, seems to want restore both the Empire and the Warsaw Pact.

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 hours ago, methos said:

Yes, I am sure that it is about maturity. Germany's standards for APS acquistion (or software acquistions in general) are very high, i.e. the German BAAINBw demands software qualification according to ISO 61508, and full access to the source code (and data libraries) to search for backdoors/intentional deficits and to verify its functionality. Nowadays Germany also strictly demands that the system fully meets STANAG 4754 (NATO Generic Vehicle Architecture).

For Trophy, Germany considered the Israeli combat experiences valid for dry environments, but not for the more humid/cold European climate, as this affects the performance of radars and electronics.

 

Trophy was purchased under as an urgent material need for the VJTF 2023, hence a lot of the conventional testing/requirements could be sidelined. For the fleet-wide acquisition of an APS, this is unlikely to happen and Israel will refuse source code access.

And yet, despite all this known to German companies, Germany has constantly given Rheinmetall the cold shoulder in its marketing of the ADS/RAP, and any testing and acquisition.

Germany could have a homegrown system but they flunked it. And they don't seem to be willing to advance domestic efforts, at least for now.

[Ssnake]

The lawyers still haven't wrapped their heads around the implications of active defense systems. I suppose the absence of un-ignorable urgency doesn't help with the decision-making processes.

[Dawes]

Hasn't Rheinmetall (or some other German company) designed an APS? I thought it was offered to the US at one point.

[Ssnake]

Rheinmetall has a system, so has Diehl, so have others.

It's less a lack of systems to choose from.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, R011 said:

Less the freeway to Germany than a destination in itself.  The Germans really seem to have internalized the lesson they were taught in 1945 and have little interest in restoring to old borders of the Reich let alone expanding them east.  Tsar Valdimir, on the other hand, seems to want restore both the Empire and the Warsaw Pact.

Thank you. I thought I was the only person on tanknet that believed that.

Personally Im glad at seeing the Poles stack up such a stonking great Army. It means our indulging in such a large Navy doesn seem such an unreasonable frivolity.

Its also surely going to be pause for thought for anyone wanting to take more of Ukraine, bearing in mind of all the NATO allies, Poland is most likely to fight for them for fairly obvious reasons.

[methos]

12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And yet, despite all this known to German companies, Germany has constantly given Rheinmetall the cold shoulder in its marketing of the ADS/RAP, and any testing and acquisition.

Germany could have a homegrown system but they flunked it. And they don't seem to be willing to advance domestic efforts, at least for now.

Not sure what you are referencing here. The German BAAINBw has supported Rheinmetall's (and other companies') efforts to develop active protection systems like the ADS. They have paid for an integration study of the ADS into the Boxer, fully qualifying the system on the Boxer.

The IDF is in a very different spot than most European armies. Germany has seen less than a dozen RPG hits on its AFVs in the past twenty years - and has been extremely lucky in the few instances, where an actual RPG hit a German AFV. One RPG-7 penetrated one of the windows of a Fennek scout car, but the shaped charge jet passed right through the other windows without touching any crew member or explosives. In another instance a Marder 1A5 was hit in the engine bay; it started to burn and four soldiers were wounded, but none of them died.

For the IDF, accepting an - still immature - APS can still save dozens, if not hundreds of lives. Germany on the other hand is in a position, where an accident (false alert by the APS' sensors, false interception by the APS' countermeasures) is more likely to cause (civilian) casualties than an immature APS is likely to save lives. This is specifically true with tanks, as these are not deployed outside of Europe.

The acquisition of Trophy on the Leopard 2A7A1 is more a show of force/willingness to defend Europe rather than any real improvement in combat value. Thanks to delays in the program (integrating Trophy took longer than expected), none of these tanks will be ready by 2023, so the whole purchase should IMO be canceled.

[Mighty_Zuk]

14 minutes ago, methos said:

Not sure what you are referencing here. The German BAAINBw has supported Rheinmetall's (and other companies') efforts to develop active protection systems like the ADS. They have paid for an integration study of the ADS into the Boxer, fully qualifying the system on the Boxer.

The IDF is in a very different spot than most European armies. Germany has seen less than a dozen RPG hits on its AFVs in the past twenty years - and has been extremely lucky in the few instances, where an actual RPG hit a German AFV. One RPG-7 penetrated one of the windows of a Fennek scout car, but the shaped charge jet passed right through the other windows without touching any crew member or explosives. In another instance a Marder 1A5 was hit in the engine bay; it started to burn and four soldiers were wounded, but none of them died.

For the IDF, accepting an - still immature - APS can still save dozens, if not hundreds of lives. Germany on the other hand is in a position, where an accident (false alert by the APS' sensors, false interception by the APS' countermeasures) is more likely to cause (civilian) casualties than an immature APS is likely to save lives. This is specifically true with tanks, as these are not deployed outside of Europe.

The acquisition of Trophy on the Leopard 2A7A1 is more a show of force/willingness to defend Europe rather than any real improvement in combat value. Thanks to delays in the program (integrating Trophy took longer than expected), none of these tanks will be ready by 2023, so the whole purchase should IMO be canceled.

Trophy was already mature when the first units became operational. It just wasn't as developed as it is today in terms of added capabilities.

The IDF does not ignore the standard maturation process, especially when it comes to an autonomous weapon system that could easily do immense damage, even loss of lives, if activated by false alarms. It may seem that way, however, since the IDF is far less transparent in its development process than, for example, the US Armed Forces, or some European armies.

You may confuse maturity here with standard spiral development. 

Israel is not a NATO state, and therefore does not build its systems to meet NATO standards. It builds them to its own. Not yet having it meet NATO standards is not a maturity issue, because the technology itself is ready. It's a development issue.

So I'm being pedantic here, but it's important to make the distinction.

[DB]

I thought that methos' reply was quite clear - the IDF considers the system mature enough to be suitable for their use (implicitly given their threat profile). The German Army does not, given their own threat profile. These two positions are not incompatible, and the Germans' position does not represent any kind of statement about the fitness for purpose of the system in any other environment than their own.

"Maturity" has nothing to do with spiral development, unless "!reliability of safety related functions" is part of the incremental improvement process implied.

Typically, MOTS has a problem with proving itself safe during a procurement process because each purchaser has different criteria for what it considers acceptable evidence - and this is the case even if they say "follow this international standard". The manufacturer almost certainly has sufficient evidence in place to support the original customer, but that may be completely different to what another wants to see.

This can be as simple as a different risk matrix (how many dead people is "Intolerable"?), to the presentation of detailed process-based evidence on mitigations for software development mis-steps. 

Many of these barriers go away as soon as there is a war on, the threat profile changes and the level of acceptable risk goes much higher.