Decisive Edge Newsletter | Land | May 2023
Newsletter Sponsors:
Above: An upgraded Canadian Leopard 2 MBT clearly showing its additional protective package including bar/slat amour on the hull and turret sides and Barracuda multi-spectral camouflage. (Photo: author)
As donated tanks flood into Ukraine, it may be hard for European armies to replenish their stocks
Following the Russian invasion in February 2022, many Western countries rushed to Ukraine’s aid, initially with massive supplies of anti-tank guided weapons (ATGWs) followed by artillery systems and other kit. Main battle tanks took a little longer to arrive, however.
There was originally some reluctance in the West to provide MBTs to Kyiv as these could be used for both defensive and offensive operations.
In the end, the deadlock was broken by the UK deciding to supply 14 Challenger 2 MBTs and two Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicles, which have now arrived in country.
This opened the floodgates for Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Spain to send Leopard 2 MBTs, if only in small numbers, and older Leopard 1s, which lack firepower and protection compared to its more modern counterpart.
This patchwork of Leopard 2s are a mixture of the older 2A4 as well as some more recent 2A5, 2A6 and 2A7 versions which offer a better array of armour. The A6 and A7 also have a longer Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 smoothbore gun, which, when firing an armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round, has a greater combat range than the L/44 installed on the older 2A4 and 2A5.
These tanks sent to Ukraine will have to be replaced, but the stumbling block is the total lack of MBT production capability in the West, as most lines have now been closed due to a lack of orders.
Sweden and Switzerland stopped designing MBTs decades ago and produced Leopard 2s under licence, but even these facilities have long since gone.
The UK had two build lines for tanks in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Leeds, but these have stopped making MBTs (although the former site lives on in the hands of Pearson Engineering, producing counter-mobility equipment).
In France, the Leclerc MBT hull was manufactured in Roanne, with the turret built at Tarbes, and its 120mm main gun made in Bourges. Tarbes has long since closed, and only upgrade work on the Leclerc will be carried out in Roanne.
While Germany had two lines in Kiel and Munich which at peak production were making a staggering 300 Leopard 2s a year, today only the Bavarian site is active in the hands of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and still building new Leopard 2A7s and upgrading older vehicles.
Although Rheinmetall has stopped making the Leopard 2, it has successfully modernised older tanks to an enhanced standard with sales made to Indonesia and Poland. It can also supply the latest generation of 120mm tank ammunition
Even without this industrial decline, building an MBT is a complex operation involving many subcontractors often involved in other military and civilian programmes.
A tank is of no use without a main gun, and the 120mm smoothbore of the Leopard 2 is made by Rheinmetall, which also supplies the 155mm/52cal gun installed in the KMW PzH 2000 SP howitzer, which is now back in production.
Rolls Royce Power Systems meanwhile supplies the MTU diesel engine, or complete power pack in some cases, for both the Leopard 2 and PzH 2000 as well as the Boxer 8x8 MRAV and Puma Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV).
One way to refresh currently deployed early-generation Leopard 2s would be to replace the turret with a brand new one, for which there are at least two potential candidates.
The first is taken from the Rheinmetall KF-51 Panther first unveiled in mid-2022. This two-person turret is said to have a high level of survivability. It is armed with the latest 130mm smoothbore gun fed by two automatic loaders, each holding ten rounds of ready-use ammunition.
Above: The private venture Rheinmetall KF-51 MBT features a brand new turret armed with a 130mm smoothbore gun fed by two automatic loaders. (Photo: Rheinmetall)
Another alternative is the turret being developed by RBSL in the UK for the British Army’s Challenger 3 upgrade, which features the Rheinmetall L/55 also used in the Leopard 2A7.
Under current plans, the British Army will get 148 Challenger 3s, created by fitting the new turret to a modified Challenger 2 hull. This work is being carried out at the RBSL facility in Telford, which, perhaps worryingly, has never worked on an MBT before.
While NATO armies must decide how (if at all) to replace their MBT donations to Kyiv, Russia is facing a tank shortfall for different reasons.
Moscow has suffered huge combat losses not only of MBTs but also IFVs and APCs, but is not capable of replacing these at least in the short term.
The venerable T-72 was in production at Nizhny Tagil between 1973 and 1990, and just over 21,000 were produced for home and export markets. This scale of manufacturing is no longer thinkable, however.
Today the Nizhny Tagil facility is still producing the latest version of the T-90, directly linked to the T-72 designed some 50 years ago. The latest MBT to enter production there is the T-14 Armata which has yet to be deployed during the fighting in Ukraine. It may appear shortly, but observers are not holding their breath, and true mass production seems impossible.
In the medium term, Turkey will joins the MBT club with its Altay, which Otokar originally developed, but the production contract for which was awarded to BMC – a company that until recently only made trucks and MRAP-type vehicles. As noted, building something as complex as a tank is a stiff challenge for even the most seasoned engineering business.
If Turkey had stuck with Otokar, the Altay would likely have now be in production and service and probably available for export. While Turkey has successfully sold its AFVs abroad, contracts for tanks from fellow NATO members with atrophied industrial bases may be a leap too far.
Above: While Otokar designed and manufactured the prototypes of the Altay MBT the production contract was awarded to BMC which has never built a tracked AFV. (Photo: Otokar)
Poland has mainly turned to other Western suppliers, but it has gone shopping in South Korea for some equipment, ordering large numbers of Hyundai Rotem K2 MBTs as these can be supplied very quickly.
Korean alacrity aside, producing any type of tracked AFV is a very time-consuming process as raw materials such as steel have to be acquired and, a huge number of subcontractors have to deliver their contribution in the right sequence and to the right quality.
For an MBT, it can take at least two years from contract award to first delivery. While there is potential to increase the number of shifts at a factory, this takes time as key workers have to be trained and retained, or they will move to more lucrative employment. Local labour laws may also have something to say in the matter!
In the past, AFVs have been seen sitting at the factory as there was no transmission available. In another case, otherwise complete vehicles have left factories with no main armament as production of these critical elements was behind the curve.
As tanks head into the Ukraine conflict from different sides and for different reasons, any plans to replace them need to be thought through carefully and, once a decision is taken, followed up urgently!
Despite extensive military aid, Ukraine continues to develop its own weapon systems
Although Ukraine is engaged in intense fighting following the Russian invasion last year, it is still developing and marketing a range of military equipment.
This includes the Smereka Mobile Mortar Complex (MMC) which is also known as the Long Bow on the export market, promoted by the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries along with other weapons.
Above: A scale model of the Long Bow system with 120mm mortar in deployed position over the rear and a protected weapon station armed with 12.7mm machine gun on the cab roof. (Photo: author)
The MMC is mounted on the rear of a modified Varta 4x4 armoured personnel carrier (APC), with a front engine compartment and four-door fully protected cab in the middle.
According to the contractor the cab provides small arms protection to STANAG 4569 with the lower hull being V-shaped for increased resistance to mines.
The five-seat cab has bullet/splinter windows at the front and in the upper side doors, with firing ports provided below the windows.
Mounted on top of the cab is a protected weapon station typically armed with a 12.7mm machine gun, either a Russian DShK or NSV or the Western M2 HB.
When deployed the mortar is extended over the rear of the vehicle until the large baseplate contacts the ground.
Options here include an 82mm smoothbore mortar designated UKIP-82 with a maximum range of 3.9km or a 120mm MP-120 with a maximum range of 7,100m with at least 50 mortar bombs being carried.
The muzzle-loaded weapon has a powered traverse of 35 degrees left and right while elevation limits are from +45 to +85 degrees.
The computerised fire control system (FCS) is coupled to a navigation package which allows the mortar to come into action, carry out a fire mission and rapidly redeploy, avoiding counter-battery fire.
The baseline Varta APC has been deployed by Ukraine for several years and in addition to commander and driver carries eight dismounts in blast-attenuating seats.
Standard equipment includes a central tyre inflation system, cameras front and rear, navigation system, air conditioning and heating.
Typical gross vehicle weight of the APC version is 17.5t and it is powered by a six-cylinder turbo diesel developing 380hp (with a 270hp engine option), coupled to a nine-speed manual transmission which gives a maximum speed of 100km/h and a range at this speed claimed to be 1,000km
More specialised versions of the Varta include an ambulance and a command post.
Projected variants include a flat-bed Varta for more specialised roles such as recovery and another for launching UAVs.
Above: A rear view of the Bars-8 4x4 fitted with an NGTS Alakran Light Mortar System showing baseplate in contact with ground. The 120mm barrel has a system to prevent double loading. (Photo: author)
Prior to the invasion of Ukraine Spanish company NGTS supplied Kyiv with a batch of Bars-8 4x4 APCs with the Alakran Light Mortar System integrated into the rear of the vehicle. The more recent Long Bow MMC is very similar in concept.
China’s new containerised rocket launcher ready to hide in plain sight
China’s NORINCO has completed development of a containerised multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) known as the Modular SR5 and this is now being offered on the export market.
It is based on a standard ISO 40x8x8ft container so can be rapidly transported by land, sea or and air and would be difficult to detect as an effective weapon system when deployed in standalone configuration.
Above: A scale model of the NORINCO containerised Modular SR5 MLRS with launcher elevated and two missiles in the ready-to-fire position and pods of smaller calibre rockets alongside. (Photo: author)
The Modular SR5 is a self-contained unit with an internal power supply and would typically be deployed on a the rear of a cross-country 8x8 truck for greater operational flexibility, or used in the static role.
According to NORINCO the basic container weighs around 20t with a maximum weight of up to 35t depending on the type of rocket carried.
The rocket pods are mounted on a power-operated turntable which is traversed for launch so the back blast does not affect the rounds remaining in the rear of the container for rapid reloading.
The system can transport and launch 122mm (max range 50km guided), 220mm (max range 70km guided) and 610mm (max range 290km guided) rockets also marketed by NORINCO.
The 122mm rocket is known as the Fire Dragon 40 with a high-explosive warhead with a lethal radius of 60m with an accuracy of 25m.
According to NORINCO, the 220mm guided rocket is called the King Dragon 60, is accurate to 3m and can be supplied with a conventional HE or penetrating warhead for use against hardened targets.
Once the rockets have been fired from the container the launcher is traversed back in line and pods of new rounds rapidly loaded automatically to enable another target to be engaged. According to NORINCO this takes only five minutes.
Once all rockets have been expended the system would have to be reloaded using a resupply vehicle.
The system uses some components from the NORINCO SR5 truck-mounted MLRS which has already been exported and can be rapidly fitted with pods of different rockets which depend on the target set to be engaged.
Above: The standard truck-mounted SR5 MLRS in travelling configuration with launcher in horizontal position. (Photo: author)
Like all artillery systems, the key to successful engagement is target acquisition which at longer ranges would typically be a UAV which could also be used for post-strike damage assessment.
The idea of deploying rockets for the coastal defence mission is not new as for some years the UAE has deployed the Jobaria Defense Systems Multi Cradle Launcher (MCL) which is also referred to as the Dinosaur.
This consists of an Oshkosh HET truck which tows a trailer on which can be fitted four launchers each with three pods of Roketsan 20x122mm unguided rockets to give a total of 240 rounds.
As an alternative it can launch Roketsan 32x300mm rockets. The main role of the MCL is to saturate incoming landing craft with rockets before they can reach the beach.
The price of popularity – can KMW production keep pace with Leopard 2 orders?
Following on from Chris Foss’s lead story in this month’s newsletter, Shephard Defence Insight takes a short dive into some of the problems potentially caused by the growing popularity and interest in Krauss-Maffei Wegmann’s Leopard 2 tank.
By Sam Hart, Defence Insight Analyst
As the Leopard 2 has quickly become a household name across the Western world, its popularity in European countries has also increased with orders recently placed by Hungary and Norway expected to be followed by a fresh procurement from the Czech Republic later this year.
This rising interest in the Leopard 2 is, however, likely unsustainable for KMW’s production line in its current form. Following completion of mass German Leopard 2 production, at one point turning out 25 tanks a month, KMW has seen a significant reduction in capacity over the last decade, reducing the main assembly line footprint to a single site in Munich.
Accentuating the problem, issues surrounding capacity are compounded by that site also hosting lines for KMW’s joint venture vehicles, the Puma IFV and Boxer APC, with both working through significant order backlogs.
Above: KMW appears to be facing a period of intense activity, but its limited capacity and resulting stretched production timelines may ultimately deter countries looking for new platforms this side of 2030. (Photo: KMW)
In just the last week, the German Armed Forces awarded a $1.6 billion contract for 50 new Puma IFVs from Projekt System & Management, the joint venture between KWM and Rheinmetall, on top of an ongoing $884.4 million upgrade for 143 existing platforms.
An additional $4.8 billion option for a second tranche of 179 Pumas was also announced, potentially extending KMW’s involvement and obligation into the mid-late 2030s.
KMW’s issues with production capacity have further entered the public eye in the form of Germany’s Boxer Heavy Weapons Infantry Carrier programme, choosing to use an Australian production line rather than re-establishing its own domestic one.
Above: Under the Heavy Weapons Infantry Carrier programme, Germany is set to spend an estimated $900 million on turreted Boxer vehicles, all due to come from the Australian production line. (Source: Shephard Defence Insight)
Once past the mental gymnastics of Germany using an Australian production line to produce a German vehicle purely for the purpose of exporting it back to Germany, the decision amounts to an admission of issues surrounding current capacity and, perhaps more interestingly, an unwillingness to expand.
This decision, in the face of an estimated $900 million contract for the Boxer programme, could be a missed opportunity, especially with a further $588.1 million Lithuanian Boxer order all but confirmed for the autumn and a $1.8 billion Qatari order forecast for 2023/2024.
Expanding production capacity in the form of a second site would have been a bold decision by KMW but potentially a wise one with the renaissance in defence spending across Europe, and especially notable within Germany, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Demand for the Leopard 2 is only expected to rise, a fact making KMW’s decision stranger. Already operating a full line for ongoing orders and with the Czech Republic expected to join the backlog later this year, further signalled interest across Europe might just uncover the issues KMW faces.
Above: Norway alone is taking 54 new-build Leopard 2s between now and 2031. (Source: Shephard Defence Insight
Both Italy and Germany appear likely to acquire significant numbers with the Bundeswehr reportedly considering an order for a three-digit number of Leopard 2A8 tanks in the next two years and a report released on 11 May 2023 revealing Italian interest in the Leopard 2A7 as a stopgap replacement for its ageing 200 C1 Arietes before the future Main Ground Combat System programme leaves development in the 2030s.
For countries seeking to modernise their tank fleets or bolster numbers, the Leopard 2 has quickly risen to be the platform of choice across much of NATO. It will therefore be interesting to see if KMW’s capacity restrictions will negatively affect future Leopard 2 sales if a priority German order monopolises production.
Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.
