Eurosatory 2018: Franco-German industry unveils new Euro tank

SHEPHARD ^ | 11th June 2018 | Grant Turnbull

[sukhoi-30mki]

French and German industry have unexpectedly unveiled a new Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT) concept at Eurosatory, their first attempt at combining national technologies to develop a next-generation pan-European tank.

The EMBT has been developed by KNDS – a joint company between German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and French company Nexter – and combines a Leopard 2 chassis with a Leclerc 120mm turret.

Officials from KNDS told Shephard that the development effort has been ongoing since January 2017, with the prototype platform conducting live fire trials only a month ago.

‘This is the first step in having a common product from Nexter and KMW,’ said Rudolf Neuhaus, project manager for EMBT for KMW. ‘This is a demonstrator but the next step will be to have a prototype or pre-series production.’

A joint Nexter-KMW team has now been established that will go into more detailed analysis of integrating French-German technologies.

‘It is a way of showing that we are now working together,’ said Francois Groshany, Nexter’s head of tracked armoured programmes.

He added that because the Leclerc features a lighter autoloading turret, compared with the manually loaded Leopard 2, the EMBT is lighter and has a growth potential of around 6t (10% of the EMBT's 60t GVW).

This effort has been funded by KNDS and is not a German or French government programme. Work done on the demonstrator is expected to inform technology and cooperation requirements for a future MBT that will enter service in the 2030s.

The German and French governments are currently studying a new joint MBT under a programme known as the Mobile Ground Combat System (MGCS).

‘We can develop and qualify this in the time between MGCS,’ said Groshany, who called the EMBT an ‘opportunity product’ to gauge operational interest as well as strategic interest in a pan-European project.

For the EMBT, one of the main challenges has been to integrate the electronic and mechanical interfaces between the turret and chassis. ‘It was not easy…there was a lot of engineering effort on the chassis side,’ said Neuhaus, speaking to Shephard at Eurosatory.

The chassis is based on the latest A7 variant of the Leopard 2, with mobility trials also complete with the Leclerc turret integrated.

He added that this was, for the time being, the limit as to how much technology can be shared between the two countries, owing to German legislation. ‘This is the limit that we can go …due to German law we cannot exchange technologies.’

KMW and Nexter merged to form a joint company in 2015.

[M. Espinola]

France under Macron still acts subservient to Merkel’s Berlin.

[Spktyr]

Additionally, here's some intel as to what the Arena KAZT version as fitted to the T-80 could do back in *1990* - provided courtesy of the US Marine Corps. Specifically, Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-15.5 – MAGTF Antiarmor Operations. Again, dated 1990.

Keep in mind that this is what the Corps *knew* the Arena KAZT could do *thirty years ago*. Arena's been heavily upgraded and enhanced since then. The latest version and the successor system Afghanit eliminate the 20 degree "blind spot" behind the tank, have a IIRC higher vertical angle interception capability, and depending on the projectile and track commander's preferences it can process the threat, slew the track's gun onto the launcher and cue up the launcher for the gunner all by itself. They also have a redundant radar array with transceivers all around the turret and hull so there's no one single point of failure to be shot at from outside the tank. Ivan did learn from the BMP-1 debacle.

The Chechens found out that later versions of Arena were only able to be defeated by either getting the tank into such tight quarters that the radar systems were useless or by saturation attacks. At least six missiles or projectiles had to be launched to expect a single hit and often six wasn't enough. These were peer-level missiles fired by Chechen veterans of the Russian military, so it's not like some podunk Middle Eastern troops and ancient gear were attacking and failing either. Reports from Ukraine are similar. Arena is demonstrably capable of intercepting front-line Russian top-down attack munitions (which are usually guided mortar and artillery shells, believe it or not, which means it's a harder target for an APS to shoot down due to the heavier casings) or front-line Russian direct attack missiles. Like the ones shredding Leopards in Syria.

[JustaTech]

Some of our guided missiles have Home On Jam mode. A jammer has to keep transmitting to be effective, so they make great targets.

When the battlefield is networked (meaning various assets on the ground and in the air serve as sensors and nodes in the network), if jamming pops up the network will automatically compensate by increasing transmit power levels, temporarily lowering bit rates if possible, changing channels, so forth.

If your swarm is operating so that the elements are within visual range of each other, they can communicate with IR energy if need be.

As you mentioned, the swarm network and assets can be programmed with default instructions to be carried out if all contact with the leader fails for whatever reason. For example, if the swarm is combat robots, they can be programmed to bury themselves and go into a low-power state, with only a slender antenna rod above ground to receive activation signals, so that they can be preserved for a later time when a leader is available. Or they could be programmed to kamikaze a target if they lose command contact. Whatever works for the particular situation.

[Laslo Fripp]

Automatic pop-up turkey thermometer is standard equipment on the Egyptian version. Makes it easier for the Israelis to know when to stop shooting. 🇮🇱🇮🇷

[JustaTech]

Thanks for the info. I've only seen close-in systems tested against RPGs, so you're more up on them than I.

However, I do understand electronic warfare. This defense hinges on detecting the radar Doppler of an incoming weapon with enough angular and temporal resolution to successfully take it out in flight. If I wanted to kill your well-defended tank with a Javelin, I'd simultaneously hit your area of the battlefield with enough microwave energy to blind your short-range radar for just the split second I need. I could use a little E-bomb to do it, and I'd probably need to link the launchers to get the timing just right, but it's very doable, right now.

I'd not like to bet my life on any defense trying to knock down a hose stream of DU or tungsten rounds from a chain gun. The magazine of the attacker is bound to be deeper than the magazine of the defense system carried around on a tank.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[JustaTech]

We already have a supply of very capable air combat drones. Modified F-16 and F-15, to either charge in and make the enemy decloak, or to serve as missile trucks. No doubt they’ve brainstormed other scenarios even more clever.

As you say, since drones will be unmanned and expendable, we can crank out lots more relatively easily. Instead of dramatically scaling down an F-16, you could think of slightly scaling up a MALD and giving it offensive capability and stealth. (Miniature Air-Launched Decoy). When it’s fired its complement of one or two missiles it could seek a final kill by collision.

I doubt there will be a sixth generation of manned fighters until much later in the century, if ever. Air combat will just be too quick and brutal for the mortal coil to endure.

[Spktyr]

To address your points in reverse order - yes, the platform carrying the chain gun is going to have a much larger round count. However, by definition it’s going to have to be in line of sight of the tank to use its chain gun. The latest versions of the various Russian APS are known to be able to slew the turret onto the attacker, *track* the attacker and cue the target for the gunner using visual and IR. Reportedly Afghanit can even fire the main gun in air defense mode to knock helicopters out of the sky by itself at commander’s option. That’s not been publicly demonstrated yet that I know of - however, the Ukranians’ attack choppers have been the recipient of Russian 125mm main gun fire and haven’t had a good reaction to it so it’s evident the slew-cue-track system works. (Mind, the Russians have also been on the receiving end as the Ukraine has the exact same systems and used to be where Russia built all their tanks - this is part of why Russia hasn’t really steamrollered Ukraine.) The Russians also have a new *extremely* fast missile they can fire out the main gun tube that’s a seeker, with a reported seven mile range. It’s faster than most guided helicopter missiles and it’s capable against not just helicopters but many ground attack jets. Even the existing 9M119M1 Reflekts main gun ATGM they issue to their T-72BMs and T-80s and such is capable against low flying aircraft just fine.

Which brings me back to the next point - unless your e-bomb also takes out optical and IR sensors, you’re still going to have to deal with the latest APS’s fall back systems where if the radar fails or is jammed it (reportedly) falls back on optical/IR sensors scattered around the tank to visually track and engage an incoming missile. It’s less accurate, but it’s better than nothing. And, of course, Arena has long had a “target jammer” function. I *think* Afghanit is also datalinked between vehicles so it can distribute “return targets” for a tank platoon, but I’m not sure.

Point isn’t that these are god tanks and systems (they aren’t) but that it’s perhaps not so easy as it might seem - and that intelligent potential countermeasures have been tried in Chechnya, Ukraine and Syria by capable operators with mixed results at best.

[Manly Warrior]

Wars may be fought with high-tech systems, but will always be won by a man with a rifle (or equivalent) on the ground.

[JudgemAll]

Looks like a Merkava with a stupid high profile French turret

[centurion316]

In the French Army, the Officer and NCO messes have excellent cuisine. The other ranks are fed swill. One of many reasons why the last French battlefield victory was in 1809.

[Sam_Damon]

Put another way, this means the A-10 becomes even more relevant.

Amiright?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Being an EU project, I’m surprised that the barrel doesn’t curve around to point at the turret, and that it doesn’t have glow in the dark painted jihadi slogans on its exterior to prove it is not an islamophobic tank.

[nuke_road_warrior]

The French built part goes in reverse twice as fast as it does in forward, the German built part uncontrollably heads for Poland.

[DUMBGRUNT]

Combining superb German technology ...

That would be the export model only.

For domestic use, the Euros are going for the T-72 with the optional cardboard turret. Primarily for static display, due to budget constraints.

[JustaTech]

"... unless your e-bomb also takes out optical and IR sensors..."

There's a good chance it would, at least for long enough. Tanks are of course hardened to EMP to an extent because they might have to fight while nuclear detonations are occurring nearby. However, a guided battlefield E-bomb has the advantage of extreme proximity. Received power is proportional to the inverse square of distance, so getting close makes all the difference. Get close enough with enough power, and all systems which use electrical conductors are in trouble.

The yin/yang of offense/defense is eternal, but overall the viability of battle tanks as manned platforms on the modern battlefield is inexorably declining. They can't hide very well and they can't burrow.

Hitting incoming objects with your own objects is a neat trick, but it's not so difficult to throw a large number of inert objects in the form of large rounds at the tank until its self-defense magazine is exhausted, and then use a real anti-tank weapon on it.

A main battle tank is a major threat on any battlefield, therefore it will also be a high-value target. The enemy would be willing to sacrifice one or two robotic gun stations for an MBT.

[Spktyr]

Yes and no. The air attack environment has been getting more dangerous as well - and the impending arrival of things like railguns on the battlefield may end up eliminating manned aircraft in front line service. Unmanned aircraft are probably going to soon need to be the bulk of the first-wave attackers.

[Sam_Damon]

“...impending arrival of things like the railgun”

Big problem with any railgun tech is: electricity. It’s quite one thing to put railgun tech on ships. One can engineer them with tons of electrical generation capacity. On land? AFAIK, another story entirely. Perhaps you know something I don’t.

I’ll agree with you on AI robot tankbusters perhaps taking on the dangerous jobs. The question becomes one of then... what about building Skynet? I say this because computers work fantastically well — until they don’t, and there’s a huge mess. I’m not quite sure we want to see such things in combat between nations. But AI and swarm technology keeps advancing. I suppose I’m glad I won’t have to fight that war.

[Spktyr]

Lockheed says they’re going to have a fusion generator that fits in a semi-tractor’s trailer.

[FreeAtlanta]

I could see small drones that could find main gun barrels, fly into them and spray acid or multipart cement foam. Call them the dirt dobbers....

These little pests fill ever hole they can find on equipment in my sheds. Annoying, but fascinating little creatures.