Singapore to Acquire Refurbished Leopard Tanks
-
other countries have done it before ... like the israelis selling their Galils and using M-16s ... no contest there, M-16s are hands down the better weapon, though the galils were designed to be cheap as shit to manufacture ... it's just a case of finding willing suckers ...Originally posted by moca:So, in other words, the cunning Poles unloaded their overpriced PT-91 on our neighbour so they can buy some REAL tanks?!!
But ill humour aside, this begs the question: Why this move by the Poles? Surely this is not the right business move for a country trying to sell its own domestically-produced tank?
Is it because a second-hand Leo 2 is really so much better than a brand new PT-91?
Or is it because a seond hand Leo 2 is WAYYY cheaper than a locally-made PT-91?
at the risk of sounding like we're scratching our own balls again, if leos are way way cheaper than the twardies, why not just go for the leopards alone ? ... and any savings may just be negated by the logistics of having to support two MBT platforms eh ? ... and of course, the leo purchases were made AFTER the twardies were in service .....
perhaps they just wanted to be more nato compatible, but it sounds like a case of a country who bought her own domestic products and found them wanting .... the twardies are, after all, heavily modded versions of the T-72s that got so thoroughly owned by the allies through both gulf wars .... -
Originally posted by Samez
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4104&pp=10
I'm from Poland. We get 128 leo2a4 for 100000 per tank, but tanks were used. Our tankers said that our Pt-91A1 have better gun stabilisation and fire system (Israeli system is use in our tanks), but armor is worst than in leo's2a4. PT-91M (malaysian) is better than PT-91A1 used in Polish Army. For example SAVAN-15 FCS used in tanks for malaysia is also used in British tank Chelenger 2.
Malaysia bought 48 tanks for $380 milions. 380/40 = 7,91 but they bought a lot of new ammunition, and other equipment. There is option for another 48 or 64 another vechicles in this batch.
A post by a Polish forumer from Defence Talk.com
Here he explains why the procurement for the 49 PT-91M cost so much and the comparism between their own PT-91A1 and the Leo2A4 which they got from the Germans, the currency is not stated though so i assume it is in US$.
-
Why not gundam mobile suits? Why they want puny tanks?Originally posted by sand king:Why not the M1 Abrams? Why they want Leopards?
-
Wow, imagine standing in front of that thing while it fired.Originally posted by saline:http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~aroinila/leo/loader.wmv
A Finnish Leopard 2A4 firing, videoed from inside the turret...
nice... -
Zoe Tay tried driving the bx before, she commented it was much easier to drive than daytona.Originally posted by LazerLordz:It can be part of a theme park. The firing mechanism can be disabled what.
It's not a bad idea. -
Yours not impressive enough? Must show her other guns?Originally posted by Pitot:yea. but. sigh. everytime i wan to wow a gal must bring her there.. -
I guess you don't know much about the M1 turbine engine and why they use it.Originally posted by glock:I think However, the gas turbine in teh M1A1 is a pain as it needs lots of expensive clean jet fuel. Leopards use MTU diesel engines and the Germans build great diesels.
< sniip > -
Smart people makes smart choices... Maybe it's cheap and good?Originally posted by moca:So, in other words, the cunning Poles unloaded their overpriced PT-91 on our neighbour so they can buy some REAL tanks?!!
But ill humour aside, this begs the question: Why this move by the Poles? Surely this is not the right business move for a country trying to sell its own domestically-produced tank?
Is it because a second-hand Leo 2 is really so much better than a brand new PT-91?
Or is it because a seond hand Leo 2 is WAYYY cheaper than a locally-made PT-91? The poles got the leos very cheap hehe... It's like a bargain so why not? -
How is our Leo2A4 compared to the Japanese Type 90 MBT? Externally, they look very similar and they both use the L44 120mm smoothbore main guns!
The profile of the Type 90 is similar to a German Leopard 2 without any additional upgrading. It was designed with a distinctive low-slung turret with boxy, vertical sides and a long overhanging bustle. Regardless, the Type 90 is smaller than all of the Western main battle tanks with a height of 2.33 meters, a width of 3.33 meters, and weighing in at 50.2 tonnes. Compare that to the dimensions of the German Leopard 2A4: 2.48m x 3.70 m, weighing 55.2 tonnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_90
The above is the comparism from wikipedia. -
First thing first, PT-91 is never brand new, it is the upgraded version of their T-72M1, Russian export version maufacturered by the Poles.Originally posted by moca:So, in other words, the cunning Poles unloaded their overpriced PT-91 on our neighbour so they can buy some REAL tanks?!!
But ill humour aside, this begs the question: Why this move by the Poles? Surely this is not the right business move for a country trying to sell its own domestically-produced tank?
Is it because a second-hand Leo 2 is really so much better than a brand new PT-91?
Or is it because a seond hand Leo 2 is WAYYY cheaper than a locally-made PT-91?
( somethimg like our AMX-13, after the upgrade, we called them SM1)
B4 the breakup of Warsaw Pact , the Poles has I believe more than 1000+ T-72M1 in svc, after that they joined Nato, started to retired their T-72, still no Leo 2 then.
Currently I think they have abt :
T-72– 597
PT-91 „TWARDY”- 233
Leopard 2A4 – 128
http://www.wp.mil.pl/index.php?lang=2
The T-72 and PT-91 has all been upgraded using Nato standard comm set , so actually there is no qn on compatibility issue, except they are not using the same ammo, but they can certainly fight along eachother, so dun talk abt they got the Leo 2 so to be compatible with other Nato nation.
Leo 2 is still better than their Popping Turret T-72 tank, that is proven with fatal flaws discovered during GW1:
1) the crammed turret of T-72 with tank ammo found all over the place , has resulted in ammo cookoff whenever the turret is penetrated, causing the entire turret to be "popped up", killing the entire turret crew.
2) The 2A46 gun has proven to have less effective range and accuracy as compare to L44 gun, that gun only has a effective range of 2km whereas the L44 gun has even destroyed a T-72 at 3.5km!!!
Anyway , the German practically gave the Leo 2 away, the Poles was reported to be paying only for the transportation and refurbisment the 128 Leo2A4.
So your Ist qn, how could the Poles refused at such low price for one of the best tank in the world.
The answer to your 2nd qn is a definite YES!!!
The answer to your 3rd qn, is a yes German practically gave them away, but Leo 2 is certainly more capable than their own PT-91!!! -
10/03/2006
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3902&lang=3
Lahat for Leopard 2 tanks
IAI/MBT Missiles Division and Rheinmetall Defence have joined forces to offer an upgrade kit for Leopard 1/2 main battle tanks featuring a gun-launched laser homing weapon system (Lahat).
Lahat is a laser homing tank-launched missile packaged in a standard tank round cartridge. It can thus be launched from a 105 mm gun or from a 120 mm gun using a sabot. As a tank-launched weapon, Lahat gives MBTs an important new capability, enabling first-shot kills of armoured targets at ranges over 6 km using internal or external designation.
It also provides new capabilities in challenging scenarios such as combat in open areas as well as in as urban warfare, using indirect firing with external designation.
The missile system passed a successful live-fire demonstration in Meppen, Germany, last year. During the demonstration the Lahat missiles were launched from the gun of a Leopard 2-A4 tank. One missile was fired against a stationary tank; the second missile was fired against a moving tank driven by remote control. Both targets were located about 4 km from the launching tank, and both missiles scored direct hits, within 30 cm from the centre of the laser designation spot.
Our future Leopards may be able to fire the Lahat missiles just like the Merkavas! -
Wow.. that's pretty cool.. and for just fractions of the price of a Merkavas!Originally posted by tankee1981:http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3902&lang=3
Our future Leopards may be able to fire the Lahat missiles just like the Merkavas! -
The German Army down-sized their Leopards from a few thousand to retaining just around 400, right?Originally posted by gary1910:Anyway , the German practically gave the Leo 2 away, the Poles was reported to be paying only for the transportation and refurbisment the 128 Leo2A4.
A down-sizing like this with otherwise superb equipment being made redundant comes but once in a lifetime. I am now wondering why we are not buying more especially since they are going for a song?
If nothing else, just to pi.ss off the Malaysians also shiok. -
Laser guidance as in LAHAT has limitations especially in tropical areas. Rain & low visibility limits use of laser guidance. Can be used only when visibility is good.
Even in the Middle East conflicts LBGs ( for air to ground ) are becoming less and less the weapon of choice ; JDAMS are preferred because they can be used round the clock and in adverse weather. -
Here a rundown of Leo 2 in German svc:Originally posted by moca:The German Army down-sized their Leopards from a few thousand to retaining just around 400, right?
A down-sizing like this with otherwise superb equipment being made redundant comes but once in a lifetime. I am now wondering why we are not buying more especially since they are going for a song?
If nothing else, just to pi.ss off the Malaysians also shiok.
Germany
Initial numbers :2125
Sales
-160 (Sweden)
-108 (Spain)
- 57 (Denmark)
-128 (Poland)
-124 (Finland)
-183 (Greece)
-298 (Turkey)
-118 (Chile)
- 96 (Singapore)
= 853 left
Germany will keeps 400 tanks in active service, makes 453 left for selling/reserve..
All those offered to above countries are of warstock, i.e. stock that are mothball in case of war. Low engine hrs and almost brand new.
German started to downsize ever since the end of the cold war, initailly only selling to Nato/European nations for abt USD2~3m, but since this year onward, they were sold to Chile and SG.
The price that it was sold to Chile was less than a USD1m per unit,118 Leopard 2A4 for 124 Millions US$.
SG price according to Chinese media is abt USD0.5 m, anyway whether is USD1m or USD0.5 m, it is still bloody cheap!!!!
Based on the Tempest which is reported to be number around 100, seem to be right number for Heavy Armoured Bde.
SAF purposefully stated that 66 + 30 spare tanks so not alarm our neighbours but I think the 30 spare tanks could be :
1) converted to be armoured engineer support vehicles,AVLB, ARV,AEV etc
or
2) refurbish and retain their MBT role.
If it is (2), that the 96 Leo 2 could be a total replacement of our Tempest, if it is (1), we might even see a 2nd batch. -
Dont forget that these Leopards are already more than 20 years old. They will still need extensive & expensive upgrading to keep them up to par with modern MBTs. As they are now, they are at least one generation behind the M1A1/2 & Leopard 2 A5/6. However, they are at least one and the half generations ahead of upgraded Centurions.
-
Erm actually the M1 turbine is the ultimate in multifuel engines, an Abrams tankee did say that the tank can run anything from jet fuel, to diesel and even Jim Bean if needed. For the record the M1 is typically run on diesel, and not jet fuel.Originally posted by glock:I think M1A1 is more advanced overall than the Leopard 2 A4. But the Leopard 2 A5/6 is at least on par with M1A1. However, the gas turbine in teh M1A1 is a pain as it needs lots of expensive clean jet fuel. Leopards use MTU diesel engines and the Germans build great diesels.
The upkeep for a turbine is also less then that of a comparative diesel, it contains less moving parts, is very much smaller and lighter, and is in general more reliable and easier to repair and replace then a diesel. Turbines provide so many advantages for MBT use that there was a moment in tank design where people were assuming that it was going to be the standard for future tank designs.
Of course it wasn't the case. The main (and most serious) drawback of running turbines is the fuel consumption. Turbines buring nearly as much fuel idling as they do at full throttle, and it seems to be the reason why the yanks are the only ones who have the case and ability to seriously field an turbine MBT. On the flipside, the turbine engine becomes the most efficent engine when the tank is being run at full speed, far more so then any diesel can ever match... but you don't really get a lot of chances to do that in a city.
Germans make fantastic diesels though! -
thanks for the above analysis, looks like there is still a market for Leo2s if we want to buy more.Originally posted by gary1910:Here a rundown of Leo 2 in German svc:
Germany
Initial numbers :2125
Sales
-160 (Sweden)
-108 (Spain)
- 57 (Denmark)
-128 (Poland)
-124 (Finland)
-183 (Greece)
-298 (Turkey)
-118 (Chile)
- 96 (Singapore)
= 853 left
Germany will keeps 400 tanks in active service, makes 453 left for selling/reserve..
All those offered to above countries are of warstock, i.e. stock that are mothball in case of war. Low engine hrs and almost brand new.
German started to downsize ever since the end of the cold war, initailly only selling to Nato/European nations for abt USD2~3m, but since this year onward, they were sold to Chile and SG.
The price that it was sold to Chile was less than a USD1m per unit,118 Leopard 2A4 for 124 Millions US$.
SG price according to Chinese media is abt USD0.5 m, anyway whether is USD1m or USD0.5 m, it is still bloody cheap!!!!
Based on the Tempest which is reported to be number around 100, seem to be right number for Heavy Armoured Bde.
SAF purposefully stated that 66 + 30 spare tanks so not alarm our neighbours but I think the 30 spare tanks could be :
1) converted to be armoured engineer support vehicles,AVLB, ARV,AEV etc
or
2) refurbish and retain their MBT role.
If it is (2), that the 96 Leo 2 could be a total replacement of our Tempest, if it is (1), we might even see a 2nd batch.
The question now is whether to move from a 3 tier force Tempest/SM1/BX or M113 to a 2 tier force Leo2/BX or
continue with a 3 tier force like Leo2/New light tank/BX.
If we go for a 2 tier force, confirm will definitely buy a 2nd batch of Leo2. Probabaly at least another 200.
My guess is that the SM1 will be replaced by a "light tank" version build on BX chasis, probably armed with a low recoil 105mm gun or 120mm gun.
btw, with cheap Leos flooding the market together with surplus Eastern Bloc T-72s, it will be hard for ST to market a "new" "Light Tank". So whatever they build is only for the SAF, no export potential at all. -
Perhaps the new armoured division will be purely MTU driven -> Leo2/Marder A5(probably with 30mm Bushmaster and Spike).
Edit: Probably the supposed 2nd batch will come with buy one Leo 2 and get 4 Marders free!
Edit 2: More seriously, a Leo 2/Marder division will have same mobility ..... including deep fording(underwater river crossing) using snorkelling gear which I don't know if BX can do. -
Although turbines are multifuel, I do not think they run well with diesel - fuel consumption will be higher and maintenance will also be higher. Aviation fuel will mostly be used and that adds another complication to logistics. Turbines are lighter for same power output, but then tank needs to carry more fuel because of the high fuel consumption & this negates the saving in weight.
Also, all your other vehicles from Land Rovers to Bionix to 5 tonners etc all run on diesel. Also, for maintenance , mechanics are already familiar with diesel engines. Recovery & other specialized vehicles based on tank chassis are more well suited to diesel engines. Yes, Germans make good diesels - around 50 % of all new cars sold in Germany are diesels and our Navy uses mainly MTU diesels.
The Americans are the only ones who can afford to have gas turbines on their M1A1/2s. Gas turbines are great if you can afford the extra cost of expensive fuel and extra logistics.
In the long term ,I think we will have a MBT ( Leopard 2 or other ) , LT ( ST designed ) and Bionix configuration for SAF armor. -
I don't think turbines have any significant issues with burning diesel, the reason why the Yanks use JP-8 jet fuel to simplify logistics (which already had a good supply train set up for it for their army aviation), and not because the Abrams will cough and splutter on diesel. In a pip we could use normal diesel for tank turbines if it came to it.Originally posted by glock:Although turbines are multifuel, I do not think they run well with diesel - fuel consumption will be higher and maintenance will also be higher. Aviation fuel will mostly be used and that adds another complication to logistics. Turbines are lighter for same power output, but then tank needs to carry more fuel because of the high fuel consumption & this negates the saving in weight.
And saying that it's a real hassle to learn how to upkeep a turbine for our forces used to diesel is pretty moot. I'm sure we have plenty of experience running turbines given we use helicopters, and logistically this moots the point that it's really going to be a logistical issue. It's like saying we should mount a 75mm gun on our Leo2 and try to keep with that caliber for all our future armored systems to ease logistical issues.
In pratice a turbine is more reliable and easier to keep going then a diesel. A tank with a broken turbine will be back in action a lot quicker and will put a lot more miles before it messes up again. The REAL reason why we will never consider the design is the fuel efficency of it, which is a big issue for us (and for most other armies that don't have cash like the Yanks) -
I think this thread is going off tangent.... here is more digression:
I was reading how ADF only purchased M1A1 AIM(D) tanks. Boy oh boy, that doesn't even have an independent Commander sight to perform a hunter-killer mode. How I wish ADF will buy additional M1A2 SEP tanks, and later upgrade all the AIM (D) tanks to A2 SEP.
As for the SAF Leo2A4 purchase, I hope SAF actually end up having a localised A5 (after upgrading the A4 with the A5 uparmoured turret, independent Command Thermal sight, the local BMS, and perhaps even the Trophy APS).
-
Just curious, does having Leo 2 mean that we will have to expand our inventory to incl. 120mm ammo? Also the 7.62 cal co-axial MG and the .50cal. MG on the tanks, are they going to be refitted to the FN MAG GPMG and CIS.50 which is currently in service or remain as the original?
Also what is the difference between the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams? Also read that S.Korea has a similar M1 version which they DIY nicked "Baby Abrams" or something like that. Does the S.Korean version uses the gas turbine as well? Am quite surprised when some posted that it takes 40L to get the turbine started and at idle it consumes the same amount as when moving full speed ahead. -
M1A1 is armed with a 105MM gun not 120MM n no commander's independent sight
K-1 has 105MM gun n commander's independent viewer/sight -
That is incorrect.Originally posted by spartan6:M1A1 is armed with a 105MM gun not 120MM n no commander's independent sight
K-1 has 105MM gun n commander's independent viewer/sight
M1 was originally armed with M68 105mm gun. But M1A1 was armed with the M256 120mm smoothbore main gun.
Source: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/