Will SAF convert leopard A4 to A 6 standard
-
I think there's been lots of development in armor doctrines with regards to Shinseki's Strykers. Initially, the radical idea was that heavy MBTs are no longer required when there are more mobile, lighter wheeled vehicles capable of killing other AFVs and even MBTs.Originally posted by Arthas79:Well, if we are to maintain it for 30 years or more like what TCH says, then confirm it will be upgraded liao. But what variant ? Highly likely Singapore one me think and the equivalent of the A5 at least if not the A6. just my 2 cents
Has there been a change in thinking with respect to operating MBTs ? Cant remember everything but it seems that the gravepine(from reading the reports/comments available on the net which are not usually right) has it that the MBT is necessary in modern warfare. As opposed to Gen Shinseki`s idea of having smaller and faster equipment and hence, a smaller or light tank ?
Especially in urban fights. If so, we may see our MBTs configured more along those lines. More armour, etc.
Comments?
But please, put on some of the wedge shaped armour. They are really cool. For some reason, tanks are the mercedes bezn of armoured vehicles. So, lets decorate erm
Currently, MBTs are not retired even by the US Army because they recognized that there is a need for heavies, and that the supposedly light and mobile Strykers aren't THAT mobile. In urban warfare, a light vehicle like the Stryker may zip around quickly, but it also gets knocked out easily as well. OTOH, the MBT though more cumbersome can survive IEDs, and perhaps even close range RPGs. And of course, its might tracks and engine is also more than capable of ploughing through urban roadblocks should the need arise.
There is a place for light, mobile brigades, but the MBT is still indispensable for now. -
According to my usual spy network.....there will probably be no A5/A6 upgrade. No requirement for more heavy addon armour or longer range L55 gun.
One of the most likely upgrade to the Leopard will be some kind of Active Protection System
-
Probably not at this present time. But then again who knows. Especially if the northerners get crazy with anti-tank projectiles. Active measures? Trophy? iron fist? Nice.
-
Could not agree more Shotgun.
-
Metal storm
-
At the least change the turret a bit...the A5 and A6 turrets looks cool and much more 'modern' .
I mean, most of the new tanks have the slopped and angled turret rather than the round or blockly kind. -
I wouldnt be surprised if something different pops out from the Leo chassis in the next few years
-
Haha dont tell me we wear ell on the outside and amm on the inside.
-
It a waste of tax money if we are going for the best in everything.
The present LEO setup is already "More then a match for our known adversaries " so why upgrade.
Should spend more on training and develop effective doctrines in all forms of deployment -
Reason? SImple...two words. Over kill.Originally posted by justcooler:It a waste of tax money if we are going for the best in everything.
The present LEO setup is already "More then a match for our known adversaries " so why upgrade.
Should spend more on training and develop effective doctrines in all forms of deployment -
Yeah......overkill should be the way to go in a battlefield.....Nobody wants a half dead enemy suddenly start shootin our asses from behind when our forces passed by the so called half dead enemy rite??Originally posted by ray243:Reason? SImple...two words. Over kill.
-
u mean if we kena one direct hit by Pt91 gun our leo still can survive ah?Originally posted by justcooler:It a waste of tax money if we are going for the best in everything.
The present LEO setup is already "More then a match for our known adversaries " so why upgrade.
Should spend more on training and develop effective doctrines in all forms of deployment -
one hit still can survive...early chobham maaa
-
-
So that it will looks cooler.
-
So as to extend its useful life.Originally posted by limywv:whats the point of upgrading it, really?
-
In May 2006, "No Trophy for FCS, Iraq Troops – Raytheon HTK APS Selected" explained RAFAEL's Trophy active protection system, which can defend against threats like anti-tank missiles, incoming tank shells, and even EFP land mines. Israel had delayed full deployment on own its tanks and APCs for budgetary reasons, but the lessons of the 2006 war in Lebanon drove home the need, and Trophy is headed into production and fielding as part of Israel's Tefen procurement plan.
Now, the USA may have reached similar conclusions. From FBO Solicitation #N0017808R1002:
"The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, intends to purchase an Active Protection System from Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd., Haifa, Israel. The Trophy Active Protection System is the only known devise currently available that demonstrates a high technical maturity level of TRL 9 and robust logistics trail incumbent with current fielding activities and has demonstrated performance versus multiple threats with validated test data. A solicitation will not be posted. Contract award is estimated to be November 2007. "
Technology Readiness Level 9 refers to items proven in either operatational evaluation (OpEval) or actual mission operations, as opposed to system development (TRL 3-7) or even completion (TRL
. RAFAEL also unveiled a Trophy Light system at Britain's DSEi 2007 show for deployment on smaller vehicles, including its Golan mine-resistant vehicle.
Technically, Israeli rival IMI's "Iron Fist" APS, which can be deployed on lighter vehicles just like Trophy Lite, may also qualify under TRL 9; there are reports that it has been deployed with some NATO armies.
Raytheon is also developing a "hit to kill" active protection system as part of the Future Combat Systems program, but Jane's Defense Weekly reported on Oct 18/07 that the US Army has ordered design changes to that system after some rocket motors in an APS interceptor showed 'splittage' in recent testing (TRL 5-7, judged TRL 3 in May 2007).
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usa-ordering-trophy-active-protection-systems-04301/#more
Maybe we can get or develop an APS system for our Leopards. -
like the korean did
-
A sucessful live test of the Leo2A6(M-packet version)'s protection against a powerful IED in Afganistan.
Germany gets thank-you note from Canadian IED survivor
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDAmg4Mf8ayndp7h5prO30wESG6A
OTTAWA - A Canadian officer in Afghanistan sent a personal thank you to the German government after he and his crew rumbling along in a tank borrowed from the NATO ally survived a powerful Taliban roadside bomb blast.
"My crew stumbled upon an (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6)M-packet," said the unidentified officer in an email to German defence officials about the specially-designed battle tank.
"It worked as it should."
The crew of four was battered by the blast and the driver broke a hip, but otherwise they were fine.
The note, passed to Berlin through a Canadian defence attache, has been quoted in the German media, but Canada's Defence Department was loath to acknowledge its existence.
Interview requests with both army and defence officials in Ottawa were denied and in what has become a troubling pattern for the department, it released only a series of written answers to questions about the incident posed by The Canadian Press.
The 13-line note failed to explain the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the incident.
A defence analyst said Canadian officials' silence mystifies him when they have an opportunity to trumpet such a success, particularly since the tanks' formidable presence has helped contribute to a decline in civilian casualties in their areas of operation.
"The Leopards are an extremely accurate direct fire weapon, far more accurate than air strikes," said Alain Pellerin, a retired colonel, and executive director of the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations.
"Civilian casualties is a major issue for both Canadians and Afghans and the tanks are proving their worth."
In deploying the army's older Leopard C1 tanks in the fall of 2006, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor faced accusations in the House of Commons that the Conservatives were escalating the war.
The Conservatives' insisted that tanks, sometimes by their very presence, save lives.
The unidentified tank officer, part of a contingent of 2,500 Canadian soldiers serving in the volatile Kandahar region, told the Germans there likely would have been casualties among the crew had they been in any other type of vehicle.
The majority of the 73 soldiers killed in Afghanistan have died because their vehicles have run over improvised explosives, including seven casualties in the current rotation.
Despite three days of repeated requests, the Canadian military refused to shed much light on the incident.
It acknowledged the tank was damaged during the recent battle of Arghandaub, which took place in early November, north of Kandahar, and that one tanker was injured.
A stipulation of borrowing the 42-tonne iron monsters from the Germans was that they be returned in the same condition.
Although the tank was nowhere near wrecked, a German Army official who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the Canadians will likely keep vehicle and pay out its roughly C $6.4 million cost.
Canadian officials refused to say whether that is the case.
Last spring the Conservative government announced it was going to borrow 20 modern Leopard C2A6 tanks to meet immediate combat needs in Afghanistan. The existing Leopard C1s were deemed too old to withstand the rigours and oppressive heat of the Afghan desert.
The German tanks - borrowed at no cost - were upgraded with anti-mine protection and began arriving in Kandahar in mid-August along with the latest rotation of infantry from the Royal 22nd Regiment.
Over the long-term, the Conservatives plan to replace the borrowed tanks with relatively new ones purchased from the surplus stock of 100 Dutch Leopards.
Pellerin said it is imperative that National Defence follow through on intention to upgrade those tanks with the latest mine-resistence armour kits.
The government was supposed to take delivery of the Dutch tanks this fall, but the department has refused to say what the status of the project might be. -
Which country's military like to admit that they are equipped with technologically inferior equipment? Lau Kui ma!Originally posted by tankee1981:A sucessful live test of the Leo2A6(M-packet version)'s protection against a powerful IED in Afganistan.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDAmg4Mf8ayndp7h5prO30wESG6A
Better to keep quiet and quickly get some stop gap solution. Then plan to get new equipment because cannot La Kui again. Hope the SAF learn something here and duly upgrade our 2A4s or the Lau Kui incident will fall on the SAF. Kaisu is better than Lau Kui ma. Little red dot cannot lose face.
-
Leo2 A4 armor is inadequate in face of modern AT weapons. Remember it is 80's tech, more than 25 yrs old. I see need to upgrade turret armor.
-
I dont see the need to upgrade the Leopard 2A4 to 2A6 standard yet. No enemy in the region has the kind of weapon to match it yet.
We could use the money to invest in local military industries with the ultimate purpose of maintaining and improving the Leopard though, so in future when we need it we have the skills to do everything locally, saving cost and time also. -
actually, i believe eventually they will. the 2A4, while good enough for now and in yrs to come (believe it or not, leopards share the same composite armor and gun as the abram, and no abram has been destroyed by any forces except friendly forces before), but well as STK goes, prob will evolve the 2A4 into smth better next time. same as the SM1s and AMX13s. but the upgrades wont be tt noticeable, probably things such as sighting systems,mayb change the side mirrors? they'll probably get ripped by local vegetation
-
Erm no, the Leo2 does not share the same composite armour package as the Abrams or Challanger series of tanks.Originally posted by acurara:actually, i believe eventually they will. the 2A4, while good enough for now and in yrs to come (believe it or not, leopards share the same composite armor and gun as the abram, and no abram has been destroyed by any forces except friendly forces before), but well as STK goes, prob will evolve the 2A4 into smth better next time. same as the SM1s and AMX13s. but the upgrades wont be tt noticeable, probably things such as sighting systems,mayb change the side mirrors? they'll probably get ripped by local vegetation
And Abrams and Challanger tanks have been disabled by enemy fire before, no MBT in the world is totally invulnerable, but the armour helps. -
While its true that Leo 2 A4's armour may not be the latest, but we should also remember that we are not in immediate danger of warring with anyone at the moment. Not even close for that matter. Its not going to be cheap upgrading it, heck its probably cheaper to buy refurbished A6. Considering we are in no immediate danger of being invaded, I think the A4 is more than sufficient. Personally, I'd rather the money be spent on implementing the SAR-21 SAF wide or at least army wide. Many reservist units are still using M16. If SAR-21 is miles ahead of M-16 as they claim, why not implement it army wide?