Hero 120 drones have  60km range kinda overkill for a tank , and on the shematics it  looks like they take half the turret space on one side of the loader. 

Kinda looks like you can have 10 rd autoloader and 4 hero drones or 20 rd loader and no drones.

I don't understand why everybody is so focussed on some details as if the Pather is a real tank about to go into production. Also the marketing buzzwords they throw around attract a lot of attention. The intresting details is not "we can mount drones on it too".

As some of you may know, I am the UK advisor to KMW. I would like to correct a few misconceptions. 

1. KF51 is not a serious MBT proposal, for sure if a customer asked to buy it, Rheinmetall would build it. It is really an attempt to market their new 130 mm gun. It is a fight between Rheinmetall and Nexter to decide whether 130 mm or 140 mm is chosen. Ultimately, the NATO standard 120 mm smoothbore tank caliber will not change until America chooses one or the other, or offers its own option. My view is that we will see a 140 mm gun based on Rheinmetall's current 130 mm. 

2. I don't think MGCS is going to fail. A year ago I might have agreed with Emeric, but now the situation in Ukraine has lit a fire under MBT modernisation. I think the EMBT technology demonstrator was far more indicative of a future European MBT than KF51 Panther. EMBT as preview of MGCS is about working in tandem with a robotic wingman MBT, it is about integrated APS and CUAS defences, it is about networked fires. 

3. While Rheinmetall is extremely ambitious, it cannot go it alone with a Leopard 3, not without KMW, because its production capacity is finite. KMW and Nexter are working very well together and that Franco-German alliance was evident at Eurosatory last week. 

4. KMW previewed its new RCT120 mm remote turret on its new tracked Boxer vehicle. This new turret is ideal for robotic combat vehicles, but can also be mounted on a standard Leopard 2 chassis or wheeled Boxer. The lightness of the turret, 7-8 tonnes versus 25 tonnes for the Leopard 2 turret, will reduce MBT weight substantially, allowing extra armour to be added to the hull, strengthening protection for the crew compartment, like T-14 Armata. The same turret can also be mounted on wheeled Boxer providing an MGS capability like Centauro or Type-16 but with a full-fat 120 mm smoothbore gun. Commonality of ammunition and turret for vehicles will simplify training and logistics. 

So, there are plenty of options and plenty of reasons to be optimistic. 

Guardsman26 said:

KF51 is not a serious MBT proposal, for sure if a customer asked to buy it, Rheinmetall would build it. It is really an attempt to market their new 130 mm gun. It is a fight between Rheinmetall and Nexter to decide whether 130 mm or 140 mm is chosen.

This is what I am writing since the day the KF51 was presented.

Guardsman26 said:

2. I don't think MGCS is going to fail. A year ago I might have agreed with Emeric, but now the situation in Ukraine has lit a fire under MBT modernisation.

One has little to do with the other. From the German MoD in house perspective it actually makes the failure/cancelation of MGCS more likely. Since now funding for a new MBT will be made available quickly. If the political backing of the program dwindles its done.

Guardsman26 said:

3. While Rheinmetall is extremely ambitious, it cannot go it alone with a Leopard 3, not without KMW

Yes but this still does not mean it has to be MGCS. KMW can develope the Leopard 2 together just as they did with Leopard 2. The thing is in Germany practically nobody wants a Leclerc 2 or DeGaul. Everybody wants a Leopard 3.

Guardsman26 said:

The lightness of the turret, 7-8 tonnes versus 25 tonnes for the Leopard 2 turret

What is the protection level of RCT120? K6 all round?

Guardsman26 said:

So, there are plenty of options and plenty of reasons to be optimistic.

I am very optimistic... I can't wait for the Leopard 3 program to start :P

I am sure a Leopard 3 program will start. This could well be in partnership with the UK (Lion)? 

Protection for RCT120 is modular. 

Guardsman26 said...

Protection for RCT120 is modular. 

Now there's the defence salesman answer for "I'm not going to tell you"

Guardsman26 said:

Protection for RCT120 is modular.

I figured that.
For the 8 t version you talked about. That saves so much weight against a Leo 2 turret? Because if the protection level is not the same or at least comparable the weight isn't as well.

Imagine a Leo 2 hull with the RCT120 mounted on it. You'd need a an enlarged crew compartment that would increase hull weight and height slightly but overall protected volume would be significantly reduced. So, in theory, you would have a MBT with basic weight of 50 tonnes offering the same level of crew protection as Leopard 2A7 at 64 tonnes. This would allow you to add significant extra armour and still come in below 60 tonnes. Anyway, the point to make is that remote weapon turrets are the future, just as unmanned naval gun turrets replaced manned ones after WW2. 

Guardsman26 said:

Ultimately, the NATO standard 120 mm smoothbore tank caliber will not change until America chooses one or the other

Remembering very well how the U.S. tried to kill the 120 mm smootbore as overly powerful and instead insisted on the now totally forgotten 105 mm for its Abrams tanks, I sort of doubt that the U.S. knows best  what the future tank gun caliber should be. 

Guardsman26 said:

Anyway, the point to make is that remote weapon turrets are the future,

I agree.

Never the less an MBT should have a turret that it protected well enough so its duelling capable. Which means the frontal arc needs to be protected against its counterpart. I seriously doubt a 8 t remote turret has such protection.
Putting a new turret on an old hull is hardly what I would call future proof design. It might be an intermediate step to bridge some time but a complete new design is needed. Personally I think the RCT120 turret is far more intresting for non MBT applications.