This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 27-Sep by stancrist
Latest 25-Sep by stancrist
Latest 24-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 16-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 7-Jul by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 3-Sep by Farmplinker
Latest 1-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 29-Aug by EmericD
"A 12.7 mm coaxial machine gun complements the main weapon. Several options for the integration of remotely controlled weapon stations (RCWS)"
"Integrating a launcher for HERO 120 loitering munition from Rheinmetall’s partner UVision into the turret is equally possible"
"The KF51 Panther can be easily updated and equipped with the latest capabilities and functions. Its advanced, modular, open NGVA system architecture enables iterative development, which can then be updated in harmony with innovation cycles."
^^ ...Sure they never mention any modularity or options.
Precisely where in those statements do you see mention of any options for coax weapons?
It feels very much like the KF51 and the EMBT also shown at Eurosatory are basically designing to the same requirement (2+2 crew, 120-130mm main gun with autoloader for ~20 rounds, RWS, possible UAS integration, etc.) and one of the other common features is a 12.7mm coaxial (as used in Leclerc). So possibly we're seeing two national "takes" on the converging requirements for MGCS. The absence of 140mm gun on EMBT suggests a desire to see what could be delivered sooner.
It feels very much like the KF51 and the EMBT also shown at Eurosatory are basically designing to the same requirement
Not really. Its more like they are desigend from the same base. Using the exisiting Leopard 2 hull and putting a modified turret onto it.
Currently the fourth crewmember is mostly there because there is space left either inside the hull or the turret. This is because the old components are larger than they need to be.
The discussion if a fourth crewmember is needed is not decided yet. Same with the UAS integration. So there is no requirement for this.
The other option is to pool these capabilities at company level and use specialised vehicles for that. Which IMHO makes more sense. Because it helps keeping system weight down and is most likely cheaper.
A fourth crew member might be desirable in any case. To operate the RWS and assist the commander especially in use of a battlefield management system. But as mentioned so far no decisions.
A complete new designed tank would most likly be smaller and not have much space left.
The absence of 140mm gun on EMBT suggests a desire to see what could be delivered sooner.
This is a definet no.
Nexter wants to mount their 140 mm. The french side of the MGCS has demanded that this gun is used. Which is one of the problems and a possible breaking point of the program. Since the German side wants the 130 mm which does the same but in a smaller package.
So possibly we're seeing two national "takes" on the converging requirements for MGCS.
This is true in a way. But its more like Rheinmetall wants to show that the French side is not needed and the Leopard 3 can be developed all "at home" for similar cost.
Looks like its Tank Week:
Not much is revealed, but most interesting to me is the new Abrams is likely to also feature the M230LF 30X113mm as a replacement for the .50BMG in the RWS. Probably with airburst rounds for anti drone / anti infantry.
Looks like its Tank Week:
Yep. The other players have to react to Rheinmetall making such a fuss. Otherwise it could look like they are falling behind.
Another intresting new is that Poland will team up with South Korea and develope a polish version of the K2, the K2PL, which can than be build locally.
I get the 4th crew member can be added instead of the now useless hull ammo rack, but how do they rationalize a small round count for the main gun and adding relatively large loitering missiles to the complement instead of more cannon rounds.
Hero 120 is not a small drone with 60km range
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
but how do they rationalize a small round count for the main gun and adding relatively large loitering missiles to the complement instead of more cannon rounds.
I what way rationalize? They just say it can be fitted. Should some customer ask for it. Since small battlefield drones are currently en vouge it makes sense from a marketing point of view to adress this.
Also the space in which the drone launcher system is supposed to be fitted is basically the space the loader occupied befor. The autoloader is in the turret bustle and its capacity constrained by the dimensions of it.
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".