- Messages
- 4,784
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
The Fire Power, Protection (Survivability) and Mobility defines the three basic characteristics of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) that first deployed in September 1916 and dominated battlefields throughout the rest of the 20th Century and beyond
Thanks to their survivability, long-range weapons, sensors and ability to deliver firepower accurately, the MBTs can support the infantry forces on the battlefield with instantaneous, accurate and direct fire support whenever and wherever it is needed either on the move or stationery.
As one of the many types of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) found on the modern battlefield, tanks have been produced in all shapes and sizes throughout their 104 years of evolution but their ability of carrying firepower on the battlefield with a protected crew and weapons has remained essential.
Even though the obsolescence and death of the MBT have been declared many times before especially when the first ATGM was deployed at the battlefield in early 1970s, the MBT has repeatedly proven itself after each incidents and managed to survive, not vanquished though it was humbled with the introduction of wire-guided anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs).
Since the deployment of first British Mark I heavy tanks (weighing 28 tonnes and powered by a six cylinder petrol engine generating 105hp it was the first operational tank in the British Army and in the world) at the battlefield during Battle of Somme in September 1916, there has been a race between tanks and anti-tank weapons. Even once the anti-tank weapons had the upper hand (at Yom Kippur War in October 1973 when the Israelis had suffered heavy tank losses due to Soviet-made man portable Sagger ATGMs and rocket launchers), thanks to deployment of advanced armour systems (including passive and reactive armour systems) and effective hard-kill Active Protection Systems (the APSs are indeed operational since December 1983 with Russian Drozd but they cannot be effectively used until necessary advancements had achieved in computer and sensor technologies in 2000s) coupled with a Missile Warning System (MWS) such as Israel’s Trophy System (ASPRO-A, adopted for use on the Merkava Mk4 in 2009 and tested by the IDF Ground Forces Command by firing a dud ATGM in December 2010 is able to detect, classify and engage all known chemical energy [CE] threats including; recoilless rifles, ATGMs, anti-tank rockets, HEAT tank rounds, and RPGs) the balance between tanks and anti-tank weapons have been restored during last decade. The Trophy APS deployed on Merkava MBTs during Gaza conflicts in 2011 and 2014 proved that it could prevent damage to tank from asymmetric threats, such as those from RPGs and ATGMs in urban areas and diminishes necessity for the integration of add-on armour kits which lead to increase in MBT total weight and profile. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, the Trophy APS destroyed around 15 ATGM’s and RPG’s shot at Merkava MBTs. Not a single ATGM hit a Merkava MBT.
It is widely accepted that the breakthroughs in anti-tank weapon systems development and ease of their obtainment have made the modern battlefield more dangerous than ever for the MBTs. Thanks to their ease of operation the third generation ATGMs are nowadays can be used with tactical skill, including “swarm” techniques (firing multiple ATGM rounds at the same target at the same time) at ambushes during MOUT-operations in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen with few technical errors by non-state forces and terrorists. As it was proved in recent conflicts, unless they are equipped with state-of-the art technology and effective hard-kill Active Protection System (APS) coupled with a Missile Warning System (MWS) even the contemporary MBTs, featuring an innovative design that combines maximum fire-power and manoeuvrability with high crew safety, are still vulnerable on a battlefield in which long-range, advanced guided third generation ATGMs have proliferated.
During last decade at asymmetric MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) operations carried out in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, where the anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) have destroyed far more armoured vehicles than tank main guns have, the MBTs were increasingly deployed as a “direct fire support system” for deployed infantry forces. But as it was experienced with high loss records deployments of the MBTs in such role exposes high vulnerability especially against ATGMs as well as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and mines. During recent conflicts many MBTs that utilized as a “direct fire support system” have been hit and knocked out of commission by second (such as TOW 2A) and third generation (such as Kornet-E) ATGMs used with asymmetrical warfare tactics.
Never the less at recent conflicts it was once again shown that contrary to ATGM, IED and mine threats the MBT is still a potent force and if fitted with an effective APS coupled with a MWS and utilized under true tactics (including improved cooperation with infantry to minimize exposure to long-range attacks) in the hands of well-trained, highly professional crew the awesome power of the MBTs have not yet superseded by any other weapon system on the battlefield.
It is clear that forces fighting today’s conflicts, where the hybrid and asymmetrical warfare tactics are implemented, still need MBTs and heavy armour because the MBTs and heavy armoured formations are the only units able to manoeuvre on a battlefield where an adversary has an effective standoff weapons capability, particularly ATGMs.
Will the MBT Continue to Play a Role on Tomorrow’s Battlefields?
History of the late 20th and early 21th century has proven that the MBT still is the backbone of operations of Land Forces in symmetric as well as in asymmetric operations and will remain the central element of the ground force structure, with a continued role of primary importance in the future battlefield.
It is widely accepted by the experts that there is still a necessity for heavy armoured vehicles for ground combat in future’s military strategy so the MBTs will still be around for their bi centenary in 2116. However, due to new and improved technologies the design of the future MBT in the western world would be completely different from current designs featuring stealth technologies, unmanned turret systems, active electric armour, electric or hybrid drive systems that reduce engine heat signatures, lasers and energy weapons.
Recent Military Trends in MBT Field
While there has been a declining MBT market in West at the end of Cold War (as stated by the European Defence Agency the number of heavy tanks in the EU member states has fallen from 15,000 to only 5,000 since the turn of the millennium), this has not been the case in the Middle East and in the Far East countries such as China (China achieved the serial production of the Type 80 MBT that represents a major advances in Chinese tank design since it incorporates many developments including stabilization and computerized fire-control system in late 1980s and in early 1990s the Type 90-II MBT [also known as MBT 2000] appeared which incorporates considerable improvements in firepower, protection and mobility over previous Chinese MBTs), Japan (in 1990 Japanese consortium headed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries started production of indigenous Type 90 MBT that is still in Japan Ground Self-Defence Force service but has not been offered for export) and the Republic of Korea (under a joint US-South Korean project entirely South Korean-built Type 88 K1 MBT was developed and entered Republic of Korean Army service in 1987 and first production vehicle of its improved variant dubbed K1A1 MBT that fitted with 120mm smoothbore main gun was produced in 1996) which have developed their own MBT building industries and manufactured indigenous MBT solutions some of which already succeeded to secure export orders.
Starting from the beginning of 2000s consideration has been given both to lighter, smaller and air transportable medium MBTs and AFVs with identical firepower to supplement heavy MBT fleets and fitting old tanks with more powerful guns, powerpacks, new generation optics and fire control systems, which in time turned into a big business all over the world. However, as a result of experiences gained during counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the threat mainly stemmed from lightly armed (main weapons against armoured vehicles were RPGs and IEDs and/or mines) opposition forces (insurgents/rebels) with poor tactics, conventional MBTs received further upgrade meant to keep them ahead of the threat. In this context MBTs were fitted with a 12,7mm Remotely Operated Weapons Station (to allow the commander to shoot at targets from the safety of inside the tank), underbelly mine protection kit (to counter the latest mine and IED threats), add-on armour kits at the front and sides (such as the brick-like M19 ARAT 1 and M32 ARAT 2 on M1A1/A2 Abrams) to improve protection against Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) with shaped-charge warhead and a tank-to-infantry telephone (allowing tank crew to communicate with nearby infantry). Starting from 2014 opposition forces (non-state military forces and proxy fighters) in Syria, Iraq and Yemen gained some experiences (learn to utilize asymmetric warfare tactics against armoured vehicles in urban environment) and captured/taken over (from Syria or Iraq Government bases) or somehow obtained substantial amount of ATGMs, which allowed them to destroy many armoured vehicles including MBTs.
The US (provided weapons including ATGM missiles to rebels fighting the Assad regime and ISIS in Syria), Russia and Iran that send modern ATGMs along with other weaponry to arm and train proxy fighters and non-state actors have also played an important role in the proliferation of the modern ATGMs in recent asymmetric MOUT operations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. As a result of their efforts in a very short period of time the ATGM becomes the single greatest threat to MBTs in MOUT operations. The heavy losses of MBTs in recent asymmetric MOUT operations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen has proved that unless they are fitted with modern armour package (including both modular armour and cage/slat armour) able to cope with urban warfare threats and an effective APS the modernized 1960 and 1970-vintage MBTs (such as; T-55VM, T-62M, T-72AV, T-72M1, M60A3, M60T, Leopard 2A4 and Merkava Mk2 and Mk3) and even the contemporary MBTs with heavy thick armour (Merkava Mk IV, T-90A, M1A1, M1A2S and AMX-56 Leclerc) are vulnerable against ATGMs deployed with asymmetric warfare tactics. Contemporary Western world MBTs such as Challenger 2, Leopard 2A6, Leclerc, and M1 Abrams are indeed very effective tanks and could certainly outclass Soviet-era MBTs but they have had certain vulnerabilities (especially against ATGMs) exposed over the past few years during the asymmetric MOUT operations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
Conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen have fostered willingness of customers to check and modernize their MBT inventory for adequate firepower, mobility and protection (including both armour upgrade and hard kill APS that is seen as an essential capability in terms of protecting against modern threats) to cope with symmetric and asymmetric threats. In this context both the US (first batch order aimed to retrofit M1A2SEPv2 Abrams MBTs deployed in Europe but Trophy APS also included in SEPv3 upgrade) and Germany (one tank company it plans to deploy as part NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force/VJTF) has stepped up their efforts to equip their M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs with Rafael’s Trophy APS. Rafael successfully tested Trophy APS fitted to a German Army Leopard 2 MBT in 2019 summer. While Rafael completed the delivery of first batch of 29 Trophy APS to the US in September 2019, the German Army tank company unit is expected to receive the Trophy systems in 2022. The advantage of APSs, an additional safeguard for the crew, is that they are lighter than add-on armour kits, which cause increase in weight and profile of the MBTs.
The introduction of Armata combat platforms (T-14 Armata MBT, T-15 Heavy Armoured Combat Vehicle [ACV], and T-16 Tank Recovery Vehicle) by Russia in 2015 was a wake-up call to the Western world. Presented to the public for the first time at the Victory Day parade on Red Square on May 9, 2015, the T-14 MBT is equipped with fourth generation Malachit Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) and the Afghanit APS, has fully digitized equipment (with a high proportion of software), an unmanned turret and an insulated armoured capsule for the crew. As the new future Russian MBT threat to the Western world the T-14 Armata MBT has caused a substantial step up both in MBT upgrade efforts and in the development of next generation MBTs in Western world.
As a response to the new Russian T-14 MBT and to meet the requirements for the immediate future (by 2030) many of the contemporary Western world MBTs such as M1 Abrams, Leopard 2A6, Leclerc and Challenger 2E are undergoing comprehensive high-tech upgrades that would turn them into a more reliable, effective and lethal and allowing them to be a key asset in the land portion of the evolving multi-domain battle. But even they receive comprehensive upgrade contemporary MBTs are still not quite the radical new MBTs that would meet the requirements of Land Forces/Armies in beyond the immediate future (after 2030). For this purpose, next generation MBT development programmes have been launched both in Europe and in the US, which is a subject of another article. France and Germany (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Nexter and Rheinmetall) are collaborating together to produce the next generation MBT under the MGCS (Main Ground Combat System) Project, which is at an initial stage and aims to replace both the German Leopard-2 and the French AMX-56 Leclerc MBTs with a common design next generation MBT in about 2035. Germany is interested in acquiring more than 300 vehicles while France up to 250 vehicles. Polish MoD also declared its interest in joining the MGCS Programme in August 2019. Making the start of the MGCS procurement program KMW, Nexter Systems and Rheinmetall AG established an ARGE in December 2019. On April 28, 2020 Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on its website that German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-KARRENBAUER and her French counterpart, Florence PARLY, have signed a Framework Agreement on the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) Project. In May 2020 under the MGCS Project the partners and the German Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), acting in the name of Germany and France, have signed a contract for the “System Architecture Definition Study – Part 1 (SADS Part 1). This contract represents the industrial starting gun for a MGCS Demonstration Phase.
The US Army on the other hand is exploring next generation MBT concepts (including both manned and unmanned tank variants) as part of its Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) Programme to replace the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams MBT fleet.
Thanks to their survivability, long-range weapons, sensors and ability to deliver firepower accurately, the MBTs can support the infantry forces on the battlefield with instantaneous, accurate and direct fire support whenever and wherever it is needed either on the move or stationery.
As one of the many types of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) found on the modern battlefield, tanks have been produced in all shapes and sizes throughout their 104 years of evolution but their ability of carrying firepower on the battlefield with a protected crew and weapons has remained essential.
Even though the obsolescence and death of the MBT have been declared many times before especially when the first ATGM was deployed at the battlefield in early 1970s, the MBT has repeatedly proven itself after each incidents and managed to survive, not vanquished though it was humbled with the introduction of wire-guided anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs).
Since the deployment of first British Mark I heavy tanks (weighing 28 tonnes and powered by a six cylinder petrol engine generating 105hp it was the first operational tank in the British Army and in the world) at the battlefield during Battle of Somme in September 1916, there has been a race between tanks and anti-tank weapons. Even once the anti-tank weapons had the upper hand (at Yom Kippur War in October 1973 when the Israelis had suffered heavy tank losses due to Soviet-made man portable Sagger ATGMs and rocket launchers), thanks to deployment of advanced armour systems (including passive and reactive armour systems) and effective hard-kill Active Protection Systems (the APSs are indeed operational since December 1983 with Russian Drozd but they cannot be effectively used until necessary advancements had achieved in computer and sensor technologies in 2000s) coupled with a Missile Warning System (MWS) such as Israel’s Trophy System (ASPRO-A, adopted for use on the Merkava Mk4 in 2009 and tested by the IDF Ground Forces Command by firing a dud ATGM in December 2010 is able to detect, classify and engage all known chemical energy [CE] threats including; recoilless rifles, ATGMs, anti-tank rockets, HEAT tank rounds, and RPGs) the balance between tanks and anti-tank weapons have been restored during last decade. The Trophy APS deployed on Merkava MBTs during Gaza conflicts in 2011 and 2014 proved that it could prevent damage to tank from asymmetric threats, such as those from RPGs and ATGMs in urban areas and diminishes necessity for the integration of add-on armour kits which lead to increase in MBT total weight and profile. During the 2014 Gaza conflict, the Trophy APS destroyed around 15 ATGM’s and RPG’s shot at Merkava MBTs. Not a single ATGM hit a Merkava MBT.
It is widely accepted that the breakthroughs in anti-tank weapon systems development and ease of their obtainment have made the modern battlefield more dangerous than ever for the MBTs. Thanks to their ease of operation the third generation ATGMs are nowadays can be used with tactical skill, including “swarm” techniques (firing multiple ATGM rounds at the same target at the same time) at ambushes during MOUT-operations in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen with few technical errors by non-state forces and terrorists. As it was proved in recent conflicts, unless they are equipped with state-of-the art technology and effective hard-kill Active Protection System (APS) coupled with a Missile Warning System (MWS) even the contemporary MBTs, featuring an innovative design that combines maximum fire-power and manoeuvrability with high crew safety, are still vulnerable on a battlefield in which long-range, advanced guided third generation ATGMs have proliferated.
During last decade at asymmetric MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) operations carried out in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, where the anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) have destroyed far more armoured vehicles than tank main guns have, the MBTs were increasingly deployed as a “direct fire support system” for deployed infantry forces. But as it was experienced with high loss records deployments of the MBTs in such role exposes high vulnerability especially against ATGMs as well as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and mines. During recent conflicts many MBTs that utilized as a “direct fire support system” have been hit and knocked out of commission by second (such as TOW 2A) and third generation (such as Kornet-E) ATGMs used with asymmetrical warfare tactics.
Never the less at recent conflicts it was once again shown that contrary to ATGM, IED and mine threats the MBT is still a potent force and if fitted with an effective APS coupled with a MWS and utilized under true tactics (including improved cooperation with infantry to minimize exposure to long-range attacks) in the hands of well-trained, highly professional crew the awesome power of the MBTs have not yet superseded by any other weapon system on the battlefield.
It is clear that forces fighting today’s conflicts, where the hybrid and asymmetrical warfare tactics are implemented, still need MBTs and heavy armour because the MBTs and heavy armoured formations are the only units able to manoeuvre on a battlefield where an adversary has an effective standoff weapons capability, particularly ATGMs.
Will the MBT Continue to Play a Role on Tomorrow’s Battlefields?
History of the late 20th and early 21th century has proven that the MBT still is the backbone of operations of Land Forces in symmetric as well as in asymmetric operations and will remain the central element of the ground force structure, with a continued role of primary importance in the future battlefield.
It is widely accepted by the experts that there is still a necessity for heavy armoured vehicles for ground combat in future’s military strategy so the MBTs will still be around for their bi centenary in 2116. However, due to new and improved technologies the design of the future MBT in the western world would be completely different from current designs featuring stealth technologies, unmanned turret systems, active electric armour, electric or hybrid drive systems that reduce engine heat signatures, lasers and energy weapons.
Recent Military Trends in MBT Field
While there has been a declining MBT market in West at the end of Cold War (as stated by the European Defence Agency the number of heavy tanks in the EU member states has fallen from 15,000 to only 5,000 since the turn of the millennium), this has not been the case in the Middle East and in the Far East countries such as China (China achieved the serial production of the Type 80 MBT that represents a major advances in Chinese tank design since it incorporates many developments including stabilization and computerized fire-control system in late 1980s and in early 1990s the Type 90-II MBT [also known as MBT 2000] appeared which incorporates considerable improvements in firepower, protection and mobility over previous Chinese MBTs), Japan (in 1990 Japanese consortium headed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries started production of indigenous Type 90 MBT that is still in Japan Ground Self-Defence Force service but has not been offered for export) and the Republic of Korea (under a joint US-South Korean project entirely South Korean-built Type 88 K1 MBT was developed and entered Republic of Korean Army service in 1987 and first production vehicle of its improved variant dubbed K1A1 MBT that fitted with 120mm smoothbore main gun was produced in 1996) which have developed their own MBT building industries and manufactured indigenous MBT solutions some of which already succeeded to secure export orders.
Starting from the beginning of 2000s consideration has been given both to lighter, smaller and air transportable medium MBTs and AFVs with identical firepower to supplement heavy MBT fleets and fitting old tanks with more powerful guns, powerpacks, new generation optics and fire control systems, which in time turned into a big business all over the world. However, as a result of experiences gained during counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the threat mainly stemmed from lightly armed (main weapons against armoured vehicles were RPGs and IEDs and/or mines) opposition forces (insurgents/rebels) with poor tactics, conventional MBTs received further upgrade meant to keep them ahead of the threat. In this context MBTs were fitted with a 12,7mm Remotely Operated Weapons Station (to allow the commander to shoot at targets from the safety of inside the tank), underbelly mine protection kit (to counter the latest mine and IED threats), add-on armour kits at the front and sides (such as the brick-like M19 ARAT 1 and M32 ARAT 2 on M1A1/A2 Abrams) to improve protection against Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) with shaped-charge warhead and a tank-to-infantry telephone (allowing tank crew to communicate with nearby infantry). Starting from 2014 opposition forces (non-state military forces and proxy fighters) in Syria, Iraq and Yemen gained some experiences (learn to utilize asymmetric warfare tactics against armoured vehicles in urban environment) and captured/taken over (from Syria or Iraq Government bases) or somehow obtained substantial amount of ATGMs, which allowed them to destroy many armoured vehicles including MBTs.
The US (provided weapons including ATGM missiles to rebels fighting the Assad regime and ISIS in Syria), Russia and Iran that send modern ATGMs along with other weaponry to arm and train proxy fighters and non-state actors have also played an important role in the proliferation of the modern ATGMs in recent asymmetric MOUT operations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. As a result of their efforts in a very short period of time the ATGM becomes the single greatest threat to MBTs in MOUT operations. The heavy losses of MBTs in recent asymmetric MOUT operations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen has proved that unless they are fitted with modern armour package (including both modular armour and cage/slat armour) able to cope with urban warfare threats and an effective APS the modernized 1960 and 1970-vintage MBTs (such as; T-55VM, T-62M, T-72AV, T-72M1, M60A3, M60T, Leopard 2A4 and Merkava Mk2 and Mk3) and even the contemporary MBTs with heavy thick armour (Merkava Mk IV, T-90A, M1A1, M1A2S and AMX-56 Leclerc) are vulnerable against ATGMs deployed with asymmetric warfare tactics. Contemporary Western world MBTs such as Challenger 2, Leopard 2A6, Leclerc, and M1 Abrams are indeed very effective tanks and could certainly outclass Soviet-era MBTs but they have had certain vulnerabilities (especially against ATGMs) exposed over the past few years during the asymmetric MOUT operations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
Conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen have fostered willingness of customers to check and modernize their MBT inventory for adequate firepower, mobility and protection (including both armour upgrade and hard kill APS that is seen as an essential capability in terms of protecting against modern threats) to cope with symmetric and asymmetric threats. In this context both the US (first batch order aimed to retrofit M1A2SEPv2 Abrams MBTs deployed in Europe but Trophy APS also included in SEPv3 upgrade) and Germany (one tank company it plans to deploy as part NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force/VJTF) has stepped up their efforts to equip their M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 MBTs with Rafael’s Trophy APS. Rafael successfully tested Trophy APS fitted to a German Army Leopard 2 MBT in 2019 summer. While Rafael completed the delivery of first batch of 29 Trophy APS to the US in September 2019, the German Army tank company unit is expected to receive the Trophy systems in 2022. The advantage of APSs, an additional safeguard for the crew, is that they are lighter than add-on armour kits, which cause increase in weight and profile of the MBTs.
The introduction of Armata combat platforms (T-14 Armata MBT, T-15 Heavy Armoured Combat Vehicle [ACV], and T-16 Tank Recovery Vehicle) by Russia in 2015 was a wake-up call to the Western world. Presented to the public for the first time at the Victory Day parade on Red Square on May 9, 2015, the T-14 MBT is equipped with fourth generation Malachit Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) and the Afghanit APS, has fully digitized equipment (with a high proportion of software), an unmanned turret and an insulated armoured capsule for the crew. As the new future Russian MBT threat to the Western world the T-14 Armata MBT has caused a substantial step up both in MBT upgrade efforts and in the development of next generation MBTs in Western world.
As a response to the new Russian T-14 MBT and to meet the requirements for the immediate future (by 2030) many of the contemporary Western world MBTs such as M1 Abrams, Leopard 2A6, Leclerc and Challenger 2E are undergoing comprehensive high-tech upgrades that would turn them into a more reliable, effective and lethal and allowing them to be a key asset in the land portion of the evolving multi-domain battle. But even they receive comprehensive upgrade contemporary MBTs are still not quite the radical new MBTs that would meet the requirements of Land Forces/Armies in beyond the immediate future (after 2030). For this purpose, next generation MBT development programmes have been launched both in Europe and in the US, which is a subject of another article. France and Germany (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Nexter and Rheinmetall) are collaborating together to produce the next generation MBT under the MGCS (Main Ground Combat System) Project, which is at an initial stage and aims to replace both the German Leopard-2 and the French AMX-56 Leclerc MBTs with a common design next generation MBT in about 2035. Germany is interested in acquiring more than 300 vehicles while France up to 250 vehicles. Polish MoD also declared its interest in joining the MGCS Programme in August 2019. Making the start of the MGCS procurement program KMW, Nexter Systems and Rheinmetall AG established an ARGE in December 2019. On April 28, 2020 Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on its website that German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-KARRENBAUER and her French counterpart, Florence PARLY, have signed a Framework Agreement on the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) Project. In May 2020 under the MGCS Project the partners and the German Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), acting in the name of Germany and France, have signed a contract for the “System Architecture Definition Study – Part 1 (SADS Part 1). This contract represents the industrial starting gun for a MGCS Demonstration Phase.
The US Army on the other hand is exploring next generation MBT concepts (including both manned and unmanned tank variants) as part of its Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) Programme to replace the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams MBT fleet.
