Jump to content

Poland Armed Forces Modernization.


Damian90
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)

Polish Minister of Defence in Washington D.C. talked with Secretary of Defence, MoD says everything is on the right track to procure M1A2SEPv3's and first tanks should be shipped to Poland next year, if everything goes as planned.

 


Tommorow Polish MoD will visit Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio.

Edited by Damian90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DK-DDAM said:

god you guys must have a logistical nightmare.. with all the differet spare parts you are gonna use :)

 

Not really. Of course there will be interim period which will be problematic. But in the end we will reduce number of tank types in active service to 1 or max 2.

 

Because currently we have Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2PLM1, Leopard 2A5, T-72M, T-72M1, T-72M1R, PT-91, PT-91MA, PT-91MA1.

Now, 250 M1A2SEPv3's will replace 250 T-72M, T-72M1, T-72M1R in active service.

 

All Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2PL's are meant to be upgraded to Leopard 2PLM1, and Leopard 2A5's are meant to be upgraded to Leopard 2A7PL.

 

From 2030 remaining T-72's, PT-91's and also Leopard 2's will start to be replaced by new MBT Wilk. Wilk might be M1A2SEPv3/v4 or K2PL or what ever. So from 2030 onwards we will start to reduce tank types to 1 or 2 as I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marko said:

Not saying the M1À2 SEP is a bad choice.

But its a forty year old design.

I realise its fire control and other key components have had numerous upgrades but still.

 

 

 

M1A2SEPv3's are all new builds. And to be frank, M1A2SEPv3 is a completely new design compared to older vehicles.

 

Besides, technology wise, how much different is M1A2SEPv3 compared to Leopard 2A7V or K2PL? Technology wise there is no difference.

 

While in the same time, next generation like MGCS or OMT are still in concept and development phase. It will be a long time before they will be avaiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The relevant question is, will a potential adversary have a radically better tank available in the forseeable future? The Armata might reach maturity, and it's "radically different", I agree. But is it "better"?

Is there a specific technological development that will make tanks obsolete in the next 15 years?

 

If the answer is No to both (and I think it is), then the M1A2 SEPv3 certainly is among the better choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The relevant question is, will a potential adversary have a radically better tank available in the forseeable future? The Armata might reach maturity, and it's "radically different", I agree. But is it "better"?

Is there a specific technological development that will make tanks obsolete in the next 15 years?

 

If the answer is No to both (and I think it is), then the M1A2 SEPv3 certainly is among the better choices.

 

And one of the most important factors is, that first M1A2SEPv3's will be ready and sent to Poland somewhere next year. Time is crucial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 5:33 AM, Damian90 said:

 

And one of the most important factors is, that first M1A2SEPv3's will be ready and sent to Poland somewhere next year. Time is crucial.

why the sense of urgency.?

Poland already has a very considerable armoured force.

The T-72 fleet are equal if not superior to any potential threat from the east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Marko said:

why the sense of urgency.?

Poland already has a very considerable armoured force.

The T-72 fleet are equal if not superior to any potential threat from the east.

Are you serious?! You consider obsolete T-72M and T-72M1 tanks as equal or superior to Bellarusian and Russian fleet of T-72B's and their modifications?!

Besides this is our security, Myself and my fellow citizens do not feel any necessity to explain ourselfs to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the  t72s from poland are outdated.. the russian t72b3 will rip them a new one, inlcuding they still got plenty of t80s and t90s to play with, so its a good move to upgrade to the m1a2sepv3.

 

Plus all t72s or also a design that is over 40 years old, which include the leopards aswell. so atm there arent that many different tanks out there, where the design isn't old.

Edited by DK-DDAM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marko said:

why the sense of urgency.?

Poland already has a very considerable armoured force.

The T-72 fleet are equal if not superior to any potential threat from the east.

Not the T72-m But the  T-72M1R, PT-91, PT-91MA, PT-91MA1. are more then a match

Also the leo fleet even with out the upgrades are superior.

also no dispute with any nations right to defend its self. that's beyond question.

But it does amuse me when the media and annalists make out Russia has the capability invade Western Europe

Yes it has the power to intimidate its nearest neighbours and has large numbers of reserve tanks IFV etc.

But how much is even serviceable. look at the recent conflicts the performance was poor to say the least.

 

 

My original post was not to question the polish decision to purchase more tanks.

The M1a2s SEP  is one if the best tank of this generation of Tanks.

There are some new designs out there.

My original post was to question if such a large purchase that will probably still be in service for the next twenty/ thirty years.

Is the best choice

to be honest i was thinking of the new French German design. 

But its long way away from manufacture and deployment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Marko said:

Not the T72-m But the  T-72M1R, PT-91, PT-91MA, PT-91MA1. are more then a match

Also the leo fleet even with out the upgrades are superior.

also no dispute with any nations right to defend its self. that's beyond question.

But it does amuse me when the media and annalists make out Russia has the capability invade Western Europe

Yes it has the power to intimidate its nearest neighbours and has large numbers of reserve tanks IFV etc.

But how much is even serviceable. look at the recent conflicts the performance was poor to say the least.

 

 

My original post was not to question the polish decision to purchase more tanks.

The M1a2s SEP  is one if the best tank of this generation of Tanks.

There are some new designs out there.

My original post was to question if such a large purchase that will probably still be in service for the next twenty/ thirty years.

Is the best choice

to be honest i was thinking of the new French German design. 

But its long way away from manufacture and deployment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T-72M1R is just refirbishment + thermal camera. Nothing special, still obsolete. PT-91's are still obsolete.

 

Leopard 2's are still obsolete! Their armor protection is obsolete, you think we don't know what armor they have? Type B armor provide less protection vs KE than T-72M1 armor! Most of our Leopard 2A4's use Type B armor, which provised ~350mm vs KE. Some A4's have Type C armor, which provides protection comparable to T-72M1, which is ~410-420mm vs KE. Leopard 2A5's have Type C armor on the hull and Type D armor on the turret. Type D provides ~600mm vs KE.

All these is simply obsolete!

 

MGCS from France-Germany is a no go, because we were told to screw ourselfs, we are not allowed to join. No wonder considering EU is a club of sates with double standards, where some countries are treated better than others. Besides MGCS is a program with death star syndrome. Up to this day Germany and France can't agree on basic requirements, they can't agree on what gun they will use, not to mention costs! You seen how much money will cost to build only technology demonstrators of MGCS? This program is bollocks!

I guess for the same money thatwill be put in to MGCS program, we could procure ~1000 M1A2SEPv3's or K2PL's.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Damian90 said:

MGCS from France-Germany is a no go, because we were told to screw ourselfs, we are not allowed to join. No wonder considering EU is a club of sates with double standards, where some countries are treated better than others. Besides MGCS is a program with death star syndrome. Up to this day Germany and France can't agree on basic requirements, they can't agree on what gun they will use, not to mention costs! You seen how much money will cost to build only technology demonstrators of MGCS? This program is bollocks!

We're skirting on the No Politics rule here, but I think your argument is inherently contradictory. It's true that Poland made moves to join and that wasn't met with enthusiasm. But when, as you rightfully observe, even France and Germany haven't yet agreed on the tactical requirements, would adding a third partner make it more likely that a compromise could be found, or more difficult?

So maybe it's not about double standards and preferential treatment, but simply was a pragmatic decision. And if the program is bollocks, then why did Poland want to join in the first place? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

We're skirting on the No Politics rule here, but I think your argument is inherently contradictory. It's true that Poland made moves to join and that wasn't met with enthusiasm. But when, as you rightfully observe, even France and Germany haven't yet agreed on the tactical requirements, would adding a third partner make it more likely that a compromise could be found, or more difficult?

So maybe it's not about double standards and preferential treatment, but simply was a pragmatic decision. And if the program is bollocks, then why did Poland want to join in the first place? ;)

 

We would not add requirements. The goal was to aquire rights for production in Poland.

 

As for program being bollocks. Well I was not the one making decisions back then. If it would depend on my decision, I would either seek to get license for M1. Or more preferably, already make agreement with Republic of Korea, for K2PL. But I am not a decision maker.

And I agree, let's stop this, too much politics involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concept models of the "Sona" VSHORAD/SHORAD systems.

1. Combat vehicle on Rosomak chassis, armed with 1x 35mm autocannon with programmable ammunition, and 4x Piorun 2 missiles.

2. Combat vehicle on K9PL chassis with modernized Loara-A turret armed with 2x 35mm autocannons with programmable munitions and 4x Piorun 2 missiles.

3. Laser system based on Rosomak chassis.

19.jpg

20.jpg

23.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...