Jump to content

Krauss and Nexter to merge


Agiel

Recommended Posts

This means the end of the french industry.

Since the 90's the french industry has been brought from companies employing hundred of thousands people to SME.

The merging will just end this for good.

In the past (more or less distant), the germans showed how much they didn't want to leave room for the french. Being it in the europanzer or the "Napoleon" cooperations; or more recently with the clash regarding the unimog chassis for the Qatar.

If we were forced to merge with another country we should have made it with anybody but the germans (no hatred behind that but past experience showed how much dangerous it is for the durability of the french jobs).

Anyway, futur will show us how it ends.

Most likely the french vehicles will be dumped and all the patents will allow to enhance a small part of the german plateforms.

France gets a decent tank (at least since they had some "pre loved" Panthers after The Second World War).

(sorry - couldn't help myself).

After WW2, the cavalry had to use the panthers alongside the shermans.

The tankers were more interested in having the sherman than the "pre-loved panther". The Panther was a huge monster but had it's weakness too.

The gunner didn't had an unity sight alongside of it's gunsight, making it slow to engage targets designated by the commander. The turret traverse mechanism was weak both in terms of traverse speed and power (by example to hold the turret on side slope).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At this point I think it's a merger of two companies that are mostly living off their past. KMW's annual turnover has shrunk from 1.4 billion Euro in 2008 to about 850 million last year, and most of the cash flow is coming from everything Leopard related. It's a good tank, but it's from 1975, and a new development isn't in sight.

KMW used to be a family-owned business, KMW-Nexter will be a 50-50 split between the Bode family and the French state. I'm sure, both will have a lot of fun absorbing the corporate culture of each side. :twisted:

European defense corporations' main problem is that there are no European standards/requirements for developing a common platform. Heck, European nations in total are still undecided whether tanks are needed or not, all the while an openly and unapologetically Russia backed insurgency is tearing apart the Ukraine, all the while that French shipyard in St. Nazaire is busy finishing the Mistral helicopter carrier for the Russian Krim fleet. (Make no mistake, there's enough blame to share by looking at Rheinmetall's dealings with that land force training center, not trying to say that there's no stupidity here in Germany).

Now, this is teetering very close to the edge of political debate, but in response to the claim that this means the death spell to French defense industry (only read on if you really, really mean it): I don't think that the French industry is doomed because of an evil conspiracy of German industrialists. The French industry is doomed because of restrictive French labor laws, a destructive attitude of the local unions, a micromanaging state bureaucracy that all too often meddles with what's supposed to be economic decisions whenever some politician feels like it, and a general regulatory overload.

An economy can only absorb so much abuse over decades and still remain competitive. It's not too late yet to turn the ship around, but the delusions of leading politicians like Mr. Montebourg are dangerous for the entire economy and hurting the nation. If you want a strong economy, the administration needs to step back rather than tightening the regulatory grip.

That said, there is surprisingly little overlap between Nexter's and KMW's product portfolio. Leclerc/Leopard is the biggest area where one could claim redundancy in capacity and technology. Nexter seems to be somewhat specialized in wheeled armored vehicles with concepts that are quite different from KMW's, so I don't think that these product lines (and with them the jobs) will disappear quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the eurosatory defense exhibition this year and what struck me the most was that there was much more hardware focused on counter-insurrection/assymetric warfare than conventional assets. Thankfully Rheinmetal, BAE and a little few other booths showed that tracked plateforms aren't burried yet.

Yet, I feel like the overlap between the two companies is more centered on the wheeled plateforms such as Dingo 2/Aravis. To me the Leclerc is quite dead for the export market (the production line being taken apart in case of war or an unexpected big customer).

As I said, futur will tell us.

Just wish the newly-weds a long story together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe the Germans want to add some style to there vehicles

And a really good reverse gearing system.

Germans have always been the most stylish war machine IMO.I think Leopards are best looking tank and same with WW2 planes as the German planes and markings were very slick looking to me and many others from what I have read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....[M]ost of the cash flow is coming from everything Leopard related. It's a good tank, but it's from 1975, and a new development isn't in sight.

Do you believe the latest incarnations of the Leopard 2 have areas in which it is deficient that could not be offset by modular systems and thus would necessitate an entirely new design? Does it need better engines? Additional hull protection? Next-generation reactive armour? Better IVIS systems? A TIS and CITV suite comparable to the M1A2's? Even more COIN-oriented systems?

Or am I being too unambitious and the next step is directed-energy/magnetically-accelerated weapons, nanotech-reinforced alloys, and quantum-computing systems able to reduce CEPs to micrometers and provide low-latency platoon-level to theaterwide situational awareness and command and control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At the moment, and for the coming fifteen years the Leo 2 will be adequate. I just don't see any European nation (or a group of nations) mustering the will and energy to start the development of a new one before the Leo 2 begins to fall behind. And then it will take us at least another fifteen years before the new vehicle will be ready in significant numbers. So we're talking 2045 here during which this company won't have a similar cash cow as it currently has.

This GOT to have an effect on the ability to construct something entirely new, and to come up with an adequate design for whatever is deemed necessary in 20...25 years from now. I mean, just look at the delays with the Puma.

Now, what they have going for them is that KMW was willing to put a radical new concept to the test with the Puma - an unmanned weapon turret. Experience gathered here could become valuable if a new tank was supposed to further reduce the armored crew volume by putting only two or three into the hull.

And yes - I think that the next vehicle will use "nano steel" and other advanced materials, active protection systems, maybe even helmet mounted displays with an augmented reality system that allows to "see through" the own tank thanks to a battery of external cameras. A thermal camouflage ("cloaking") system. Maybe a 140mm caliber gun. Probably a conventional gun with an option to upgrade to an electrochemical or electrothermal gun assembly. All-electric final drives. A complete separation of fuel and ammo from the crew. Battlefield management systems are a given. Maybe a beyond line of sight engagement option. Elevatable sensor masts, and/or robotic short-range UAV integration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the white Citroen /Seat on the right?

Hey don't you be dissing the citroën :mad3:....The BX was a sweet ride in its day. The superb hydro-gas suspension gave it unparalleled comfort, plus the ability to change the ground clearance meant it had a limited off-road capability.

And the later models actually enjoyed almost german like build quality and reliability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe the latest incarnations of the Leopard 2 have areas in which it is deficient that could not be offset by modular systems and thus would necessitate an entirely new design? Does it need better engines? Additional hull protection? Next-generation reactive armour? Better IVIS systems? A TIS and CITV suite comparable to the M1A2's?

It's getting just that as we speak (well better actually).

http://www.janes.com/article/39208/new-eyes-for-the-leopard-es14e1

New engine/powerpack is already there as an option for those who want it..but the truth is that the old one is fine as it is. It does its job well and on top of that it is über-reliable....in ~10 years of danish service there has never been a single catastrophic engine failure( only minor things like busted turbo's or worn fuel injectors etc. )

What i think the Leo needs most though, is new vetronics...i kid you not ...i have pulled out/replaced electronic components that were even older than the Leo2 prototypes ie pre-75' .

Plus the amount of old fashioned relays, switches and breakers used to control electrical supply, engine management and all the other hull systems is ridiculous. Its unreliable and takes up a lot of space and could ,for the most part, be replaced with something the size of a smartphone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep Citroen have made some shweet cars over the years, shame about the Saxo though :(

But back on topic ;)

With many countries looking beyond their own national borders for arms procurement and many traditional national defence contractors becoming multi national corporations would it be common practice for 'in the event of hostility between party nations' clauses or something similar to be written into supply and servicing contracts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe the Germans want to add some style to there vehicles

And a really good reverse gearing system.

So stupid that I surrender...

The Leopard's reverse gear is good enough.

Try going backwards in the T-72. :c:

I'd like to try that hyperbaric engine in the leclerc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
At the moment, and for the coming fifteen years the Leo 2 will be adequate.

Plus there's something to be said for a vehicle that doesn't need to boot up for a few minutes, or produces BSODs at inopportune moments.. or requires an built-in online help system :o Just switch on and go..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus there's something to be said for a vehicle that doesn't need to boot up for a few minutes, or produces BSODs at inopportune moments.. or requires an built-in online help system :o Just switch on and go..

Who in the world would be stupid enough to build a weapon system around windows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You'd be surprised. In the 1990s an institute at our university was asked to develop a dead man switch on an oil tanker on Windows 95. They politely declined that request with the words "WTF!? Are you NUTS?!"

The Panzerhaubitze 2000 was delivered in one configuration running on Windows for Workgroups. All the remore weapon stations that we checked out so far are running on some form of Windows - be it XP, 2000, or embedded.

Do I need to go on?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...