DO YOU SPEAK MGCS ?

Ce court article est rédigé en anglais , car blablachars considère comme logique de s'adresser à nos amis anglo-saxons leur langue pour évoquer avec eux une hypothétique intégration britannique dans le programme franco-allemand MGCS. Ces quelques lignes n'ont d'autre ambition que d'ouvrir le débat autour d'un projet structurant pour l'industrie de défense terrestre européenne dans les prochaines décennies. Pouvons-nous, devons-nous laisser les Britanniques en dehors de ce programme qui devrait être en 2035 l'un des seuls à proposer un char moderne en remplacement des engins actuels ?



While MGCS went through a new step with the Franco German agreement for architecture studies, blablachars wants to open a (peaceful) debate about an hypothetical commitment of UK defense industry in MGCS. Despite the Brexit and for a longtime, military links between UK and European countries have been remaining strong and especially with France as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of Lancaster House agreement.

A quick assessment of MBTs' current situation in UK, Germany and France underlines future common needs and could justify UK to join the program and for Berlin and Paris to welcome London in MGCS. The objective of this post is to create a debate around this idea ! In advance blablachars would like to apologize for the poor English level demonstrated in the following lines. 

German Leopard, British Challenger and French Leclerc are the three major MBTs in Europe, several armies using one of these MBTs. At a glance we can  seesome differences and some similarities.
Technically,  these tanks are very different with very specific features mostly linked to their design and their age. 

The French Leclerc has been in service since 1994. The first European 3rd generation MBT is not an evolution unlike CR2 and Leopard2, based on older models. Leclerc was designed in the 80s featuring some innovative components like a digibus, digital backbone connecting several calculators. Suspensions are based on hydraulic dampers without torsion bars, allowing the Leclerc to deliver fires in any moving conditions up to 4000m by day and night times. Hyperbar powerpack includes a turbine providing energy and air to overboost the engine delivering 1500 hp immediatey available. Firepower is drastically effective with  automatic loader with 22 rounds ready to use. All these features are contained in a three man turret fitted with a L52, 120mm smoothbore gun, able to fire six rounds in a minute in all moving conditions. Leclerc is a compact tank weighing 56 tonnes, it was deployed twice, in Kosovo from 1999 to 2002 both by French and Emirati armies and in Lebanon from 2006 to 2010. It has never been upgraded since its introduction in the French Army in 1994.

Challenger 2 is the heaviest tank among the three ones, approaching 70 tonnes in TES version with a very impressive protection based on integrated armour and add-on packages. The main feature of CR2 is its rifle barrelled gun and its outstanding accuracy for the 49 nine rounds carried in the turret and the hull. Like the French MBT, CR2 did not receive any improvement or upgrading package since  commissioning, being still in its original version. On an operational point of view, CR2 has been depoyed in Op TELIC in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, in which CR2 from the Scots Dragoon Guards destroyed a squadron of  Iraqi tanks in confrontation. During the initial phase of the operation, Challenger2 suffered no losses from Iraqi fires. In the following years some of them were severly hit by various and numerous antitank weapons like RPG 29, Milan and IED none of them were lost.  A friendly fire was the cause of the unic Challenger 2 destruction during this eight year operation.
Both tanks were exported in two neighboring countries : Sultanate of Oman ordered 38 Challenger while UAE ordered more than 300 MBTs Leclerc. 

The German Leopard is undoubtly a best seller with more 1900 tanks sold, most of them second hand from German Army stocks. Unlike Leclerc and Challenger, Leopard has been upgraded several times since it was commissioned in 1979. The A7+ version includes a L55 /120mm smoothbore able to fire programmable ammunition, an improved armor against IEDs and antitank projectiles, a RWS supporting a .50 caliber machinegun. The mobility, sustainability and situational awareness have also been improved. Combat history of Leopard 2 is rich of several deployments with different armies. Bundeswehr deployed 28 Leopards 2 in Kosovo from 1999 to 2004, while Netherlands operated Leopards in Bosnia. Canada deployed 20 Leopards 2A6 (borrowed to Germany) in Afghanistan. Airlifted in August 2007, they took over from the Canadian C2 Leopards a previous version of the tank. MBTs were involved in several actions in Helmand delivering decisive fires to support Danish and British troops. In October 2007, Danemark flew Leopards 2A5 to support operations in Southern Afghanistan.

Design, age, technical datas and operational deployments make these tanks different. Facing the future some differences also exist : Leclerc and Challenger 2 are still expecting their first major upgrade program, respectively Scorpion and LEP. Leopard  several times upgraded could know in the next years a new version (A8) including some improvements. German Army is currently upgrading its fleet to the standard 2A7V. For the Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2, upgrades have major consequences in terms of mass and mobility. Both are heavy, above 66 tons in their latest versions, with a 1200hp engine on the British side and 1500hp on the German one. Leclerc remains lighter with 57 tonnes for the Scorpion version. Despite differences, these tanks have a strong common point : 2035. At this time Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Leclerc will be between 40 and 55 years old and their reimplacement will be mandatory. 

Designing, producing and delivering a successor to such effective MBTs is an outstanding challenge demanding time, skills and money. Germany and France decided in 2012 to cooperate around the next MBT and created a program called Main Ground Combat System (MGCS). Eight years later, MGCS project entered in a new phase with the agreement signed by the two countries about architecture and design studies. After almost eight years, is it time to broaden  the project with a new and strong partner : United Kingdom ?

Why ? 
The question could be regarded as very simple : in 2035 how many new generation tanks will be available on the market to take over from the Challenger 2 and current generation MBTs ? 
Asian tanks will certainly lead the market with Chinese, Korean and Japanese models based on current ones (Type 99, K2 and Type 10) or upon new (still unknown) projects. Russia will have certainly the T-14 Mark... with a 152mm gun offered for export to various countries, traditional and new customers. Obviously, an improved version of the T-90 will be on the shelves also, cheaper than the T-14 and more affordable fo more countries with limited budget. M1 A2 SEP V... will be in service and its successor not yet ready  despite several replacement programs. It becomes clear that MGCS is the unic program aiming to develop, produce and deliver a new generation MBT. Being part of a project could allow British Defense Industry to be involved in a major armament project with numerous potential customers. 
For the Bristish Army, 2021 will be a crucial year with the decision to implement the Life Extension Program to maintain Challenger 2 in service until 2035. Budget constraints could jeopardize this program and the future of the tank as  they will block a future national MBT project within the next decade. Joining MGCS program could be cost effective with a reasonable investment on a long term period. The part of the budget dedicated to an hypotethical MGCS participation will be lower than the cost of new project supported by the country. Like France and Germany, UK is unable to afford the total cost of a new MBT development within the next years. Cooperation is the safest and the wisest way for the British Armly to obtain a MBT after the Challenger.   
As said previously, 10 years after Lancaster House agreement, military cooperation between UK and France is true and effective within various operations and assets in Africa and Middle East. London and Paris are runnning the project of a Combined Joint Expeditionnary Force (CJEF) facing common challengesand setting up some common activities like training, CPX ... Procedures, doctrines and training methods are shared on both sides of the Channel, why not main equipment as MBT ? It would give to this force a powerful asset able to perform all the future missions and activities while sharing associated costs, e.g. training and maintenance. On an industrial point of view, integrating UK would allow MGCS to rely on very competitive defense industry companies with strong backgrounds like BAE Systems, manufacturing all in service tracked vehicles of the British Army. British R&D activities produced some innovative solutions like Chobham armour, still used on numerous tanks combined with ERA. Having a new partner in MGCS project could mitigate risks and certainly avoid any potential failure risk of the program. On a historical point of view we ( the French and the German) know that the previous project failed on some points involving British components, like the main gun. We must not make the same mistake today, British industry has some valid ad effective solutions that could find a place in the MGCS project. 
UK can also bring additionnal funding for a more ambitious program with a higher target in terms of vehicles and customers. 
All the reasons displayed above can be summarized in a common ambition to build a real European Ground Combat System involving the three major MBTs manufacturers in Europe. UK left Europe with the Brexit, but UK is still a European country for its defense and its strategy, remaining closely linked to the continental ones. As a MBT is build on a triangle combining firepower, protection and mobility, MGCS could be built on a triangle involving Berlin, London and Paris. 

How ?
In an ambitious project as MGCS, costs and tasks have to be shared between partners, so far Germany and France. A few months ago, Berlin and Paris denied Poland to join the project at this stage of the program. Integrating a partner means sharing costs, tasks, planning and above all having a common interest in the project success. Managed by three major land weapons companies, MGCS could be more ambitious and moving toward a global project. MGCS could be the frame to study a European Land PlatForm based on a common architecture and declined in several versions like MBT, IFV, Anti Tank, Reconnaissance, Artillery, Engineer Combat Vehicle.. and some innovative ones like "mother ship" for UGV, Drone Killer or loitering munitions launcher/dispenser. A common base design including common elments would be used to create versions and models for national and export needs. Currently several countries have a platform approach for their combat vehicles like the Boxer in Germany or the Ajax family in UK. In USA, the Bradley's successor could adopt the same base than MPF project saving time and money for US Army. Plaform approach will constitute the future of land weapon systems for operational and financial reasons. MGCS can catch opportunities in this area both for national needs and export markets by creating a unic platform. 
Like the Joint Venture created by RheinMetall and BAE Systems for Challenger 2 and Boxer purposes, RBSL (standing for RheinMetall BAE Systems Land), companies involved in MGCS could create a JV around the project. Works on the project will be shared as well as production, support in various locations spread over the three countries. Export prospects and respons to RFI would be managed by the JV leaving to each country the freedom to respond to specific RFP or RFQ. JV would favor private approach far more efficient in terms of competitiveness than public agencies. State agreements have initiated the project translating the political will in a realistic project with a goal, a calendar and a budget. KMW and Nexter have  already merged for this project, creating KNDS. They could be joined by Bae Systems or RBSL to enrich the program with financial and technical ressources.

In 2035, MGCS can be the major land weapon systems program in the world, able to propose an up-to-date platform to take over from outdated combat vehicles : tanks as Leopards, Challengers, Leclercs and some others like the 9000 M1 MBTs in the world, and IFVs like BMP3, Warrior, Puma and VBCI. Questions must be raised about the integration of UK defense industry in MGCS and about the role and the place of a European platform on the future battlefields. France and Germany are already on the road heading 2035 with a common project, debate is about the British role and contribution to the MGCS program.