Making what’s old, new again

Making what’s old, new again

By Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 11:10 am
Posted in Land

PARIS — It’s not too often a major defense company will feature three legacy vehicles, all over 30 years old, at a major trade show like Eurosatory. But like their counterparts in the U.S., European companies such as Rheinmetall Defence must cater to drastically shrinking defense budgets across the globe.

Rheinmetall Defense is displaying upgraded versions of the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank and the Marder infantry fighting vehicle in hopes of finding some budget shoppers in Europe or Middle Eastern armies looking to make a leap in capabilities for their mechanized forces.

The U.S. Army is doing much of the same. Many defense analysts suspect the Army will have to upgrade their Bradley fleet rather than make the investment needed to develop the Ground Combat Vehicle.


Rheinmetall Defense displayed the Main Battle Tank Revolution on its Leopard 2 featuring the Rapid Obsurring System, better known as ROSY. The systems protects the tank from TV-, EO-, IR-, LASER– and SACLOS-guided weapons with a dynamic smoke screen and multispectral interruption that deploys in 0.6 seconds.

The MBT Revolution also features a new commander’s periscope with elevation angles up to 70 degrees as well as upgraded fire control technology with improved first hit probability. The German based company also built a digital turret core system into the tank with fully integrated network capabilities.

Rheinmetall lifted the top deck of the Marder Armored Personnel Carrier and improved the ballistic protection as well as the mine protect. Engineers reworked the Marder to develop the 43 ton mobile gun system displayed here at Eurosatory. The defense company mounted a rifled 105mm Oto-Melara gun to its turret.

Oliver Hoffmann, a spokesman for Rheinmetall Defence, said the company has received interest in the upgraded Marder from South American countries such as Chile and Brazil as well as Europe and the Middle East.

“We’re trying to meet the needs of armies around the world and the realities with budgets,” Hoffmann said. “This is the first time we’ve displayed these vehicles at a show like this.”

Join the Conversation

Lance June 12th, 2012 at 3:07 pm

I have to say reason only upgraded tanks are around there is THAT there is no real upgrade that warrants replacement and or there is no no enemy tank that warrants a new tank. Like why the M-4 and most current rifles are still standard issue is that there is no real new technology or threat that warrants a replacement.

Mustang June 12th, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Gotta hand it to the Germans — its only taken them nearly 30 years to create a system the Soviets had operational in 1985.

The only reason to build or develop new military hardware is that jobs depend on it. There is very little military need with regard to capability; only replacing worn equipment.

Belesari June 13th, 2012 at 8:40 am

There’s always a need. When you give up the ability to fight a pier competator thats the day others start thinking about how your just not as powerful anymore and what right do they have telling you what to do.…

Its happened every single time.

The only reason people think no one needs technology and weapons like this is because the US and to a lesser extent NATO have been making the world safe for unahole nations to thrive and have basicly allowed the world to trade freely to a degree never seen before.

John D June 13th, 2012 at 9:30 am

No new threat equals keep the old stuff. Abrams, Leopard etc are best of the best and unless totally new weapons are created, then just save money and improve/update and rebuild the old stuff. The US Army on the other hand hasn’t replaced the M113 antique yet but they talk about it!!

Psyche44 June 13th, 2012 at 2:07 pm

A10, no more issues.

majr0d June 13th, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Mustan — What Soviet 1985 system are you talking about?

Mustang June 13th, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Shtora — used on the T-80U and UK command tank

I agree with John D; theres no new threat so there is no need to completely replace fleets of vehicles when potential adversaries either arent developing, are developing at a glacial pace or, like China, are so far behind our current capability is more than enough for us to catch our breath financially. I would like one example Belesari, which applies to the US when you say “its happened every single time”?

Your bias is obvious and, judging by your name, I thought you may know history a little better. There was plenty of free trade during even ancient times and the longest period of peace humanity has seen during Roman times. If you care to look at the military history of the US you will see that the last 50 years has seen numerous misadventures, many failed, that have done little if anything for world peace– the conflicts were almost always isolated or internal.

The US needs to be smart not just spend its way out of trouble.

PolicyWonk June 26th, 2012 at 9:43 am

Upgrading what you have in the inventory is a perfectly reasonable alternative when compared to spending a huge amount of taxpayers money for an incremental improvement. While it would be nice to build an armored vehicle that weighs less than half of either a Bradley (or M1A1, 2, etc), no one has yet been able to find a way to make armor with the same (or better levels) of protection as of yet.

But a more serious problem is that our army (etc) keep trying to create systems to fight the war they want to fight (or otherwise refight the current war), instead of the ones we are *likely* to fight. Until we figure that problem out, upgrading is likely to be the better alternative (IMHO).

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.