When Romania buys its next M.B.T. which should be?

First of all(even is out topic)we must have 120 atack helicopters.By the way,i see a photo of an IAR AH-1-RO Dracula prototipe,paint in our camouflage colors,sorry we dont produced,after all,it was one of the best atack helicopter in world,same class with AH 1-Z King Cobra of US Marine Corps. About our production facilities,i dont think we ar so far from modern industrialization era.Couple years ago,an Roman plants truck(true,with foreign motorization),take the second place on trucks competition on desert,something like Paris-Dakar.Was beat by an Iveco,but win against Mercedes and Man.I think we ar able,with some technology transfer,to build an competitve tank.About a tank based on german Leopard 2,i read on a book,or i see on TV,i dont remeber exactly,couple years ago,than our intelligence services stole the project,or even a tank and bringing here,in Romania,in cold war period,and this is the reason from germans to agree to build a tank with us,an eastern country(she transfer this technologies just to Sweden).

Romania can of course mass produce modern battle tanks, Romania already has factories which can build tanks. Romania needs the techinology transfer that mass production of the TR-2000 or Leopard 2 would require. Such transfers of tech. would modernize multiple sectors of Romania industry, which is a major benefit of such a major project. In a capitalist a economy you have to spend euro's to make euro's, even if the benefits take a while to show. Also as a primary rule of Macro-economics for every euro you put into an economy it multiples five fold, so for example 1.5 billion euro's spent should equal 7.5 billion euro's generated by an economy!!!.... Of course this is not an exact science, still in any case money spent will equal money generated.
History has shown Romania; that during times of crisis, it can not trust it's allies to supply weapons. At least not in the amout that Romania needs to be able properly defend itself. So it must as a nation, aquire the ability to produce its own heavy weapons systems.

Thank you

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on January 07, 2005 07:47 am

Romania HAD factoried 15 years ago.... Nothing much left out of our heavy industry( visit Calan and you will know what I am talking about). The moder Tanks with composite armor are not build like the older casted tanks...

Just look at our defense industries ...we have problem producing small arms. Cugir has a contract to build for New Iraq army AKM's and ammo, but we lack the resources finacinal and human(they need 200 high qualify workers that they sacked) the entire plant is almost gone.

I think that you guys hve a Idealistical view about Romania capabilities. Even in Ceausescu eraour Army was the weakest from WP. Our Weapons where old. etc. What we produced where usually licence copies of older russian systems(or some sort of variation from that).

Well that is ok about normal econmy... but not in defense bussiness.
We just need to have repair capabilities and ammo production and that it is. Tanks can be bought.
Never mind... I get enough with this Idealism ...

Well that is ok about normal econmy... but not in defense bussiness.
We just need to have repair capabilities and ammo production and that it is. Tanks can be bought.
Never mind... I get enough with this Idealism ...

Tomcat1974,

Why are you so pessimestic regarding Romania's potential? Romania will not always be poor and economically weak. It is natural for a nation to experience economic problems after a major changes to it's ecoonomic systems. The Romania Gov. was late in making the required reforms. Their are signs that the Romania economy now is recovering, however if Romania does not modernize its industries then it will always be dependant on other nations for arms. And as a result Romania will always be let down during its hour of need. It is not that much more expensive to build our own TR-2000's or Leopards 2's, then it would be to buy directly form Germany itself. At some piont when the Romanian economy is in better condition it would be an intelligent investment to make.

Thank you

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on January 07, 2005 08:58 am

Ok ..let see..
to buy directly is cheapper ...
to build licence copy ... is more expensive then to buy
to build an indigenous product ... is the most expensive task (cost of design's, testing, creating manufacturing process, manufacturing, etc.)

A licence will be the best way , if we find money. As per IAR AH-1RO experience, it could be problematic.

Bottom line is we need modern tanks now, we need modern SA missiles, we need modern planes, modern artilery.. We need everything

World Market for Tanks Remains Split: High-End Technology vs. Low-End Production


Source: Forecast International


"NEWTOWN, Conn. --- Despite a glut of available tanks, the international main battle tank market remains a highly competitive and dynamic environment, populated by the established market powerhouses and an influx of energetic new players. In its annual analysis “The World Market for Tanks,” the Forecast International Weapons Group projects the market will produce over 8,100 main battle tanks, worth in excess of $33 billion, through 2014.

The international main battle tank market continues its stratification into two basic tiers. The upper tier consists of the state-of-the-art designs with correspondingly high price tags. The lower tier features cheaper, more widely available tanks – mostly designs of the former Soviet Union.

For most nations, including the United States, the expense associated with the modernization and retrofit of high-end main battle tanks pales in comparison with the prospect of new tank procurement. Thus, new production of high-end tanks – notably the AMX Leclerc, Ariete 2, Challenger 2, Karan, Leopard 2, M1A1 Abrams, Merkava Mark 4, and Japan's Type 90 – will account for only about 14 percent of all production, worth less than 20 percent of the market, through the forecast period.

Dean Lockwood, a weapons systems analyst at Forecast International, notes that in terms of sheer numbers, Pakistan's Al-Khalid, the Type 98 of the People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation's T-90 represent the most significant new-production main battle tanks on the international market. Said Lockwood: “We expect production of these three tanks to account for nearly 43 percent of all new tanks rolling out worldwide, worth nearly 38 percent of the market in value, through 2014.”

In terms of new production, the days of U.S. and European domination over the international main battle tank market appear to be long gone. Nevertheless, the established U.S. and European players continue to make their presence felt.

The Rheinmetall 120mm Rh 120 smoothbore ordnance is fast becoming the international main armament of choice. The state-of-the-art Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2, as well as the combat-proven BAE Systems Challenger 2 and General Dynamics M1A1/A2 Abrams, continues to set the international standard for main battle tank design. Indeed, during Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present), U.S. and British armored forces clearly demonstrated to the world the unique combat capabilities of main battle tanks on the modern asymmetrical battlefield.

“Despite the wide variety of tanks available today on the international market, the fact remains that only the United Kingdom and the United States offer modern main battle tanks with proven combat records,” Lockwood said. Although more advanced designs are available, the FV4034 Challenger, Challenger 2, M60, and M1A1/A2 Abrams can all boast of passing the ultimate test of combat.

Forecast International, Inc. is a leading provider of Market Intelligence and Analysis in the areas of aerospace, defense, power systems and military electronics. Based in Newtown, CT, USA, Forecast International specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market assessments utilized by strategic planners, marketing professionals, military organizations, and governments worldwide. "


Well... interesting article. 34 bil. dollars? Waw!

Anyway, a new turret with a big gun for our TR85? Maybe with this 120 m.m. german gun?

Iama

If you want a new turret on TR85 then you should want a bigger engine and new transmision. This is needed since a new turret will have quite a big weight increase.

4 billion Euro to be invested by the end of 2010 in buying and upgrading armored units

http://www.ziare.com/Armata_da_4_miliarde_...ate-178219.html

I voted for Leo2, IMHO is the best in the world. Eventualy produced under licence, if feasible. Or maybe a cooperation in offset, where we produce subassemblies.

Engine and electronics anyway bought, it doesn`t worth to make an assembly process for several hundreds...

I voted for Leopard 2 as Romania does not have industrial and research capacities to make a MBT under licence.
But, do we need an MBT? Current army operations, mainly peacekeeping, have no use for such a heavy weapon.
And, maybe, AFV's armed with rockets (AT, AA, etc) make a lighter, cheaper and faster replacement. Tanks had become the expansive target of too many weapons on the battlefield. Something like the batlleships of WW2.

I voted Challenger 2 because I am somewhat familiar with the type and I favour it for its reliability, weaponry choice of engine etc. However, on second thoughts, Merkava would be the best choice for Romania. Romania needs a defence tank. With it's capability of also transporting troops, Merkava is the best choice for Romania. It would make the Russians think twice certainly.

This post has been edited by redcooper on March 11, 2008 12:05 am

Merkava Siman 4 is extremly expensive. IDF can aford to buy only 20 per year.A cooperation,though,with our inustry could reduce the costs.

Iraq will buy 140 M1A1s worth 2 bln $:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/pl_nm/...B3pw3MZUQRX6GMA



This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 03, 2008 09:57 pm

Abrams or Leopard 2. both are widespread and during a joint campaign, maintenance and spare parts would not be a problem.

this would not be guaranteed with systems like Merkava.
as an example, during the unfortunate reign of the so-called "social demcrats" in germany, they "complicated" the delivery of engines for the Merkava to Israel for political reasons. you don't want to be in a similar situation if your objectives might be diffrent from those who supply parts and maintenace for your army.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on January 05, 2009 08:56 am

Abrams uses a turbine engine that uses a lot of fuel in comparison with Leopard 2. It requires complex supply lines. Romania needs a tank to defend Romania not Iraq, Afghanistan or USA.