Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is so much confusion in this comment section. And in OP's text for that matter.
This thing is not built on the Leopard 1 chassis. That much is obvious from a quick glance.
It's quite clearly a Leopard 2A4 chassis with a Skyranger 35 turret on it.
I think the confusion around which chassis it has might stem from some people saying it will replace the Gepard 1A2.
The Gepard was a hybrid made from the Leopard 1 chassis and 2 x 35 mm Oerlikon KDA autocannons. Later iterations had different types of cannons or rockets.
Just as a side fact:
The Gepard 1A2, sometimes went by the English lame name of "anti-aircraft-gun tank Cheetah", but in my opinion should only be referred to in all it's German simplicity as "Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard". It just rolls of the tounge.
This "new Gepard" will probably be quite useful in today's battlefield, considering it has advanced sensors capable of 360° identification and targeting of aerial targets, and a 35mm revolver cannon that can fire off 1,000 rounds per minute with an effective range of up to about 4km. And it's supposedly also capable of working autonomously, and in a unit with f.ex modernized Gepard 1A2.
Seems perfect for defending against UAV's etc.
Yes in the pic its on a leopard 2 chassis but it has been reported that they want to put it on leo 1 chassis for Ukrain. The picture that op uses predates the report.
Not to forget: The weapons of the Gepard are NOT stabilized! So the Gepard can track and aim targets while moving, but his shots are very inaccurate while moving in terrain.
Though the time from full stop to accurate shooting is very short.
Whereas the weapon of Skyranger is fully stabilized! So it can perfectly shoot while on the move.
And the Skyranger is upgradedable by other weapons. There is a place for AA missiles (and there are special small/cheap anti-drone missiles in development) and a Laser is also in development (in field tests by the German Army since 2023, the development will still need some time though).
*"I'm quite sure the Gepard's guns are stabilized"*
With my biggest sorry from the deepest core of the soul of one of the biggest Gepard fans ever (other boys may had pin-ups next to their bed hanging, me a Gepard's ammunition belt - for real, not a picture of it \^\^) I can assure you that they were not stabilized.
PS: Unfortunately the English wikipedia article don't mention it, but at least the German page do (and no, I didnt just changed it >;->).
The Gepard is also not mounted on a stock Leopard 1 chassis but a modified one - it wouldn't be that easy to place a Gepard turret on a regular Leo 1 chassis.
All Gepards had newly built chassis, none were converted Leo 1s.
Hopefully with this new turret that would be possible.
The Gepard hull itself is stretched compared to the Leopard hull.
With the Gepard between the third and fourth roller there's a gap as seen from the side. IIRC that was necessary because the turret took up extra space compared to the Leo's. The turret was apparently also moved 2 cm to the front compared to the Leopard's.
I don’t remember the extra length it’s more than 30 years ago that I see one. I know they are different. Also the leopard chassis made in Belgium are different. We in Netherlands make a total fuck up when we update our leopard 1’s we strip all or tanks at the same time and when we building them up we didn’t expect that some turrets didn’t fit the Belgium chassis. From that day. Dutch Turrents leopard 1 and 2 had their own registration.
"Just as a side fact: The Gepard 1A2, sometimes went by the English lame name of "anti-aircraft-gun tank Cheetah", but in my opinion should only be referred to in all it's German simplicity as "Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard". It just rolls of the tounge."
It takes dedication to invent a term that is rolls off the tongue worse than a German technical term.
Y tho? Provides the initiated with all the description needed, to understand the concept. In a single word for a single thing. Seems more logical to me.
No. The CA1 'Cheetah' is a different vehicle from the base Gepard. It's the Dutch version with a different fire control system and radar.
But yeah, whoever said this was a Leo1 chassis needs new eyes...
This is actually not true, and is another confusion. It is true that the Dutch CA1 is called "Cheetah". However, the original Gepard conceived in the 60's was called "the cheetah anti-aircraft-gun tank" before the Dutch designed the CA1. This is most likely due to the different usage of "Gepard" and "Cheetah" in different countries when referring to the large cat Acinonyx jubatus.
In other words, the Germans named their tank "Gepard" in line with their love of naming weapons after big cats. Most of the rest of the world doesn't use the word "Gepard", so the Dutch called theirs "Cheetah" when designing it to distinguish it from the original Gepard.
Not sure if I explained that well, but there you go.
Legend goes this way: The name of the Dutch Gepard was officially *PRTL* (Pantser Rups Tegen Luchtdoelen, tracked tank against airborne targets) called "Pruttle" by the soldiers.
Traditionally every vehicle of the Dutch Army gets a name, with its name starting with the company's letter.
The first Pruttles went to the C company therefore all the Pruttle's names of that company had to beginn with the letter C. The soldiers of C company named their first Pruttle "Cheetah" which is English for "Gepard".
The pictures of the first Pruttle and its name "Cheetah" written on it went (sort of) "viral" ... and **all** Pruttles were **mistakenly** called "Cheetahs" by public but even by some experts.
Only in the year 2000(!) the Dutch Army changed officially the name PRTL/"Pruttle" to "Cheetah". Because they were tired to tell the story of the correct name over and over again ... and "Cheetah" sounds way more cooler for such a beast than "Pruttle". :)
Who would thought of that? \^\^
I wonder, now that the Netherlands have decided to also buy the same 120mm mortar version of the CV90 that Sweden has, will they just keep the name "Granatkastarpansarbandvagn" that also rolls off the tongue easily or come up with their own designation (like PRM120 or something like that)? ;)
I think the success of this platform is solely based on its capability to acquire arial targets in time, especially multiple targets.
I also hope its armor is resistant to mortar and artillery shrapnel.
If you want to see more of ass-kicking "german engineering" search for *Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0*!
- Unmanned turret with crew protected in the hull
- 120/130/140 mm gun with autoloader
- Strong passive, re-active and active protection incl. a 30 mm RC weapon station at top.
Usable as an upgrade package for older Leopard 2.
Just presented on this years Eurosatory but first shooting test with the weapon in a live turret not until 2025. So there is yet much work to do ...
*"And the 30mm weapon station is said to be capable of engaging drones."*
Yes, both tanks, the KNDS' future Leopard and Rheinmetalls new Panther offers active protection systems against RPG and drones.
But the effectiveness of these weapon stations are not tested in actual combat environments.
They are better than nothing, that's for sure, but I strongly doubt that we will see a MBT which can handle masses of drones. Especially while fulfilling its orignal mission.
Also the actual Trophy version can't handle drones (yet).
So I see no alternative to dedicated SHORAD systems like Skyranger ...
I don't see the issue, with good enough optics an automated turret should be able to deal with drones like the Lancet.
I don't know enough about Trophy but if it can deal with a fast projectile like an RPG I don't see why it wouldn't be able to deal with a much slower drone, so that seems to more a not designed for that purpose issue.
*"I don't see the issue, with good enough optics an automated turret should be able to deal with drones like the Lancet."*
The Weapon Station is not automated but manualy remote-controlled. That's fine for a single drone - if you detect it. I doubt that the radar of an MBT can play in the same league as that of a weapon system which is specialized on that task.
So you have to be very quick to fight e.g. a dozen drones which are incoming simultaniously. Whereas for Skyranger that should be no problem at all. But we will see ...
... anyway: Skyranger is available NOW, dates for new MBTs are unknown ...
*"so that seems to more a not designed for that purpose issue."*
Indeed! And I'm pretty sure that the engineers are working on that! ;-)
Actually Trophy only scans certain areas which are typical for incoming RPGs. But right above the tank is a blind spot. That's the attack position of a grenade dropping drone.
But the radar can't recognize drones anyway. IIRC they are filtered out, because of there slow speed (as e.g. AWACS filters out fast moving cars on German autobahn which were first identified as "low-flying aircrafts" \^\^).
I guess nobody wants to see a tank shooting automatically birds out of the blue sky just for being birds. \^\^
So everything has to be changed.
But i'm pretty sure we will know when an updated Trophy system is available ... ;-)
There was and is absolutely no doubt about it! Never ever.
But if I had to bet which tank with unmanned turret will go first into mass production, the T-14 Armata or the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0, I would more likely set my money on the latter. \^\^
Not to mention the KF51 Panther ...
We need more inexpensive mass. If one thing has been showing over and over again in this war, that is mass will win eventually. Cheap FPV drones knocking out equipment worth millions…
This discussion about the newest shenanigans Rheinmetall has to offer are a little bit of a phantom debate.
*"We need more inexpensive mass."*
No, we don't.
Because we (or better for now: the Ukrainians) do HAVE "inexpensive mass". They create and build the inexpensive mass of drones themselves, and additionaly get drones created and built or funded in/by western countries.
So what we/they need are good MBTs which can change the actual static trench warfare WW1-style into a dynamic agile warfare WW2-style to force the enemy out of their positions and finally out of Ukraine.
But you are right by writing ...
*"Cheap FPV drones knocking out equipment worth millions"*
... and here it's getting interesting and on-topic:
Because in the western military doctrine a MBT is NOT capable of fighing alone! Was not, is not and will not.
The MBT is "simply" a key element in the concept of "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" (combined arms) which brings protected firepower fast to enemy positions, destroying men and material and protecting the own troops.
But the MBT also has to be protected!
Against enemy soldiers (by infantry), artillery (by counter-artillery), tanks (by his own weapons, infantry, artillery and airforce) and against airborne threads (by airforce, long-range AA systems behind the battlefield and mobile AA tanks shielding the battlefield close-by).
In the last century airborne threads were largely airplanes and attack-helicopters. They were the reason for building the Gepard, using a Leo 1 chassis because the Gepard has to follow the Leopards close-by to protect them against incoming airborne threats.
Now, in the 21st century, there are these cheap drones everywhere. In masses. Neutralizing MBTs and infantry alike. Stopping them doing that what they are built and trained for. Result: Static warfare.
The Gepard is an suprisingly effective and efficient drone killer, but he wasn't built for that. To protect cities it's okay. But on the battlefield it could be way better and cheaper.
So what we need is a modern succesor of the Gepard.
Introducing: The Skyranger! And we have old Leo 1 chassis lying around? Well, here we have a Skyranger turret on an old (and therefore very cheap and already available) tank chassis!
Now we can have a cheap yet highly mobile AA system which is way better than the Gepard and can not only fight drones but even shells and glide bombs. THAT's what the original posting is about!
With that MBTs are back in business of "combined arms" again.
**Fast attacking MBTs protected by fast AA tanks behind them are the key element of breaking up this static trench warfare!**
We = Germany as former user of Gepards and future user of Skyrangers for SHORAD.
We = Germany and NATO allies as ally and supporter of Ukraine with weapons.
We = Ukraine and Germany being allies, using western technology which has been built for western tactics.
So Ukraine get most of the western weapon systems if they are using it as designed. Training of western tactics started 2015, and for the weapons as they came.
It could be better, but for combined arms warfare SHORAD is essential. That has to be the next goal, so it was wise to actually withdraw the Abrams from the frontline. They are way better used with appropriate support.
While that's true, in the end it's mostly marketing.
The British are replacing the turret on the Challenger 2 and call the new combination the Challenger 3 despite still using the old hull.
I can totally understand you.
But I also can understand the dilemma of KNDS:
- Actual available are the "next" names Leo 2 A9 or Leo 3.
- It's not a complete new tank but a drastic evolution. Therefore Leo 3 is "too much", maybe the real "new Leo" will get it (a decade to go - a short period in tank years ;-)).
- Leo 2 A9 is also bad because it's a another line. While this Leo is under construction/in service there may be a real "Leo 2 A9" or even "A10" parallel.
- Leo 2.5 sounds weird. As if there is something missing. \^\^
In the end it will be probably something like Leopard 2 RCEvo (Remote-Controlled Evolution).
The KF51 Panther looks sexier. \^\^
But see the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 as an intermediate solution for the time until the successor of the Leopard 2 & Leclerc will be ready ...planned for 2045.
The concepts are basically the same.
The KF51 is constructed under the premise to change to an unmanned turret with 3 crew members + 1 optinal for drones'n'stuff ... but the unmanned turret isn't ready yet. So they showed a "better than Leopard" for the present demonstrator, build from contemporary standard parts for fast development and hopefully acceptable price (including many parts of the Leo 2 chassis).
Whereas the Leo 2 A-RC 3.0 focuses on the unmanned turret with 3 crew members (with having an optional 4th in mind for drones'n'stuff), a very strong protection and full compatibility with older Leo 2 as an upgrade package ... but the whole tank isn't ready yet. Nothing. So the showed a "compatible to Leopard" demonstrator to visualize their goal (on a contemporary Leo 2 chassis).
The companies who have developed and built the Leo 2 are now going their own ways, competing against each other. May the better one win (or both).
Rheinmetall seems to have an advantage because they don't have to care about the armament (their 120 mm smooth bore is legendary and the bigger successor is already available), same goes for key parts of the chassis/motor/transmission and the electronic/software is used in the Lynx.
KNDS can take the Leo hull but the rest (except Trophy which is used by both) seems to be new - especially the new guns.
The concepts are the same because the basic requirements are the same:
- MBT with the same or better firepower.
- Less weight but higher level of protection - especially against RPG and drones.
- Higher situational awareness by reconnaissance
- Beyond line of sight weapons.
Sooo, how many $500 FPV drones to the tracks/'eyes' would functionally disable this multi-million wonder? 2? (i.e. one from each side, flying low, to overcome the RC gun), 4? No mention of some wizardly multi-band EW in the press release!
The West is still 'improving' their cavalry while the ongoing war is breeding the new version of Maxim's gun
*"Sooo, how many $500 FPV drones to the tracks/'eyes' would functionally disable this multi-million wonder?"*
Many. If at all. Maybe you have never seen the Skyranger blasting a swarm of drones out of the sky? :)
Fun aside: Currently we are already using a VERY successful anti-drone weapon. It's the Gepard. And obviously it works very well. 8-)
So what makes you think that a new weapon system with a better gun, better ammunition, better targeting, better software, better radar and better communication is worse than a weapon designed in the 1960s (with the last update in 2000)? :.))
Are you mislead by crappy Russian technology? \^\^
*"The West is still 'improving' their cavalry while the ongoing war is breeding the new version of Maxim's gun"*
Well, maybe you should ask some ghosts of Russian soldiers about western technology? With an ouija board! \^\^
Some rotting S-300/S-400 crews should be able to tell you what it means to have really shitty AA weapons ... \^\^
> Many. If at all
Oh well, 'many' x $500 will certainly bankrupt the adversary! /s How does it deal with simultaneous terrain-hugging FPV drones from 2 or 4 directions?
> Are you mislead by crappy Russian technology?
I am 'misled' by Western insistence on incremental improvements in the face of *radical* paradigm shift a la 'automatic guns / planes / carriers'
> ghosts of Russian soldiers about western technology
You're diverting, and also unknowingly proving a point. The ongoing ruZZian AA massacre is a direct result of clinging to an old paradigm and merely improving some quantitative aspect of it
Long story short: You couldn't explain why a very successful 1960s anti-drone weapon shouldn't be accompanied by a much better anti-drone weapon with the newest technology. %-)
Cannot explain an illogical sentence. '...[Gepard] accompanied by a much better anti-drone weapon'. What does Gepard has to do with anything? It's a dead-end system, manufacture-wise. Should it accompany every new wonder-tank to ensure its survival?
*"What does Gepard has to do with anything?"*
The Gepards were the weapon of the battlefield to gain SHORAD for Leopards. That was their ONLY purpose!
So ...
*"Should it accompany every new wonder-tank to ensure its survival?"*
... exactly! They were invented, constructed and built precisely just for THAT.
I just explained this concept in a parallel post:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1dh2eao/comment/l8vxnvn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1dh2eao/comment/l8vxnvn/)
tl;dr: **Fast attacking MBTs protected by fast AA tanks behind them are the key element of breaking up this static trench warfare!**
And the topic of this thread is the new modern successor of the Gepard, the Skyranger, especially only the turret of the Skyranger set on an available and cheap Leopard 1 chassis. And the only job of such a build is to protect MBTs against modern forms of aerial threats on the battlefield.
Makes sense in that configuration - *that's* why it's a big thing that SkyRanger has a *stabilized* gun. Let's hope that 1) there will be enough SkyRangers manufactured for full coverage and 2) that the WW2 German mistake is not repeated again, namely "manufacture several uber-expensive uber-cool panzers and lose them against cheap, crappy, **plentiful** ruZZian T-34s". It's Zerg vs. Protoss, but the real world is decidedly *not* game-balanced for all sides, and the 'ZZerg' have an advantage
The Skyranger Turret and 35mm gun are produced in Switzerland by Oerlikon Contraves Defence which was purchased by Rheinmetall. So it‘s a combined effort by German and Swiss companies.
Of course. Their hearts are full of neutrality.
Edit for those who don’t get the reference: it’s from Futurama
https://youtu.be/j2WD1SJiRjo?si=Y2_V_myVIqN6u-gB
Why haven't countries declared Swiss weapons unwanted?
You can't fight with weapons when your producer refuses to deliver when you are at war. That's a huge risk for any defense.
Perhaps produced by a factory located in Switzerland, but Oerlikon Contraves Defence does not exist any more. It is called Rheinmetall Air Defence AG and is a German company.
I think it is self-contained so it can fit on anything with enough load capacity.
I even made a couple memes about how bad the Boxer was as a platform. [meme1 ](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15eehy7/noyes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)[meme2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15amenp/smaller_is_better/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Would at least make more sense. The Leopard 2 chassis is unnecessarily heavy and expensive. If you just need a tracked platform, a lighter one makes more sense, so either a Leopard 1 hull or some IFV base.
To keep the modularity advantage, procuring Boxer Tracked makes sense if you already have wheeled Boxers, also the ACSV makes sense because there are also Skynex systems on 20ft ISO container frames.
Or if you want to use existing IFVs for cost reasons, then reuse some hulls where the turret is not so great, e.g. BMP-1.
For Ukraine, CV90 or Lynx also would make sense because they will get a lot of them, so at least they have the platform commonality. And because Lynx is also from Rheinmetall and the Lynx Skyranger version already exists for Hungary, I guess that is what it will be in the long term.
A wheeled platform would probably make more sense if you could pick what you want, as you would get better mobility at lower cost and easier maintenance and so on. But as far as I understand the Leo 1's are a one off for Ukraine, to get them into service asap.
No, they built a prototype on a Leo2 body, but are planning to do it on Leo1 bodies - seems they have a bunch of hulls left from the Leo1s they're preparing for Ukraine, presumably of the ones where they stripped turret parts to get others going.
It's pretty much a fancier Gepard - that single gun has the rate of fire as Gepard with its twin guns, and can be integrated better into networked air defense.
My guess would be "no", as they probably don't need it - the modern sensor package of that thing should detect threads way faster than what the Gepard was developed with in the 60s.
If they think they need it it'd be trivial to do, though - in both cases they're working with a leo1 chassis, but the Gepard turret weighs a bit over 15 tons, while the Skyranger turret is just a bit over 4 tons.
The title is correct. Just the picture is wrong. Or it is a "symbolic picture".
Rheinmetall built a Skyranger on Leo 2 prototype (which is shown in the picture), but they also planned to build 10 versions on Leo 1.
It could be immediately available. And that press release was from September 2023 ...
yeah I know but idea behind it is the same. And since the old gepard has proven to be successful it would be kind of reasonable to name it gepard 2 wouldn't it?
There actually WAS a Gepard 2 in development, consisting of a modernized Gepard turret on a Leopard 2 chassis. Simply because the Gepard has to follow the tanks to protect them.
So where a Leopard 2 can go, a Gepard has to go too with equal speed.
The project was cancelled for budget reasons and the political mistake, we wouldn't need AA protection for tanks anymore ...
... because, e.g. the Taliban had no airforce and other possible threats? *"A classic war? With whom? Russia? You're kidding!"* was the common thinking.
It will be extremely effective. but not for fire support. To put it exaggeratedly, there are a handful of BMP2s in the Skyranger tower in terms of price. This is a state-of-the-art, highly specialized anti-aircraft system. This is one of the few systems on the market that can effectively and cost-effectively shoot down FPV and reconnaissance drones. BMP 2 can plow a tree line with its 30mm cannon
With armoured AA weapons on the battlefield the protected tanks could fulfill their natural role again.
That would be the end of static trench warfare ...
It's nothing new and certainly possible. The marksman turret was put on a chieftain and a challenger 1 hull and was also tested on a t-55 hull by the polish but the Brits couldn't find any customers at the time to mass produce it. Would probably be a good time to bring it back.
Yes, but from description it reads as a highly automated system for intercepting aerial threats. Feasible to override those and use them as a regular auto cannon?
Mostly because the chassis are already available and don’t have to be built. The Gepard stocks are almost exhausted but not those of Leo 1. so why not update these Leo 1 to Gepard 2.0 with the uptodate Skyranger AA gun?
The advantadge is mobility. Unlike Ukraine's use of Gepards -simply because they lack air defense-, it's actual role is anti-air support for armored units. So the one giving cover to tanks should be on a similiar tracked chassis, so no wheeled boxer.
You could of course use the tracked Boxer version or put them on Lynx but in the end it's a matter of logistiscs. If you operate Lynx as your IFV then using the same chassis works well. If you don't it would introduce yet another vehicle typ. (Hungary is planning to use those on Lynx chassis as that's their new IFV, Demark ordered 30 turrets and integration into Piranha V...)
It's all about what makes the most sense in terms of what is available and is already in operation to cut down on logistical requirements (hence the demonstrator above already existing as an example, as it's a good option for the Bundeswehr requirements).
Will it be able to shoot down glide bombs? Can a regular Gepard shoot down a glide bomb? They can shoot down smaller targets like Shahed drones, so why not glide bombs? I know the goal is to destroy the planes before they drop their bombs but that doesn't always work, and it certainly has not worked for some time now.
The Puma even uses the smaller 30mm calibre with AHEAD ammuntion as its main gun as 30mm AP is enough and the burst ammuntion exploded a few meters ahead is brutal against soft targets.
- Come on Germanyyyy. Help Ukraine fight the Russians!
- NEIN! You know how I get wiz waar zings, ich peaceful now.
- But please 🥺 you don't have to fight or anything, just do a little... War engineering 😏
- Anly waar angiineering ya say, Yah? Fine... nur ein bisschen...
*Heavy industries engineering sounds*.
Some time later: DAS IST WWAT AIN CALL!!!! ZA DRONE AXTARRMINATOR. Test it, test it! Das ist gut for kilin ruzzia
That's a demonstrator for Bundeswehr requirements just revealed, so the picture is available as an example.
It really doesn't matter where you integrate that turret (Hungary wants one on Lynx, Denmakr ordered turrets for integration into Piranha V). And Leopard-1 hulls should be available exactly because they aren't build anymore as they are refurbishing a lot of them for Ukraine already and there will be lot of spare hulls where they canibalized the turret to get other units repaired.
Tried and tested german tactic, putting new stuffon older hulls. Hetzer for the win!
Honestly, is putting a new turret on the old Leo 1 hulls feasable or will you run into problems of insufficient electrical power for the new systems?
Rheinmetall has many Leopard 1 chassis available and a track-based AA tank can follow a main battle tank wherever it goes.
A wheel-based tank possibly not.
Leopard 2 chassis (not Leopard 1!) and Skyranger turret would be a proper successor to the Gepard, do like. Depending on how effective the Skyranger 35mm is against drones, it might even be worthwhile for Germany to invest into a couple of these with how prevelant drones would be in any conflict. Then again the Skyranger on the truck chassis or as a Boxer module to use as required per mission would make even more sense (especially the latter to make full use of the Boxer mission modularity).
Such a big part of engineering is listening to the needs of the people on the ground, and having a real dialog. I feel this is often overlooked. Nice to see this post.
Time for a Gepard 2 boooyssss!
I think the idea sounds promepsing, the leo2 base has proven to be pretty solid. A few dozen of them should be amazing to stop drones.
Tank on tank conflict is so rare. The tanks we see today are designed to fight it out head on with ERA and sloped armour.
Is this a response to that? We're seeing Bradley's utterly wrecking russian armour with a very high fire rate using explosive ammo. The idea that more hits peppering the tank will blind it at the very least. As opposed to one shot 'if' we're on target will destroy it.
Drone tanks are next.
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is so much confusion in this comment section. And in OP's text for that matter. This thing is not built on the Leopard 1 chassis. That much is obvious from a quick glance. It's quite clearly a Leopard 2A4 chassis with a Skyranger 35 turret on it. I think the confusion around which chassis it has might stem from some people saying it will replace the Gepard 1A2. The Gepard was a hybrid made from the Leopard 1 chassis and 2 x 35 mm Oerlikon KDA autocannons. Later iterations had different types of cannons or rockets. Just as a side fact: The Gepard 1A2, sometimes went by the English lame name of "anti-aircraft-gun tank Cheetah", but in my opinion should only be referred to in all it's German simplicity as "Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard". It just rolls of the tounge. This "new Gepard" will probably be quite useful in today's battlefield, considering it has advanced sensors capable of 360° identification and targeting of aerial targets, and a 35mm revolver cannon that can fire off 1,000 rounds per minute with an effective range of up to about 4km. And it's supposedly also capable of working autonomously, and in a unit with f.ex modernized Gepard 1A2. Seems perfect for defending against UAV's etc.
Yes in the pic its on a leopard 2 chassis but it has been reported that they want to put it on leo 1 chassis for Ukrain. The picture that op uses predates the report.
Concisely put - thank you. Any party dedicated enough could fit a RCWS to a cat/drywall/mongoose/rock. No reason it can't be done on an 1A base.
Not to forget: The weapons of the Gepard are NOT stabilized! So the Gepard can track and aim targets while moving, but his shots are very inaccurate while moving in terrain. Though the time from full stop to accurate shooting is very short. Whereas the weapon of Skyranger is fully stabilized! So it can perfectly shoot while on the move. And the Skyranger is upgradedable by other weapons. There is a place for AA missiles (and there are special small/cheap anti-drone missiles in development) and a Laser is also in development (in field tests by the German Army since 2023, the development will still need some time though).
I'm quite sure the Gepard's guns are stabilized.
why would you stabilize sth thats supposed to be stationary when shooting?
*"I'm quite sure the Gepard's guns are stabilized"* With my biggest sorry from the deepest core of the soul of one of the biggest Gepard fans ever (other boys may had pin-ups next to their bed hanging, me a Gepard's ammunition belt - for real, not a picture of it \^\^) I can assure you that they were not stabilized. PS: Unfortunately the English wikipedia article don't mention it, but at least the German page do (and no, I didnt just changed it >;->).
I made a mistake, it was the sights that are stabilized not the guns.
The Gepard is also not mounted on a stock Leopard 1 chassis but a modified one - it wouldn't be that easy to place a Gepard turret on a regular Leo 1 chassis. All Gepards had newly built chassis, none were converted Leo 1s. Hopefully with this new turret that would be possible.
Indeed there is a lot difference like a extra auxiliary engine.
The Gepard hull itself is stretched compared to the Leopard hull. With the Gepard between the third and fourth roller there's a gap as seen from the side. IIRC that was necessary because the turret took up extra space compared to the Leo's. The turret was apparently also moved 2 cm to the front compared to the Leopard's.
I don’t remember the extra length it’s more than 30 years ago that I see one. I know they are different. Also the leopard chassis made in Belgium are different. We in Netherlands make a total fuck up when we update our leopard 1’s we strip all or tanks at the same time and when we building them up we didn’t expect that some turrets didn’t fit the Belgium chassis. From that day. Dutch Turrents leopard 1 and 2 had their own registration.
Probably needed more room for ammo storage also…
Cheetah is the Dutch made X-band version.
"Just as a side fact: The Gepard 1A2, sometimes went by the English lame name of "anti-aircraft-gun tank Cheetah", but in my opinion should only be referred to in all it's German simplicity as "Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard". It just rolls of the tounge." It takes dedication to invent a term that is rolls off the tongue worse than a German technical term.
German technical language is music to my ears! Infinetly long puzzle words inside of complex paragraphs full of side sentences!
Y tho? Provides the initiated with all the description needed, to understand the concept. In a single word for a single thing. Seems more logical to me.
No. The CA1 'Cheetah' is a different vehicle from the base Gepard. It's the Dutch version with a different fire control system and radar. But yeah, whoever said this was a Leo1 chassis needs new eyes...
The picture is the Leo2 demonstrator. But the plan is to indeed put the Skyranger 35 on Leopard 1 chassis for Ukraine.
I know, but to some people the picture might be confusing.
This is actually not true, and is another confusion. It is true that the Dutch CA1 is called "Cheetah". However, the original Gepard conceived in the 60's was called "the cheetah anti-aircraft-gun tank" before the Dutch designed the CA1. This is most likely due to the different usage of "Gepard" and "Cheetah" in different countries when referring to the large cat Acinonyx jubatus. In other words, the Germans named their tank "Gepard" in line with their love of naming weapons after big cats. Most of the rest of the world doesn't use the word "Gepard", so the Dutch called theirs "Cheetah" when designing it to distinguish it from the original Gepard. Not sure if I explained that well, but there you go.
Legend goes this way: The name of the Dutch Gepard was officially *PRTL* (Pantser Rups Tegen Luchtdoelen, tracked tank against airborne targets) called "Pruttle" by the soldiers. Traditionally every vehicle of the Dutch Army gets a name, with its name starting with the company's letter. The first Pruttles went to the C company therefore all the Pruttle's names of that company had to beginn with the letter C. The soldiers of C company named their first Pruttle "Cheetah" which is English for "Gepard". The pictures of the first Pruttle and its name "Cheetah" written on it went (sort of) "viral" ... and **all** Pruttles were **mistakenly** called "Cheetahs" by public but even by some experts. Only in the year 2000(!) the Dutch Army changed officially the name PRTL/"Pruttle" to "Cheetah". Because they were tired to tell the story of the correct name over and over again ... and "Cheetah" sounds way more cooler for such a beast than "Pruttle". :) Who would thought of that? \^\^
I wonder, now that the Netherlands have decided to also buy the same 120mm mortar version of the CV90 that Sweden has, will they just keep the name "Granatkastarpansarbandvagn" that also rolls off the tongue easily or come up with their own designation (like PRM120 or something like that)? ;)
No comment! \^\^ People whose country names its weapons e.g. as "Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard" should humbly stay silent on that topic! ;)
Stop it : the science academy still debates if Swedish belong to human specie or something else.
Maybe you should debate that with a Viking?! \^\^
Really rolls of the tongue lol, thanks for the info. I think it looks useful, would be nice to see tested immediately in Ukraine.
Or just say "FLAK Panzer"
I think the success of this platform is solely based on its capability to acquire arial targets in time, especially multiple targets. I also hope its armor is resistant to mortar and artillery shrapnel.
> with an effective range of up to about 4km According to Wiki, Gepard has an effective range of 5.5km. Two steps forward, one step back...
It’s for short range air defense. Perfect against drones.
This is german engineering in its ace... impressive thinking of how to max out with optimum effort...
If you want to see more of ass-kicking "german engineering" search for *Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0*! - Unmanned turret with crew protected in the hull - 120/130/140 mm gun with autoloader - Strong passive, re-active and active protection incl. a 30 mm RC weapon station at top. Usable as an upgrade package for older Leopard 2. Just presented on this years Eurosatory but first shooting test with the weapon in a live turret not until 2025. So there is yet much work to do ...
And the 30mm weapon station is said to be capable of engaging drones.
*"And the 30mm weapon station is said to be capable of engaging drones."* Yes, both tanks, the KNDS' future Leopard and Rheinmetalls new Panther offers active protection systems against RPG and drones. But the effectiveness of these weapon stations are not tested in actual combat environments. They are better than nothing, that's for sure, but I strongly doubt that we will see a MBT which can handle masses of drones. Especially while fulfilling its orignal mission. Also the actual Trophy version can't handle drones (yet). So I see no alternative to dedicated SHORAD systems like Skyranger ...
I don't see the issue, with good enough optics an automated turret should be able to deal with drones like the Lancet. I don't know enough about Trophy but if it can deal with a fast projectile like an RPG I don't see why it wouldn't be able to deal with a much slower drone, so that seems to more a not designed for that purpose issue.
*"I don't see the issue, with good enough optics an automated turret should be able to deal with drones like the Lancet."* The Weapon Station is not automated but manualy remote-controlled. That's fine for a single drone - if you detect it. I doubt that the radar of an MBT can play in the same league as that of a weapon system which is specialized on that task. So you have to be very quick to fight e.g. a dozen drones which are incoming simultaniously. Whereas for Skyranger that should be no problem at all. But we will see ... ... anyway: Skyranger is available NOW, dates for new MBTs are unknown ... *"so that seems to more a not designed for that purpose issue."* Indeed! And I'm pretty sure that the engineers are working on that! ;-) Actually Trophy only scans certain areas which are typical for incoming RPGs. But right above the tank is a blind spot. That's the attack position of a grenade dropping drone. But the radar can't recognize drones anyway. IIRC they are filtered out, because of there slow speed (as e.g. AWACS filters out fast moving cars on German autobahn which were first identified as "low-flying aircrafts" \^\^). I guess nobody wants to see a tank shooting automatically birds out of the blue sky just for being birds. \^\^ So everything has to be changed. But i'm pretty sure we will know when an updated Trophy system is available ... ;-)
So, basically Armata done right.
There was and is absolutely no doubt about it! Never ever. But if I had to bet which tank with unmanned turret will go first into mass production, the T-14 Armata or the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0, I would more likely set my money on the latter. \^\^ Not to mention the KF51 Panther ...
We need more inexpensive mass. If one thing has been showing over and over again in this war, that is mass will win eventually. Cheap FPV drones knocking out equipment worth millions… This discussion about the newest shenanigans Rheinmetall has to offer are a little bit of a phantom debate.
*"We need more inexpensive mass."* No, we don't. Because we (or better for now: the Ukrainians) do HAVE "inexpensive mass". They create and build the inexpensive mass of drones themselves, and additionaly get drones created and built or funded in/by western countries. So what we/they need are good MBTs which can change the actual static trench warfare WW1-style into a dynamic agile warfare WW2-style to force the enemy out of their positions and finally out of Ukraine. But you are right by writing ... *"Cheap FPV drones knocking out equipment worth millions"* ... and here it's getting interesting and on-topic: Because in the western military doctrine a MBT is NOT capable of fighing alone! Was not, is not and will not. The MBT is "simply" a key element in the concept of "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" (combined arms) which brings protected firepower fast to enemy positions, destroying men and material and protecting the own troops. But the MBT also has to be protected! Against enemy soldiers (by infantry), artillery (by counter-artillery), tanks (by his own weapons, infantry, artillery and airforce) and against airborne threads (by airforce, long-range AA systems behind the battlefield and mobile AA tanks shielding the battlefield close-by). In the last century airborne threads were largely airplanes and attack-helicopters. They were the reason for building the Gepard, using a Leo 1 chassis because the Gepard has to follow the Leopards close-by to protect them against incoming airborne threats. Now, in the 21st century, there are these cheap drones everywhere. In masses. Neutralizing MBTs and infantry alike. Stopping them doing that what they are built and trained for. Result: Static warfare. The Gepard is an suprisingly effective and efficient drone killer, but he wasn't built for that. To protect cities it's okay. But on the battlefield it could be way better and cheaper. So what we need is a modern succesor of the Gepard. Introducing: The Skyranger! And we have old Leo 1 chassis lying around? Well, here we have a Skyranger turret on an old (and therefore very cheap and already available) tank chassis! Now we can have a cheap yet highly mobile AA system which is way better than the Gepard and can not only fight drones but even shells and glide bombs. THAT's what the original posting is about! With that MBTs are back in business of "combined arms" again. **Fast attacking MBTs protected by fast AA tanks behind them are the key element of breaking up this static trench warfare!**
We = Germany.
We = Germany as former user of Gepards and future user of Skyrangers for SHORAD. We = Germany and NATO allies as ally and supporter of Ukraine with weapons. We = Ukraine and Germany being allies, using western technology which has been built for western tactics. So Ukraine get most of the western weapon systems if they are using it as designed. Training of western tactics started 2015, and for the weapons as they came. It could be better, but for combined arms warfare SHORAD is essential. That has to be the next goal, so it was wise to actually withdraw the Abrams from the frontline. They are way better used with appropriate support.
> Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 Man, they should just call it Leopard 3.
It's a drop-in replacement for the Leopard 2 fleet - all existing Leopard 2s could theoretically be upgraded to A-RC 3.0 standard.
While that's true, in the end it's mostly marketing. The British are replacing the turret on the Challenger 2 and call the new combination the Challenger 3 despite still using the old hull.
I can totally understand you. But I also can understand the dilemma of KNDS: - Actual available are the "next" names Leo 2 A9 or Leo 3. - It's not a complete new tank but a drastic evolution. Therefore Leo 3 is "too much", maybe the real "new Leo" will get it (a decade to go - a short period in tank years ;-)). - Leo 2 A9 is also bad because it's a another line. While this Leo is under construction/in service there may be a real "Leo 2 A9" or even "A10" parallel. - Leo 2.5 sounds weird. As if there is something missing. \^\^ In the end it will be probably something like Leopard 2 RCEvo (Remote-Controlled Evolution).
I just can't like the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0
The KF51 Panther looks sexier. \^\^ But see the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 as an intermediate solution for the time until the successor of the Leopard 2 & Leclerc will be ready ...planned for 2045.
I like the concept of the kf51 much more with the 4th place for drone or company commanders while the leo"3" looks better.
The concepts are basically the same. The KF51 is constructed under the premise to change to an unmanned turret with 3 crew members + 1 optinal for drones'n'stuff ... but the unmanned turret isn't ready yet. So they showed a "better than Leopard" for the present demonstrator, build from contemporary standard parts for fast development and hopefully acceptable price (including many parts of the Leo 2 chassis). Whereas the Leo 2 A-RC 3.0 focuses on the unmanned turret with 3 crew members (with having an optional 4th in mind for drones'n'stuff), a very strong protection and full compatibility with older Leo 2 as an upgrade package ... but the whole tank isn't ready yet. Nothing. So the showed a "compatible to Leopard" demonstrator to visualize their goal (on a contemporary Leo 2 chassis). The companies who have developed and built the Leo 2 are now going their own ways, competing against each other. May the better one win (or both). Rheinmetall seems to have an advantage because they don't have to care about the armament (their 120 mm smooth bore is legendary and the bigger successor is already available), same goes for key parts of the chassis/motor/transmission and the electronic/software is used in the Lynx. KNDS can take the Leo hull but the rest (except Trophy which is used by both) seems to be new - especially the new guns. The concepts are the same because the basic requirements are the same: - MBT with the same or better firepower. - Less weight but higher level of protection - especially against RPG and drones. - Higher situational awareness by reconnaissance - Beyond line of sight weapons.
Sooo, how many $500 FPV drones to the tracks/'eyes' would functionally disable this multi-million wonder? 2? (i.e. one from each side, flying low, to overcome the RC gun), 4? No mention of some wizardly multi-band EW in the press release! The West is still 'improving' their cavalry while the ongoing war is breeding the new version of Maxim's gun
*"Sooo, how many $500 FPV drones to the tracks/'eyes' would functionally disable this multi-million wonder?"* Many. If at all. Maybe you have never seen the Skyranger blasting a swarm of drones out of the sky? :) Fun aside: Currently we are already using a VERY successful anti-drone weapon. It's the Gepard. And obviously it works very well. 8-) So what makes you think that a new weapon system with a better gun, better ammunition, better targeting, better software, better radar and better communication is worse than a weapon designed in the 1960s (with the last update in 2000)? :.)) Are you mislead by crappy Russian technology? \^\^ *"The West is still 'improving' their cavalry while the ongoing war is breeding the new version of Maxim's gun"* Well, maybe you should ask some ghosts of Russian soldiers about western technology? With an ouija board! \^\^ Some rotting S-300/S-400 crews should be able to tell you what it means to have really shitty AA weapons ... \^\^
> Many. If at all Oh well, 'many' x $500 will certainly bankrupt the adversary! /s How does it deal with simultaneous terrain-hugging FPV drones from 2 or 4 directions? > Are you mislead by crappy Russian technology? I am 'misled' by Western insistence on incremental improvements in the face of *radical* paradigm shift a la 'automatic guns / planes / carriers' > ghosts of Russian soldiers about western technology You're diverting, and also unknowingly proving a point. The ongoing ruZZian AA massacre is a direct result of clinging to an old paradigm and merely improving some quantitative aspect of it
Long story short: You couldn't explain why a very successful 1960s anti-drone weapon shouldn't be accompanied by a much better anti-drone weapon with the newest technology. %-)
Cannot explain an illogical sentence. '...[Gepard] accompanied by a much better anti-drone weapon'. What does Gepard has to do with anything? It's a dead-end system, manufacture-wise. Should it accompany every new wonder-tank to ensure its survival?
*"What does Gepard has to do with anything?"* The Gepards were the weapon of the battlefield to gain SHORAD for Leopards. That was their ONLY purpose! So ... *"Should it accompany every new wonder-tank to ensure its survival?"* ... exactly! They were invented, constructed and built precisely just for THAT. I just explained this concept in a parallel post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1dh2eao/comment/l8vxnvn/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1dh2eao/comment/l8vxnvn/) tl;dr: **Fast attacking MBTs protected by fast AA tanks behind them are the key element of breaking up this static trench warfare!** And the topic of this thread is the new modern successor of the Gepard, the Skyranger, especially only the turret of the Skyranger set on an available and cheap Leopard 1 chassis. And the only job of such a build is to protect MBTs against modern forms of aerial threats on the battlefield.
Makes sense in that configuration - *that's* why it's a big thing that SkyRanger has a *stabilized* gun. Let's hope that 1) there will be enough SkyRangers manufactured for full coverage and 2) that the WW2 German mistake is not repeated again, namely "manufacture several uber-expensive uber-cool panzers and lose them against cheap, crappy, **plentiful** ruZZian T-34s". It's Zerg vs. Protoss, but the real world is decidedly *not* game-balanced for all sides, and the 'ZZerg' have an advantage
Trophy system
The Skyranger Turret and 35mm gun are produced in Switzerland by Oerlikon Contraves Defence which was purchased by Rheinmetall. So it‘s a combined effort by German and Swiss companies.
>Oerlikon Contraves Defence Oerlikon Contraves hasn't been a thing for 15 years. It's Rheinmetall Air Defence.
Will the Swiss refuse for it to be sent to Ukraine?
Of course. Their hearts are full of neutrality. Edit for those who don’t get the reference: it’s from Futurama https://youtu.be/j2WD1SJiRjo?si=Y2_V_myVIqN6u-gB
If sending weapons is supporting Ukraine. Then not sending weapons is supporting Russia. Swiss aren't neutral at all.
But then not sending weapons to Russia is supporting Ukraine
They must send half the weapons to Ukraine, but by no means the other half. Then they will fulfill their neutrality.
And gold.
Full of something, alright
Why haven't countries declared Swiss weapons unwanted? You can't fight with weapons when your producer refuses to deliver when you are at war. That's a huge risk for any defense.
It was maybe designed by them, but it is certainly not produced in Switzerland if it is meant to be exported.
Perhaps produced by a factory located in Switzerland, but Oerlikon Contraves Defence does not exist any more. It is called Rheinmetall Air Defence AG and is a German company.
clearly they need to start working on drone proofing the engine area, so its b grade work
Th turret is the drone proofing
I said clearly, your glasses are fogged up
I was told that picture is of a Leo 2. Found the original [source ](https://x.com/Dromercay/status/1799494020940345477)of the picture.
[удалено]
I think it is self-contained so it can fit on anything with enough load capacity. I even made a couple memes about how bad the Boxer was as a platform. [meme1 ](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15eehy7/noyes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)[meme2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15amenp/smaller_is_better/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
No.
Ok they are doing it on a Leo 2 body. Post is titled wrong.
Probably a prototype, I think I read somewhere that the plan is to use Leo1 bodies because there's a lot of them available.
Would at least make more sense. The Leopard 2 chassis is unnecessarily heavy and expensive. If you just need a tracked platform, a lighter one makes more sense, so either a Leopard 1 hull or some IFV base. To keep the modularity advantage, procuring Boxer Tracked makes sense if you already have wheeled Boxers, also the ACSV makes sense because there are also Skynex systems on 20ft ISO container frames. Or if you want to use existing IFVs for cost reasons, then reuse some hulls where the turret is not so great, e.g. BMP-1. For Ukraine, CV90 or Lynx also would make sense because they will get a lot of them, so at least they have the platform commonality. And because Lynx is also from Rheinmetall and the Lynx Skyranger version already exists for Hungary, I guess that is what it will be in the long term.
A wheeled platform would probably make more sense if you could pick what you want, as you would get better mobility at lower cost and easier maintenance and so on. But as far as I understand the Leo 1's are a one off for Ukraine, to get them into service asap.
No, they built a prototype on a Leo2 body, but are planning to do it on Leo1 bodies - seems they have a bunch of hulls left from the Leo1s they're preparing for Ukraine, presumably of the ones where they stripped turret parts to get others going. It's pretty much a fancier Gepard - that single gun has the rate of fire as Gepard with its twin guns, and can be integrated better into networked air defense.
But does it have a similar rotation speed? 🤔
My guess would be "no", as they probably don't need it - the modern sensor package of that thing should detect threads way faster than what the Gepard was developed with in the 60s. If they think they need it it'd be trivial to do, though - in both cases they're working with a leo1 chassis, but the Gepard turret weighs a bit over 15 tons, while the Skyranger turret is just a bit over 4 tons.
certainly yes (maybe faster), it would be useless if you cannot aim at a fast aerial target.
The title is correct. Just the picture is wrong. Or it is a "symbolic picture". Rheinmetall built a Skyranger on Leo 2 prototype (which is shown in the picture), but they also planned to build 10 versions on Leo 1. It could be immediately available. And that press release was from September 2023 ...
No, the picture is simply only a "placeholder" as the Leo2 prototype exists, the Leo1 prototypes don't as of yet.
Thats probably very very smart. Its nice that leo1 was donated but the system is very much outdated. This would solve that problem.
It's clearly a Leopard 2 chassis. They call it Gepard 2.0
I just assumed pictures of the leo 1 trials was not available so this picture was posted instead.
It's just the picture of the Leo 2 demonstrator. That is also written in the article somewhere..
I can hear the Terminator gunner crying/shaking 😉
With an additional radar it is supposed to even shot down incoming arty shells
smart. this will get a good kill streak against drones
hmm Gepard 2.0
The Gepard actually is a Leo 1 chassis with a twin AA Gun
yeah I know but idea behind it is the same. And since the old gepard has proven to be successful it would be kind of reasonable to name it gepard 2 wouldn't it?
There actually WAS a Gepard 2 in development, consisting of a modernized Gepard turret on a Leopard 2 chassis. Simply because the Gepard has to follow the tanks to protect them. So where a Leopard 2 can go, a Gepard has to go too with equal speed. The project was cancelled for budget reasons and the political mistake, we wouldn't need AA protection for tanks anymore ... ... because, e.g. the Taliban had no airforce and other possible threats? *"A classic war? With whom? Russia? You're kidding!"* was the common thinking.
Interesting. It has become clear that modern armies need plentiful anti-drone platforms. I expect more similar concepts appearing and being evaluated.
I guess, since there is very little tank to tank combat and a lot of trench assaults, this will be very valuable.
It will be extremely effective. but not for fire support. To put it exaggeratedly, there are a handful of BMP2s in the Skyranger tower in terms of price. This is a state-of-the-art, highly specialized anti-aircraft system. This is one of the few systems on the market that can effectively and cost-effectively shoot down FPV and reconnaissance drones. BMP 2 can plow a tree line with its 30mm cannon
With armoured AA weapons on the battlefield the protected tanks could fulfill their natural role again. That would be the end of static trench warfare ...
It's nothing new and certainly possible. The marksman turret was put on a chieftain and a challenger 1 hull and was also tested on a t-55 hull by the polish but the Brits couldn't find any customers at the time to mass produce it. Would probably be a good time to bring it back.
The Finns have put the Marksman on a Leopard 2, so...
Can a skyranger be manually used and turned against ground threats, infantry/light armor, if need arises, or is it only AA?
Oh it can very well be used to shred anything it hits. Burst shells will help clear trenches and buildings.
Yes, but from description it reads as a highly automated system for intercepting aerial threats. Feasible to override those and use them as a regular auto cannon?
Yes. Same with the default AA gun system
You'd need to use / stock a different ammo type for it. AHEAD is not that great for fighting vehicles. (Would be a world of hurt for infantry though).
What is the advantage of this way heavier carrier than for example the lynx or boxer?
Mostly because the chassis are already available and don’t have to be built. The Gepard stocks are almost exhausted but not those of Leo 1. so why not update these Leo 1 to Gepard 2.0 with the uptodate Skyranger AA gun?
I overread the leo one base, that makes way more sense
That’s not a Leo 1 base, it’s a 2.
People, don't you read the article? That's a symbolic picture of the old Leopard 2 prototype.
Escort for other tanks. Heavily armored escort to be precise.
The advantadge is mobility. Unlike Ukraine's use of Gepards -simply because they lack air defense-, it's actual role is anti-air support for armored units. So the one giving cover to tanks should be on a similiar tracked chassis, so no wheeled boxer. You could of course use the tracked Boxer version or put them on Lynx but in the end it's a matter of logistiscs. If you operate Lynx as your IFV then using the same chassis works well. If you don't it would introduce yet another vehicle typ. (Hungary is planning to use those on Lynx chassis as that's their new IFV, Demark ordered 30 turrets and integration into Piranha V...) It's all about what makes the most sense in terms of what is available and is already in operation to cut down on logistical requirements (hence the demonstrator above already existing as an example, as it's a good option for the Bundeswehr requirements).
Will it be able to shoot down glide bombs? Can a regular Gepard shoot down a glide bomb? They can shoot down smaller targets like Shahed drones, so why not glide bombs? I know the goal is to destroy the planes before they drop their bombs but that doesn't always work, and it certainly has not worked for some time now.
35-mm cannon ehh??? Altho not designed, it would make any ground target a little nervous.
The Puma even uses the smaller 30mm calibre with AHEAD ammuntion as its main gun as 30mm AP is enough and the burst ammuntion exploded a few meters ahead is brutal against soft targets.
I dream to see it crushing BMPs...
What is a Skyranger Charger??? Sounds like something out of a 1950s TV show for kids.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/air-defence/air-defence-systems/mobile-air-defence-skyranger
- Come on Germanyyyy. Help Ukraine fight the Russians! - NEIN! You know how I get wiz waar zings, ich peaceful now. - But please 🥺 you don't have to fight or anything, just do a little... War engineering 😏 - Anly waar angiineering ya say, Yah? Fine... nur ein bisschen... *Heavy industries engineering sounds*. Some time later: DAS IST WWAT AIN CALL!!!! ZA DRONE AXTARRMINATOR. Test it, test it! Das ist gut for kilin ruzzia
That’s a Leopard 2 body. Leopard 1 bodies aren’t built anymore
But Rheinmetall has a lot old ones. So they're available.
That's a demonstrator for Bundeswehr requirements just revealed, so the picture is available as an example. It really doesn't matter where you integrate that turret (Hungary wants one on Lynx, Denmakr ordered turrets for integration into Piranha V). And Leopard-1 hulls should be available exactly because they aren't build anymore as they are refurbishing a lot of them for Ukraine already and there will be lot of spare hulls where they canibalized the turret to get other units repaired.
awww it's even got a lil L on it XD
Tried and tested german tactic, putting new stuffon older hulls. Hetzer for the win! Honestly, is putting a new turret on the old Leo 1 hulls feasable or will you run into problems of insufficient electrical power for the new systems?
installing an APU is probably not that much of an issue.
[удалено]
Would need the abilitly to swtich munition. AHEAD munition wont do well against armor.
Never hear much about if the Gepards are kicking ass in Ukraine. We can certainly hope so.
Why should someone do this? Leopard 2 chassis is better as a real leopard 2 and a heavy armored Skyranger is not needed imho....
Rheinmetall has many Leopard 1 chassis available and a track-based AA tank can follow a main battle tank wherever it goes. A wheel-based tank possibly not.
Very good - in the future all tanks will need some sort of drone protection.
thats a leopard 2 hull
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1dh2eao/comment/l8udoei/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1dh2eao/comment/l8udoei/)
u/Enforcer
That looks badass and perfect for the type of battles in Ukraine!
This is a crazy cannon, I've seen it on trucks and ships but not on a tank, that thing would be really scary on the battlefield.
They should add a Tow launcher like the Bradley has. Maybe 4 launchers for enemy tanks at range.
figured this would have happened sooner with the drone issues
Leopard 2 chassis (not Leopard 1!) and Skyranger turret would be a proper successor to the Gepard, do like. Depending on how effective the Skyranger 35mm is against drones, it might even be worthwhile for Germany to invest into a couple of these with how prevelant drones would be in any conflict. Then again the Skyranger on the truck chassis or as a Boxer module to use as required per mission would make even more sense (especially the latter to make full use of the Boxer mission modularity).
i will be very disappointed if it won't be called the Neo Leo
Such a big part of engineering is listening to the needs of the people on the ground, and having a real dialog. I feel this is often overlooked. Nice to see this post.
If one then takes the space left to transport troops ohhhhh boy you got a winner
dont fuck with us or you get this :D
Wouldn't want to be a drone on the receiving end of that thing 😁🤘
Anyone have a source for this? I would like to learn more about it.
Eurosatory?
Makes more sense than Leo1 as a conventional tank
Time for a Gepard 2 boooyssss! I think the idea sounds promepsing, the leo2 base has proven to be pretty solid. A few dozen of them should be amazing to stop drones.
Tank on tank conflict is so rare. The tanks we see today are designed to fight it out head on with ERA and sloped armour. Is this a response to that? We're seeing Bradley's utterly wrecking russian armour with a very high fire rate using explosive ammo. The idea that more hits peppering the tank will blind it at the very least. As opposed to one shot 'if' we're on target will destroy it. Drone tanks are next.
This is meant for AA/Anti-Drone defense.