Rolls-Royce and Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG) have announced a new project to repower the Leopard 1 tank family and the Wisent 1 support vehicle with an upgraded engine, the mtu 8V199.
The companies, with support from transmission specialist ZF, presented their concept at the RÜ.NET user forum in Koblenz on 4 September 2024.
This initiative aims to extend the operational life of these vehicles, which remain in use with several militaries, by replacing their outdated MB838 engines, which are no longer in production.
The Leopard 1 tank, first introduced in the 1960s, along with its various specialised variants—such as the BPz2 armoured recovery vehicle and the Gepard anti-aircraft system—continues to serve in several countries. Many user states face the financial challenge of replacing these vehicles with modern alternatives, making this engine upgrade a cost-effective solution.
Rolls-Royce’s new mtu 8V199 engine, they claim, promises improved performance and efficiency, with Knut Müller, Senior Vice President Global Governmental at Rolls-Royce Power Systems, stating, “The new 800 kW version is the perfect drive solution to ensure that the vehicles in the Leopard 1 family can continue to be operated efficiently in the future.”
The proposed engine, which delivers 800 kW—190 kW more than the original—offers several advantages beyond increased power. According to Rolls-Royce, the mtu 8V199 is lighter, more economical, and boasts longer service intervals, contributing to both cost savings and enhanced vehicle performance.
The engine has already proven itself in military vehicles like the “Boxer” family, and its integration into the Leopard 1 variants is designed to be a “plug-and-play” solution, simplifying the logistics for armies already using Series 199 engines.
FFG will oversee the development of a power pack tailored to the new engine, while ZF will focus on maintaining the 4HP250 transmission to ensure compatibility with the upgraded engine. Jörg Kamper, Managing Director of FFG, emphasised that the project offers an affordable way for militaries to adapt to the evolving security landscape without the high costs of replacing their existing fleets.
“This concept will be an excellent opportunity for many armies to adapt to the changed security situation at a reasonable cost and within a manageable period of time,” Kamper said.
The UK’s MBT fleet is too small and may be too sophisticated. In addition the CH3 it would be good to see a small fleet of (say 70) slogger MBT’s for guarding, patrolling, interdiction and suburban support. The MK1 Leopards would be perfect for such duties allowing CH3 and Ajax /Fox to concentrate on frontline operations. The cost would be modest and fitted with a modern engine these machines could make up the loss of redundant CH2’s?
Or a faster wheeled system with a 120mm gun and armoured to manage 30mm kinetic rounds…with an active protection system for large antitank missiles. something like the Centauro 2…in regards to MBTs..one type is more than enough..we just need to to keep three regiments worth ( which means at a fleet of at least 200 ).
And you’re factoring in the training, logistics and maintenance burdens of having two small fleets of tanks into your thinking there?
MBTs for guarding? Tanks in a suburban setting aren’t great either, the 6th Army found that out at Stalingrad.
I’m sold on Derns Centauro II if I wished for flexible FS, keep the tanks for offensive action.
Boxer 105mm module with uprated armour?
Or would something smaller be preferable?
As Boxer is so expensive, and I’d like to see more OTS good enough in the military, I still prefer Centauro II.
It’s all fantasy fleets any way Carter could have looked at them for Strike in 2015 rather than hamstringing our armoured Brigades by removing their Recc Regiments.
Would an Ajax 120mm version be suitable?
We are building them ourselves and we seem to be stretching out the build the same as with frigates so extra ones won’t cost much more.
Give the people what they want and make a proper “light tank”.
Ha! That would be ironic. There was such a FS Ajax variant planned, it got deleted early on.
Thinking a bit more hunter-killer than FS.
Come to think of it, an RCH Ajax would be good fun… A bit like the FV4005 Conway but arty rather than a tank destroyer
Ah, you’ve moved on mate while I was expanding on my earlier post.
Hunter killer? Are we going all Jagdpanther now as in the German SP AT units?
I’d be happy with Brimstone on a wheeled vehicle.
Ooh, Jagdpanther, there’s a thought. How small an unmanned platform could we fit a CH3 gun in a casemate in? Drive around following the Boxers with a stupidly low profile and have a motherships Boxer with screens and links to control several at once. Have indirect capability for FS and integrate drone scouting. A fun thought experiment, but I digress. If the basic idea is to give vehicle AT and fortification attack to the Boxer formations then Brimstone is the way. If we also want indirect and direct FS with HE then guns are better, though shorter ranged. At the… Read more »
You need to get into DSTL mate, follow in the footsteps of Chariot Rider!
They’re in your part of the world too, you’re within range of Porton and Portsdown West.
As long as I get a job that essentially consists of me going 🤔 “I wonder if…” and then a team of people who work out if the idea is feasible.
I’m sort of holding out for BAE at the moment but will probably find a lot more out about that sort of thing moving into U6th next year.
Think Abbot SPG.
Sort of, but with the turret centred fore and aft.
Hopefully a bigger gun than that as well!
Probably a bit more like a Bishop in concept, but with more refinement.
Well, what people want. Do they want it? And where in the army would it fit? Some background, as I understand it: It’s a heavy tracked vehicle, which brings logistic issues for rapid deployment at distance, need for HETS, rail moves, and so on. This was the confusion when Strike in 2015 placed the planned Ajax Regiments within the 2 Strike Bdes. They were meant to deploy from distance quickly to eastern Europe with wheeled Boxer. Now the Soviets also mixed Tyres and Tracks in their Divisions, but was it really necessary for Carter to do that? Ajax and its… Read more »
So, the requirement is a big-gun vehicle OTS to be able to drive across Europe with the Boxer formations?
Why couldn’t a 120mm Boxer module do that?
I understand KNDS have shown that, albeit on a tracked hull.
Then you could also put it on tracks if we bought those for the armoured brigades (look at me, I did ORBAT!) as a true Warrior replacement with uprated Protector RS6 RWS.
😂 Small steps, young man…… Joking mate.
You could do. But as I said, I’m unsure if the army currently has a requirement for it, this stems from Maurice’s wish for a FS vehicle up thread.
The Strike Bdes are toast and the Ajax is back where it should have been all along, with the ABCTs and DRSB.
Centauro has a 120mm 🙂
I’m working on the premise the Leopard 1’s will be a fraction of the price of a brand new tank. Guarding or blockading is an effective way of using a MBT and we have seen them deployed many times during rebellion, such as in Turkey. They offer a formidable obstacle more so than lighter vehicles. However, the chances of the UK Government augmenting the CH3 Fleet with another MBT is highly unlikely but many do feel our tank fleet is dangerously small and these German machines could be a more cost effective method of achieving that.
Agree the Tank fleet is too small.
I’d stick to the number we currently have, around 200, and no more. In the three existing Regiments.
I’m hopeful this will be confirmed in the review.
Who uses MBTs to guard anything?
The British used Challenges to blockade and control highways and protect vulnerable sites in both Gulf Wars. Turks used MBT’s to block bridges during their uprising a few years ago. So yes, nothing matches a MBT to hold back the mob. It’s also standard practise in South America.
Worth remembering that Leo 1 entered Service in 1956. It’s being used in Ukraine because the Ukrainians are receiving literally nothing else, but this is a tank that’s contemporary with the T-55.
It’s a good tank for the time, but think about how outraged we are about 432, a vehicle that is a decade younger than Leo 1, last upgraded in 2006 as opposed to 1980, and that isn’t intended to directly engage enemy forces, remaining in service.
Far, far older than I realized.
Leo 1 ISD surely was 1965?
Correct, slip of the fingers, designed and prototyped in the 50’s, ISD in 65.
👍
It might remain in service even longer, if we don’t get enough Boxers.
FV430? We are all assuming that Boxers will replace those (in addition to replacing Warrior of course), but I don’t think that has ever been said officially.
Certainly the Boxer order needs to go up massively from just 623 Boxers – that order includes Infantry carriers for only 3 of the 5 Warrior battalions.
Supposedly about 96 RCH155 on Boxer chassis, but even including those only just over 700 and they are the artillery replacement.
One problem is the number, the other is the build rate.
Wouldn’t it take about 20 years at current speed of build to get to 1000+?
The first 117 Boxers are being built in Germany and UK facilities in Telford and Stockport build the remaining 506 in the Qty 623 order. IOC was intended to be Q4 of 2025, but that is likely to slip. I think I once saw an article that talked about a build rate of 5 or so per month, so over 10 years to build Tr1 and Tr2 ie 623. But the army has a total requirement for well over 1000 Boxers (perhaps in the range 1200-1500). If that sort of figure is actually built and the ‘about 96’ RCH-155 SPGs… Read more »
Be interested to see the equipment list from the government, which usually comes out around this time to see how many are in service.
You’d have the modular nature means in service upgrades are easier than say FV432 and Warrior, but who knows?
Reasonable professional reply on such modernization effort of Leopard tanks . I wouldn’t say better than this British military Intelligence specialist.Gid bless King Charles III
Congratulations for such timely initiative. Germany and Britain together will always gain in power on the traditional Christian faith Europe soul. God bless America and Israel and France and Britain and Germany