123

1

1

1

1

1

1
 

1

1

These vehicles are all based on the CV90 Mk IIIB, the most advanced model currently in use. Some of them were created by rebuilding older vehicles (which means complete rebuilding, including cutting and welding of the basic steel structure), others are newly made. If Australia had the same "maturity" requirement for Phase 3 that was also used during Phase 2, this would be the best possible CV90 model that BAE Systems could offer.
 
There are also several other variants based on older hulls, such as a self-propelled anti-air gun, a light/medium tank and a mortar carrier, which could be interesting for Australia. I don't think it is a far stretch to assume that all these variants could - in modernized form - be manufactured on the latest CV90 Mk IV chassis. In the end there isn't even a proper IFV variant of the AJAX...
 
I don't see why one should say the AJAX family has an advantage in terms of being more proven offer the CV90. That the British army is still negotiating about a delivery of a first batch of ARES vehicles is indeed odd. Remember the Piranha Evolution (~ Piranha 5 prototype), the British army's primary choice as wheeled vehicle for FRES? The only reason why the British now want to buy the Boxer was the inability to negotiate a favorable contract with GDELS.
A lot of vehicles are tested and never purchased. The Austrian military for example tested the Pandur II and the heavier ASCOD 2, would you consider these vehicles mature if nobody had purchased them? But in the end that doesn't matter, as maturity is not a requirement for LAND 400 Phase 3.
 
 

1

1

1

1
 

 
 

1
 

 
 

1

1

1

1

The whole "close-proximity APS are saver" discussion (and marketing) has been done since at least ten years, there are tests (and probably also studies) confirming this. How much the increased safety is valued by each potential user nation is different. In Germany, modern conventional ERA was invented (indepent from Soviet research), yet it was never adopted due to the increased danger for nearby infantry (a result of the metal fragments thrown formed by the ERA flyer plates upon penetration). Many other countries didn't care about it, German companies developed the CLARA (HL-Schutz) ERA. Yet CLARA was chosen for a €124 million contract by the UAE army, not one of the cheaper, more dangerous options...
 

 
As far as the APS market is concerned, I think you assessement is incorrect. The Netherlands are buying Iron Fist for tests first, a follow up order to equip more CV90s will come only if these tests are successful.
 

 
Australia might buy Trophy or any other APS. They have not decided yet and are also considering the ADS - don't forget that the ADS is mounted on one of the Boxer CRVs! Aside of an unnamed SEA country, Turkey is actively trying to buy the ADS (despite also developing their local APS called Akkor). The deal has been delayed by the German government, but it soon might be finalized (see my mention of the news report by the Spiegel magazine earlier). Germany is testing the ADS as possible option for the Boxer and Leopard 2. Furthermore three European countries (France, the UK and Sweden) have funded trials of the ADS in the past; none of these have yet decided to buy an APS - but if they do, would they buy a system already tested by their own military or buy something else? Who knows. Last but not least: The United States are interested in buying the ADS for tests. On the long run, the US Army will adopt its own APS, the modular active protection system (MAPS), which might incorporate technology from other systems. The current APS trials in the United States need to be put into the context of the MAPS, they are only used to tests the capabilities of current active protection systems and find out how the MAPS should look like.
 
Only Trophy (as urgent material requirement) will be adopted on actual combat vehicles, while the Iron Fist APS and the Iron Curtain APS will be used for tests.
 
As for the ADS's performance, Jane's Defence Weekly reported the following in early 2017:
"The system has been tested successfully against a range of weapons, including the Russian Kornet and RPG-7 families, the US TOW 2B, and the Swedish BILL 1 and AT4 Confined Space (CS). Capable of firing even if the associated ROSY_L smoke dispensing system has been deployed, the ADS uses an infrared bandwidth that is lower than the multispectral smoke can obscure. The system has been subject to more than 800 live-fire tests, including three Kornet missiles, more than 535 RPG-7 series RPGs, and five top-attack TOW 2Bs. Threat detection and validation is reported by the company to be greater than 95%, while interception has been stated as 85–90% for anti-tank rockets and more than 80% for ATGWs.

The Active Defence System has already been sold to Malaysia (I assume they mean Singapore...) for use on its upgraded Leopard 2SG MBTs. ADS even claims it is more effective than rival hard-kill systems such as the Israeli Trophy because it is more effective at preventing detonation of the threat projectile’s warhead."
(Please note that the current NATO standard STANAG 4686 for (active) protection systems demands only an 80% probability to reduce armor pentration by 50%)

1

1

Well, if you want to keep the tank around for an additional 42 years, I guess then investing into a deeper modernization of the Leopard 2 makes sense. However by 2030-2035 a proper next-generation main battle tank should be available.
 
 
There are quite a few options, I just wouldn't consider them to be financially financially sensible for most users. Dipl.-Ing. R. Hilmes suggested - as a fully hypothetical upgrade - to install a low profile turret and a MT883 engine into a Leopard 2 for a major reduction in size and weight. This then would require to add an autoloader (in best case one would eliminate one crew member, but theoretically one also could keep a fourth crew member and give him another role). One also could use a next-generation engine based on the MT890 family as used in the Puma. A V12 variant of the Puma's MT892 would be 50% smaller (in terms of volume) and reduce fuel consumption by 10%.
 

 
This low-profile turret was designed in the 1980s, but it was never used due to issues with the NBC protection system. I.e. to keep a high gun depression, the gun needed to move through the roof, which would mean that a much stronger NBC protection system is required (a larger opening means more clean air will exit the vehicle, so more air has to be filtered by the NBC protection system and moved into the vehicle to create an overpressure).

Leopard 2 hull (shortened, only six roadwheels + MT883 engine and Renk HSWL 295TM) with such a loow profile turret.
 


Same as above, but with Leopard 2A5-style add-on armor. Length of the hull is reduced by ~1 metre, height of the turret by ~20-30%. However the price for such an upgrade would be probably close to buying brand new Leopard 2 tanks.
 
A more radical upgrade would involve using a two-men crew located in the hull - i.e. remove the ammo rack and use this spot for a combined commander/gunner. Then put an unmanned turret with autoloader onto the turret ring. Germany experimented with 2 men crews during the 1980s and 1990s for their next generation MBT (i.e. first the PzKpfW 2000, then the NGP), before the programs were canceled. Tests involved using special containers with three seats (two for the crew, one for a person who observes the tests and documents the results) on a Leopard 2 hull. The crew was assisted by modern optics and electronics, which would automatically detect targets, etc.
In theory with more modern technology this also could involve automated driving (setting a waypoint on a GPS map, then letting the tank drive to the coordinates) and automatic target engagement (let the tank detect, aim and fire at enemies all by itself).
 

 
 
Last but not least there is the aspect of armor protection. It really depends on what is required for the Leopard 2 in the 2040s, 2050s and 2060s. Rheinmetall claims, that the AMAP armor package used on the Leopard 2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator and the Leopard 2 Evolution provides the same level of frontal protection as the Leopard 2A7(V), while also including roof armor and side armor modules for turret and hull, that are not part of the basic 2A7(V) configuration. So by using this AMAP armor kit without roof and side armor, one could probably already save 1-2 metric tons over the current 2A7(V) tank. More modern armor technology available in the 2030s/2040s/2050s would enable further weight savings while staying at the same level of protection - if a higher level of protection is desired, the weight savings would go away.
The United States of America (with the Future Combat Systems) and the IDF (with the Carmel vehicle) both have at least played with the idea of reducing passive armor in favor for active protection systems. So in the future one could remove some ~10-15 metric tons of composite armor and instead install one or multiple types of APS, if this is considered acceptable.
 
 
No, the Leopard 2 does have extra armor in the frontal section of the hull. However it is less obvious.
 
First of all on the original hull design for the Experimentalentwicklung Keiler (1969) and the Leopard 2K (1972) were designed with a higher level of protection along the whole crew comparment.

The frontal section of the Keiler was designed to have 40 mm cast steel armor at the lower section or two sloped plates (10 mm rolled steel at 45.5° + 35 mm cast steel at 30°) at the upper section. Engine compartment armor was only 29 mm rolled steel (lower section) or 12 + 22 mm steel (upper section).
 

Leopard 2K continued this design with changed thickness. Frontal section has 12 + 30 mm spaced armor at 45.45° (upper section) or 10 + 29 mm (lower section), while the engine compartment has only 8 + 10 mm spaced side armor at 45.45° (upper section) or 10 + 19 mm (lower section).
 
I cannot tell if the series production variant of the Leopard 2 (1979) has the same armor scheme, hower it was still present on the Leopard 2AV prototypes (1976-1977). I've heard that the side armor layout has been altered in certain batches, but I cannot confirm that this is true. At least on the Leopard 2A7Q and the Strv 122, the frontal most section of the hull - i.e. the section in which the driver sits and the hull ammo is located - includes a special armor array (some 150-200 mm thick).

Note the opening that extends from the front to the center of the turret ring. There composite armor modules will be inserted.

The text just says 𝕾𝖕𝖊𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖘𝖆𝖙𝖟𝖐𝖔𝖒𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖔 𝕾𝖆𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖊𝖓 (Spezialeinsatzkommando Sachsen, "(police) special force unit of Saxony").
 
The problem is not the text itself, but how it is presented. First of all the Fraktur (old German scripture, also used in Norway for some time) has not been used since the Third Reich, although aesthetically pleasing (at least better than Comic Sans MS), most of the times it is being used by neo-Nazis. The Fraktur script was officially abandoned during the WW2, because people in occupied/conquered countries had a hard time reading it (and one of the most popular fronts apparently was designed by a jew). Given that the state of Saxony has the highest amount of Nazis relative to its size (at least the neo-Nazi party has gotten the best results in Saxony), people are worried about the special forces (i.e. the Saxon equivalent of SWAT) using text commonly associated with Nazis.
 
The logo only supports the worries, because it consists of three parts:
the center part is a variant of the coat of arms of the Kindgom of Saxony, which is not being used anymore. The new coat of arms was adopted in 1990,  before that were 45 years of socialist/communist rule, where such evil imperialistic signs weren't used. So the last time a similar coat of arms was used was... during the Nazi reign, before Hitler decided to restructure Germany and remove all states in favor of a Gau-based system. the center is surrounded by oak leaves (Eichenlaub). While today still in use with the German government (for example on several Euro cent coins imprinted in Germany, aswell as the beret insignia of the German military), it was even more common during the Nazi rule of Germany. E.g. most military decorations such as the Iron Cross included oak leaves in the higher versions. for some people the "wings" are too reminiscent of the Nazi variant of the Reichsadler Please note that this is not the official logo, neither is it common within the police to use Fraktur script. So essentially a lot of people are accusing the "SWAT of Saxony" to either be Nazis or to support them. The Ministry of Interior of Saxony has released a statement, claiming that this is an internal logo created in 1991 by a West-German police officer who switched to Saxony, while the font for the text wasn't officially approved (originally there was no text planned, but Rheinmetall offered to stitch a text of the police unit's choice onto the seats free of charge).
 
Overall it is hard to say what is the truth. There have been cases of Nazis getting suprisingly far within the German police, specifically in the state police (resulting in a police special forces member being fired for having Nazi tatoos, who then sued the corresponding state but failed). On the other hand it could be a lot of (random) incidents; none of the criticized aspects is actually a proof of them being Nazis.
 
 

1

1