More an idea than a package. The "proposal" so far is a word salad combined with 5 hours worth of beginner CAD work on a partial 3d scan of a Leo 1, hardly serious.
A video of the "K1E1 Performance Improvement Test" was recently published
This K1E1 Performance Improvement, K1E2, is very similar to what we saw previously of the K1E2 render showcasing the potential changes being made in this upgrade over the E1.
Changes shown in the video:
0:38 Improved Gunner's Primary Sight
0:52 NBC Overpressure System
1:23 Air-conditioning Unit
1:32 Extension of the rear hull for the APU and Heater Unit
T shaped is main flyer(which is rest on T shaped damper with 3 cuts in it), rectangular ones acting as supports for eliminating the edпe effect of T shaped elements, damian "backplate" is simply non existent(maybe somebody have pic without his drawings?), it's just a empty space.
as for how much support rectangular elements there, not sure, it's either under every T shaped element, or only before top one, and under bottom one
"NASA’s Mars Architecture Team (MAT) has recently developed a collection of concepts to assess the capabilities and constraints presented by architectures incorporating large-scale Mars In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) propellant production. The focus of this manuscript is on the concept design of chemical propellant-based transportation systems including a dual role lander/ascent vehicle and an in-space transporter. Mission performance analyses performed during a recent design analysis cycle derived the 300,000 kg propellant production capacity utilized for preliminary concept designs of enabling surface ISRU systems, power systems, fluid handling systems, and their concept of operation, detailed in companion papers."
-A2, A3 and A4 in September 2025, 2026 and 2028
-A2 delay comes from needing to understand an ablation of the heat shield during the skip that was different than expected, the circuitry of a co2 scrubber and battery connections for the LAS
-Starship flight 3 in Feb, will not be a prop transfer
-no changes to the mission plan of A2 and A3
-uncrewed HLS demo in 2025, will be both a landing and liftoff
-NASA asking SX and BO about cargo versions of their HLS
I wrote a rather detailed answer yesterday but accidentally closed the wrong tab and the forum didn't save it... so I'll try to make this short.
Based on the description I was given, no.
The problem here is that Spielberger is wrong in calling "D-Technologie" the "fourth armor technology generation". He likely saw that "D" is the fourth letter of the alphabet and assumed that this means that "armor in D technology" equates to "fourth generation armor". This is obviously wrong as "B-Technologie" was originally an abbreviation of "Beulblechtechnologie".
There are however several reasons why this is not the case. First of all, "Panzerung in B-Technologie" is the first generation of special armor. This is confirmed e.g. by a 2009 article written by Dieter Haug, a "protection expert in the Armament Directorate of the German MoD" (i.e. the BWB/BAAINBw), called "Development of Protection Technologies". In this article, the author clearly states "[...] led to the development of first generation spaced laminated composite armours, like the German “Bulge Plate Armour” (B-Technology) for MBT Leopard 2 and the British 'Chobham Armour' for the UK MBT Challenger and the US MBT M1 Abrams." Published in the same Wehrtechnischer Report as this article is also one written by by IBD Deisenroth's Dipl. Phys. Michael Rust explaining the development of AMAP armor. There he states: "The latest technologies in advanced passive armour are based on the experiences gained with the so-called „3rd-Generation“-Protection installed on platforms like the Leopard 2, STRV 122, Fuchs (Rheinmetall), LMV (Iveco), ASV (Textron), CV90 (BAE Systems) and LAV Stryker (GDLS). With the results of intensive research and development in material sciences the 4th generation of passive armour was introduced and has now been applied to platforms".
In other words, according to IBD, MEXAS-M and MEXAS-H are so-called third generation armors while only AMAP is a fourth generation armor. This is furthermore confirmed by a presentation held by IBD in the 2013 FKH symposium (the same symposium where Ralf Ketzel included the slide showing the Leopard 2 protection development in his presentation), which mentions as examples of tanks with "Schwerer Schutz 3. Generation" (heavy protection of the third generation) the "Leopard 2 A5, A6, MBT 122, Leopard 2 A6 Greece and Leopard 2 A6 Spain" as well as the Leopard 2 A4 N. N. (which is from my understanding this thing) with a Leopard 2A4 from the late production lot (heavy skirts from "C technology armor") being shown as the starting point for the parallel upgrades in the graphic. Note that IBD only produced the add-on armor, so the "D tech" add-on armor is considered third generation armor by IBD as well.
Furthermore, there is the Technische Lieferbedingungen (TL) 2350-0010 - the delivery conditions of the Bundeswehr for "Sonderpanzerungen II. Generation". The only edition of this standard was issued in April 1990; while it is common for these to be only published some time after a vehicle was adpoted, i.e. the Leopard 1 was made with armor steel according to a preliminary version of TL 2350-0000 because the standard was fully approved later thanks to the slowness of bureacracy, I do have serious doubts that it took 12 years for the TL to be issued, hence the "armor in C technology" being second generation armor; subsequently the "armor in D technology" being third generation armor.
Even Spielberger himself calls "D-Technologie" the 3. Schutzversion (third version of protection) at another place, specifically refering to the side skirts in "D-Technologie":
Last but not least, Krauss-Maffei itself has noted that third generation armor entered service in 1991, which coincides with the last production batch of the Leopard 2A4, featuring at least side skirts in "D-Technologie". Second generation armor entered service in 1988, matching the date of introduction of the Leopard 2A4 with "C-Technologie armor".
(I see that @speziale also has pointed that out).
So we have established that first generation armor is B-Technologie (according to Dieter Haug of the German MoD's BAAINBw and Krauss-Maffei's graphic above), that second generation armor is C-Technologie (based on the graphic above and the date of TL 2350-0010) and that third generation armor is D-Technologie (Spielberger's mention of the D-Technologie skirts, IBD's article from Michael Rust in 209 and their 2013 presentation at the FKH symposium).
The key issue is that there either seem to be two ways of counting generations (with B-Technologie either being first generation armor or second generation armor) or D-Technologie covering two generations (maybe internal armor/D-1 and external modules/D-2).
No, he doesn't refer to the add-on modules as "integrated". The English translation is misleading. He says "Die Schutzpakete waren in D-Technologie ausglegt ([...]) und je nach Stelle integriert (Turmfront/Fahrgestell) oder aufgesetzt (Turmdach). Erstmal gab es Vorsatzmodule für Turm und Fahrgestell, [...]".
This means that "[t]he protection modules were designed in D technology and depending on location integrated (turret/hull) or put on (turret roof). For the first time, there were add-on modules for the turret and hull."
There are two parts here: first, the D-Technologie armor was integrated into turret and hull (integrated = installed into the structure of turret and hull) and put onto the turret roof (due to there being no internal cavity, it was not "integrated" there) and then the add-on modules are mentioned separately.
How does this indicate that the TVM was using "Panzerung in B-Technologie"? I don't see how you came to that conclusion. As you said yourself, the IVT (KVT with additional measuring equipment) was send to Sweden for trials. This tank had obviously "B technology" armor as the KVT was based on a Leopard 2A4 from the fifth batch, i.e. before the "C technology" armor was adopted.
The TVMs however have different internal armor than the KVT based on the table that you included in the post:
Subsequently, if the KVT uses "B technology" base armor and the TVMs have different base armor, then they cannot have "B technology" base armor. That is also obvious given that the two TVMs were based on Leopard 2A4 tanks from the eight batch (which was built with "D-Technologie" side skirts and at least "C-Technologie" internal armor).
They don't all think that "D technology" is "4th armor technology". That is not shown there. The problem is simply the following:
Lobitz and Scheibert call "D-Technologie" the fourth generation armor technology, but they don't state that the internal armor is third generation or C-Technologie. Hilmes doesn't mention any armor generations and only talks about the turrets being modified with "D-Technologie" and the hulls being "C-Technologie". Spielberger calls D-Technologie both "the third protection version" and "fourth generation armor technology". Van Oosbree mentions "third generation armor" but no "fourth generation armor" and doesn't state that third generation armor would be in "C-Technologie".
There is not a single source clearly stating either that "C-Technologie" is "third generation armor" or that internal armor was a generation older than the add-on armor modules. Only Spielberger implies something like that, be he also calls D-Technologie both the third and fourth generation/version, showing that he might mix up two different definitions.
I mean, you posted a photo of an armor array without add-on module stopping LKE1...
Just look at the turret alone. The Leopard 2A4 turret has an empty weight of 15.5 tonnes. The Leopard 2A5 turret - without add-on modules - has a weight of 18.4 tonnes. That's 2.9 tonnes of unexplained weight, not 1.7 tonnes. The EWNA is lighter than the old systems it replaces (also the case with the light ballistic skirts in D-Technologie, but those are irrelevant for the turret). The changes for moving PERI R17 and EMES 15 were likely rather small, given that the main purpose was to move them so that the add-on module's coverage remains large.
The new gun mantlet results in a lower weight (3,210 kg vs 3,655 kg) which likely does not fully offset the hinged armor. Leaving the spall liners, which are hard to estimate. For the M113A3, the spall liners (and all other changes) resulted in less than a tonne of weight being added - and that has a much larger internal surface area than a Leopard 2 turret. IMO there is still unaccounted weight, estimating the weight of the hinged armor based on thickness, frontal profile & the density of steel as well as adding some exaggerated number like 900 kg for the spall liners still leave "leftover" weight.
If you ignore this chart:
This also suggests that KVT and TVM had different add-on modules, though it might be a reference to some being excluded at times (initial mock-up based on KVT only had turret modules).
All protection values we have are British estimates that are in general of a rather poor nature. The Brits concluded that the "Type C" armor/"Panzerung in C-Technologie" offers 410-420 mm RHAe of protection, because "Penetration was variously quoted as 400 mm or 410-420 mm RHA equivalent". That leads a lot of issues including the fact that there is no fixed definition for RHA. I.e. if the "600 mm figure" was given/estimated using British RHA and the 410-420 mm figure is from German tests, then the difference is a lot smaller than 180 mm. 120 mm DM23 also managed to defeat the NATO heavy single target (150 mm steel with a hardness of 260-300 kp/mm2 which is rather close to British DEF-Stan) sloped at 71.5° (effective thickness: 472 mm) at a range of 1,300 metres. Even taking into account that performance against sloped armor is better, it points to better performance than 410-420 mm at 200 metres. Hence why I would put less faith in subjective numbers.
Furthermore we have to remember that we only have performance predictions from the UK for the "Type D" armor, not any concrete info regarding actual final performance. Arguing with time frames is also not the best solution IMO. The development of "C technology" armor didn't start in 1979, it was initated based on studies made in 1984. So there weren't ten years, but one still has to wonder what "breakthrough in technology" was discovered between 1988 and 1991, assuming the British values are correct.
Last but not least, the US ARL also managed to improve the KE protection performance of one of their ceramic arrays by 33% over an existing ceramic array. Given that the "Panzerung in C-Technologie"/"Type C" armor introduced ceramic elements according to the UK, there might have been a lot of potential for further improvements... but 42-45% seems to be rather unrealistic.
That is not the most logical explanation. If "C tech" armor is used in the turret, then there wouldn't be a reason to use turrets from old batches (1st to 4th batch) for the Leopard 2A5 upgrade in Germany. They were intentionally used so that the "C tech" armored turret could remain in service on the Leopard 2A4 "hybrids". This was only possible as the internal armor of the Leopard 2A4 was being replaced during the upgrade to the Leopard 2A5 standard.
That was a prediction. Predicitions don't necessarily match the reality, just look at the CR2 for example.
I think you are making too many leaps of faith here. The table showing the graph with the five colors, i.e. the table in the center of this slide was most likely supplied by Krauss-Maffei:
Why? The graphics on the left and right of it are also supplied by Krauss-Maffei (German text). Sweden neither has the data for showing the frontal arc armor coverage/protection of all the various Leopard 2 models (unless supplied by Krauss-Maffei) and had no interest in plotting such data (what is the gain of plotting that, if you only buy one configuration?). Furthermore the English labelling for the graph contains common "German mistakes" (hyphen between "KE" and "Performance", spelling every noun with a capital letter, because that's how spelling in Germany works).
If that assumption is correct - and I don't see any evidence speaking against that -, then the graph cannot contain any data of a "Swedish armor" that was developed after Krauss-Maffei's offer. Thus - if there is "Swedish applique armor" - it is not shown in the graph.
All add-on armor for the KVT, TVM and Leopard 2A5/2A6 is MEXAS-H. Between 1989 and 1991, Ingenieurbüro Deisenroth exlusively worked on R&D contracts for the German BWB (nowadays BAAINBw), i.e. the German military materiel/procurement office. Between 1990 and 1998, they worked on contracts regarding protection materials for the BWB.
No, I am pointing out that you are speculating. Due to how the graph is plotted (wiht solid colors), it cannot be said if the blue line has the same coverage for <400 mm protection or not. The gradient of the graph might be constant.
MEXAS-H is used on both tanks.
There were two different armor solutions tested: the "German solution" (which we know is "B tech" base armor and "D-2" add-on armor) and the "Swedish solution" (which we don't know what it is made of). You are assuming that the difference between these two solutions is the add-on armor, but we have no source stating that. It could be the same add-on armor with different base armor. As a matter of fact, we have clear statements that the Stridsvagn 122 used better internal armor than the "B technology"):
The "German solution" used "B tech" base armor, because back then the German Army planned on upgrading 699 older Leopard 2A4 tanks to what would become the 2A5 configuration. These tanks would have the "B tech" base armor due to their age, while the newest Leopard 2A4 tanks (with "C technology" base armor and in some cases "D tech" skirt armor) would remain without armor upgrades.
Lindström's presentation shows Krauss-Maffei supplied tables with "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3" but we have zero context for that. Developing multiple armor packages with different protection levels doesn't really make sense if there is only one specific requirement. "D-1" could be just turret add-on modules, "D-2" could be turret and hull modules, "D-3" could be turret, hull and roof modules - or it could be something completely different. "D-1" could be internal armor, "D-2" could be add-on armor and "D-3" could be a combination of both. We don't know due to the lack of context. You are just assuming that this means that there were three different sets of add-on armor.
That is just speculation. The KVT/IVT and TVMs used prototype versions of the armor, the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122 use the refined version for production. We havbe zero proof that the refined version for production is the "Swedish" solutionlooks different or that there is a difference in protection between the "Swedish solution" and the "German solution" is the result of different add-on armor. Lobitz clearly cites improved integrated armor packages as a difference between the Leopard 2A5 and Stridsvagn 122, thus the Strv 122 had better base armor. The CAD models used in the Swedish protection analysis also show an identical side armor shape:
The hinge-mounted armor module next to the gun mantlet consists just of four steel plates and weld lines, just as described by @Wiedzmin.
How exactly this armor is attached to the turret isn't known to me. I don't think that it is directly screwed into the trunions as there are no attachment points/screw holes, so there might be a small additional steel piece with a slightly more complex geometry.
Overall, it is weakspot but probably not that much different in terms of effective protection. Behind that armor block are the trunions and the mount for the gun, so the armor is basically the arrow-shaped add-on module consisting of two layers of heavy NERA, an air gap, ~350 mm of steel, an air gap with potentially some more steel inside and then 200+ mm of gun mount or the trunions.
It is solid steel.
That would be depend on what exactly Hungary ordered. IIRC they placed their order before the Leopard 2A7A1 was ordered, so there might be no connections for an APS like Trophy to the onboard power - however it is not unlikely to ammend a contract to incorporate new requirements that only became apparent during (pre-)production.
That is not really how it works.
The armor module is just solid steel plates welded together and has an overall thickness much lower than 600 mm, more like 350 mm.
Nobody knows, as the armor's performance is classified and Germany itself is not measuring armor protection in terms of "milimetres of RHA". There also is not just one AMAP package, it is a modular armor kit and it is applied/offered based on the end user's demand.
Because Trophy was initially ordered as urgent operational requirement for the Leopard 2A7A1, being preferred over other options for being more mature/battle tested. The Leopard 2A8 was only ordered as a gapfiller following the delivery of tanks to Ukraine. Integrating another APS into the Leopard 2A8 would have delayed the adoption/order by several months if not years.
It is prepared for use of KMW's Type E/Panzerung in E-Technologie armor, which is based/derived on the armor developed for the Leopard 2 PSO.
Tula ammo plant and Kalashnikov concern worked on their new cartridge design from 2020. they tested several different rounds and casings. 6.7x45, 6.5x39, 6,02x41:
LoooSeR got a reaction from Laviduce in General artillery, SPGs, MLRS and long range ATGMs thread.
LoooSeR reacted to N-L-M in Explosive Reactive Armor
LoooSeR got a reaction from Scrubhead in The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
LoooSeR got a reaction from watch_your_fire in GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.
