Molota_477

Threats and simulated weapons during the Abrams' development, giving a rough idea about armor protection. From otvaga, unfortunately the full source wasn't posted.

" De tekniska studierna delades upp i kompetensuppbyggande studier och försök, konceptstudier samt projektstudier. Fysiskt skydd kom att prioriteras före beväpningssystem, ledningssystem och rörlighetssystem. Tre huvudkrav kom att bli konceptstyrande:
Skjutning under gång varvet runt (360º) med huvudvapnet Direktutblick för vagnchefen från vagnens högsta punkt Överlevnad för vagn och besättning vid en träff i ammunitionslagringen Vidare beaktades de typiskt svenska förhållandena som normalt resulterade i speciella krav på försvarsmaterielen – den korta värnpliktsutbildningen följd av korta repetitionsövningar (dvs materielen måste vara lätt att handha) och det faktum att materielen under större delen av sin livslängd skulle ligga i mobiliseringsförråd med ett minimum av underhåll.
 
 
 
Skydd
I projekt Strv 2000 tillmättes skyddet i vid bemärkelse stor betydelse – eller stridsvagnens överlevnadsförmåga vad avser skydd mot upptäckt-identifiering-träff, skydd mot verkan och skydd mot efterverkan. Kraven sattes mycket högt både vad gäller låga signaturer inom våglängdsområdena för IR och radar, men framförallt för det ballistiska skyddet. Dessa inkluderade mycket förutseende krav på skydd mot minor och takverkande stridsdelar.

Grundprincipen för vagnens uppbyggnad var ett minimiskrov i pansarstål som var tillräckligt tjockt för att kunna ta upp krafterna vid körning och skjutning. Det skulle också kunna ta upp de krafter som en yttre skyddsmodul kunde åstadkomma då den träffats.
 
I det fall den yttre skyddsmodulen använde sig av principen med ett spontaninitierat tungt explosivt reaktivt pansar (t ex i kompositionen 15/3/9) – effektivt inte bara mot riktad sprängverkan, utan även kinetisk energi – kunde dessa krafter på grundstrukturen bli relativt stora. De försök som gjordes mot frontalt monterade moduler med denna typ av skydd visade att det var möjligt att kraftigt störa en penetrerande pilprojektil.

Tanken var också att Strv 2000 skulle använda en stor andel keram i skyddskonstruktionen. Det faktum att den totala andelen keram skulle komma att uppgå till flera ton i respektive stridsvagn gjorde att ett det så kallade Skyddskeramprojektet startade upp 1988. Under ett par års tid gjordes försök med många olika typer av keram - Al2O3(aluminiumoxid), B4C (borkarbid) och TiB2 (titanborid) – men trots ett brett deltagande från svensk industri, FOA och FMV, blev det inte så mycket mer än en medioker referenskeram.

Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande.

Stor möda lades även på att åstadkomma en från besättningen separerad ammunitionslagring som skulle tåla såväl krutbrand som en detonation efter direktträff på en RSV-stridsdel med övertändning som följd. Den lösning som utarbetades fungerade och hade stora likheter med motsvarande utrymmen i Leopard 2 och M1A1 med så kallade ”blow off panels”, men hade en utvecklad princip för att förhindra total övertändning med total utslagning som följd. Skotten var placerade längst bak i chassiet. "
 
Translation:

" The technical studies are divided up into competence building studies and trials, concept studies and project studies. Physical armor is prioritzed over weapon systems, FCS and mobility systems. Three main requirements have steered the concept:
 
        - Firing while on the movie, 360 degrees with the main weapon.
        - Direct sight for the vehicle commander from the tanks highest point. 
        - Survival of the tank and crew in case of a hit to the ammunition storage. 
 
Furthermore, the typical Swedish environment is considered, which normally results in special requirements for defense materials - the short conscription followed by short repletion exercise (meaning that the material needs to be easy to handle) and the fact that the material in bigger parts of its lifetime will be located at mobilization storage with a minimum of maintenance. 
 
Armor:
In project Strv 2000 is armor of the highest importance - or the tanks survival chance against discovery - identification - hit, protection against impact, after armor protection. High requirements are sett for a low signature in the visual spectrum, for IR and for radar, men but most of all the armor. These include requirements for mine protection and roof armor. 
 

 
 
The principle of the tank construction is a minimal hull of armor steel, made strong enough to absorb the force when driving and firing. It should also be able to take up the force that a outer armor module would achieve when hit.

 
 
In the case of the outer armor module, the use of the principle with a spontaneously initiated heavy explosive reactive armor (composition 15/3/9) - effective not only against directed explosive force (I assume HEAT) but also kinetic energy - could these forces on the hull be reality large.

 
 
It was also thought that Strv 200 would use a large amount of ceramics in the armor construction. The fact that a big portion of ceramics would come to make up several tons in the tank in question, caused the so called ceramic armor project to be started in 1988. In a couple of years time a few tests were done with several different ceramics - Al2O3(aluminium oxide), B4C (boron carbide) and TiB2 (titan boride) - but even with a board cooperation between Swedish industry, FOA and FMW, the ceramics turned out the not be much more than a mediocre reference ceramics. 

 
Inspired by the armor solution chosen by the US tank M1A1, in which the Chobham armor was upgraded with a layer of depleted uranium, a firing trial was held in Sweden against this type of material. The results showed a possibility of better armor performance if volume and not the weight was the restricting factor.
 
 

 
A lot of effort was put into producing the ammunition storage, separated from the crew, which can take a direct hit and detonation from a ATGM. The solution developed was similar to the Leopard 2 or M1A1 with their so called "blow off panels", but was also developed to stop a chain reaction from detonating all the ammunition. The ammunition was placed in the hull rear. "
 
I translated the section covering the armor for you guys. Though I do not see anything indicating that the front engine required longer side armor. The requirements state the coverage, regardless of a front engine.  Though the coverage required is similar to the M1A2 and Leopard 2's turret. 
 
I can translate more if anyone is interested.

Hi guys, I would like to take this place to ask that how credible is this article?

Screenshot from Magazine RAIDS Les Chars de Combat en Action 3,.
All of tanks mentioned in this article have taken part in the Sweden trials, I suppose that maybe the author would have some materials related to the true armor layout.

Well it's more general principles than exact diagrams.
Guy who wrote the article was in charge of the R&D on the Leclerc program for some time, and is basically the only reputable French author on AFV.
 
Though he does have a tendency for chauvinism and I don't think he really had access to foreign designs.
Unless proven otherwise, consider it as an educated guess of someone who worked in the AFV industry and tank design for years, have an engineering background and have a great deal of contact on the international market.
He most likely was around during the Swedish tank trial.
 
The series of RAID articles have been compiled into those two books if you can read French:
 
 
Both books are interesting and do very well as an introduction on MBT design while containing interesting tidbit of information.
The only problem with them is that you have the feeling that nobody ever proof-read them (grammar, syntax, etc).

The statement regarding the hull armor package can mean anything and is hardly relevant. The armor package of the Abrams has been upgraded several times - like the adoption of first, second and third generation DU armor in the turret - but this was always limited in scope due the limits set on weight and budget. This is why I mentioned that the M1A1HA (from 1988) had the same turret bustle armor array as the M1 Abrams from 1980 - maybe the materials were improved, but any gain in protection purely by material changes is likely very limited when looking at NERA's performance vs KE) - and even modern Abrams' tanks have the same side hull armor as the original production model (at least in terms of thickness and layering, again small adjustments could have been made to the materials). Likewise "new hull armor" might be identical  to that of the previous model with slight changes in material composition; it could be different, but weight and size impose limits.
These factors also make it rather unlikely, if not flat-out impossible for the Abrams to resist 125 mm APFSDS rounds at the hull (specifically when looking at the frontal arc rather than just the frontal surface; 65 mm skirt armor + 60 mm hull armor is not going to stop much).
 
 
The design of ammunition can be altered at any time of a product life; before, during and after initial introduction. Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt might be very different in terms of internal construction or material composition since then.
 
 
You keep relying on baseless speculations. First of all it is extremely unlikely that any modern APFSDS performs worse against sloped targets than against flat armor; sloped armor is easier to penetrate and perforate - by as much as 20% in case of 60° sloped armor according to the work of W. Lanz and W. Odermatt (depending on penetrator geometry).
The performance of APFSDS ammo against steel armor is also completely irrelevant to their abilities to penetrate composite armor; research has shown that the ability to penetrate special armor is highly dependent on the exact interactions between armor and projecitle; two rounds with the same penetration against steel armor can have very different performance against the same type of special armor, which was demonstrated in the German tests during the LKE program (two rounds with the same penetration against RHA had a difference of 110 mm in penetration power after defeating a special armor array). This also means that all figures in regards to armor protection (and penetration) have to be taken in the context of the munitions or simulation used to come up with the values: an armor providing 500 mm protection against a BM-22 APFSDS won't provide 500 mm protectioon against something like the M829A3 APFSDS round.
 
You also cannot simply say "this armor is newer, so it has to provide significantly more protection". You want the armor of the later models of the M1A2 Abrams to provide 50% more protection, while staying in the same physical volume, retaining the same basic steel shell (as old tanks are rebuilt and the interior and exterior steel plates are apparently not changed unless necessary), roughly the same weight limit (may or may not be different for the M1A2C), being affordable and providing decent multi-hit capability. Specifically given that supposedly (assuming the front and back plates of the turret have the same thickness as on hull) more than 150 mm of the "600 mm" protection that the M1A2 (HAP/EAP) provided against older types of APFSDS ammo are the result of the steel structure, you are asking for an improbable, if not impossible, improvement in performance.
 
Armor doesn't grow on trees, neither does it come from the clouds of imagination. MBTs achieve higher levels of protection by adding weight and/or volume to the armor. Improvements from superior materials are often negligible and come with another issue (large increases in costs!). The M1A1 HA's much higher protection than the M1A1's (using inaccurate RHA values apparently an increase from 380-400 mm to 600 mm) came in combination with an increase in armor weight by roughly 3 tons. The Leopard 2's massive gains in protection came with an increase in armor thickness by up to ~80% and a weight increase of 5 to 7 tons depending on model. The M1A2 SEP series doesn't seem to offer similar increases, although there are still some open questions regarding the M1A2C (How much of the increased weight is related to armor? Does the listed figure include TUSK or Trophy?).
 
 
The Russians claim that Relikt provides a reduction of APFSDS penetration by 50% even against APFSDS rounds designed to defeat Kontakt-5. You should note that your quote doesn't mention Relikt or the ability to defeat a T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM anyhwere, which is relevant. The ability to defeat ERA is not a binary metric; improving the performance of an APFSDS round agains a certain type of ERA can mean anything from "We managed to reduce the performance penality caused by ERA by 5%" to "The penetration performance of the APFSDS is essentially unaffected by the ERA".
 
The text speaks of third-generation explosive reactive armor, which is a very broad term and may have absolutely nothing to do with the exact layout of Relikt. How would the US Army know about the exact working mechanism, layout and performance of Relikt? Super-spies like an American version of James Bond? Did the US Army simply call Putin and asked them about these things? Or did they go to Amazon.ru and order a bunch of Relikt ERA tiles?
 
Most likely the US Army uses a self-developed ERA system as representation of future/current ERA arrays; Germany did something like this during the LKE II program. The USA might have by pure coincidence developed a perfect clone of Relikt, which could perfectly replicate the behaviour of Relikt - but that is extremely unlikely. The US' third-generation ERA might look and work completely different from Relikt, for example it could be based on Nozh (a third-generation ERA to which the US military actually has access, because it was installed on a number of T-80UD/T-84 tanks  purchased by the US Army). Nozh and Relikt use completely different working mechanisms, so a performance gain against one type of ERA doesn't automatically render the other type obsolete.
 
Threat vehicles is likewise a very broad term. It could mean that the US expects the M829A4 to defeat a T-90M, but it also could mean a dozen other things. Being able to overcome third-generation ERA potentially without a major reduction in penetration performance doesn't automatically mean that all tanks equipped with this ERA can be defeated; there still is some hefty amount of base armor, which supposedly has been improved on the T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM, that needs to be penetrated aswell. Being able to defeat threat vehicles with third-generatrion ERA also could refer to upgraded last-generation tanks fitted with Relikt (or Nozh/Duplet), which might be immune to the current M829A3 (they should  be immune, if the Russian performance claims were true). For example it might refer to the T-72BM or the initial model of the T-84, which should have inferior base armor compared to the T-90M.
 


 
We don't know if the M829A4 is capable to defeat the T-90M with Relikt ERA, we don't know if the current M1A2's armor is capable of resisting hits with Svinets-1/Svinets-2 - yet you keep making generalizing statements based on nothing but speculation. That is not good.
 
 
No, we don't know anything about the hull armor being improved. CBO reports are mostly based on unclassified data and use publicly available sources. Damian just likes to ignore any weak links in his sources as long as they fit his narrative. Just look what's under the table that Damian considers a confirmation of his theories:

Yes, another unclassified CBO report from 1993 and a privately-run website run by Gary W. Cooke...
 
Unless the United States decided to change the definition of heavy armor two times (before and after the AIM upgrade), the M1A1 AIM doesn't feature heavy armor in the hull. First M1A1 AIM tanks were made in 2000, but in 2006 only five prototypes of the M1 Abrams featured heavy armor in the hull.
 

As of 2014 General Dynamics was only granted the licence to install DU armor in the turret of the Abrams, but not the turret. The CBO report simply doesn't have the same degrees of quality and reliability than the documents from the NRC. Unless the CBO report is using the term heavy armor to refer to one of the five prototypes with DU armor in the hull or has changed the definition of heavy armor (which also seems unlikely given that the M1A1 AIM weighs 62 metric tons vs the M1A1 HA's 61.3 metric tons), it is simply incorrect. The only variant that theoretically could have heavy armor in the hull - and that depends on the weight distribution - seems to be the M1A2C Abrams.
 

Another approach to neutral steering is the triple differential steering system. 
Henry Edward Merritt, an engineer and gearbox designer, is famous for his unique invention, Merritt triple differential transmission. The first British mass production tank with triple differential transmission is the Churchill tank. 

The Churchill tanks have a Merritt-Brown H4 gearbox, 4 stands for four gears forward, H stands for horizontal, because the two rows of gears in the gearbox are horizontally located. 
A great advantage of Merritt's design is compactness. The transmission incorporate the range gears and steering mechanism into a single box, thus reduce the longitude size. The H4 transmission can provide four gears forward, one gear reverse, and a neutral position for neutral steer.
The basic design itself is simple, but how to explain it could be a little bit difficult. Three differentials are arranged like this: 

The left and right differentials are used for combining the driving power flow and steering power flow, and the steering differential is used for creating different speed of the steering gears. The bevel pinion gears are not easy to produce, so the design transformed into cylindrical gears. 

↑The Z5 gearbox on Cromwell cruiser tank
When driving forward, the sun wheel and ring gear of planetary F1 and F2 always counter rotate. The carrier of F1 and F2 rotate on an average speed of the ring gear(forward) and the sun wheel(reverse), and because the ring gear rotates faster, the carrier rotates on the same direction with the ring gear, so the vehicle goes forward. 
When steering brake J1 actuated, the sun wheel of F1 is stopped, now the carrier of F1 accelerate. The steering differential C then drives the sun wheel of F2 back rotate even faster(double time), so the carrier of F2 decelerate.
When in a Cromwell/Centurion/Chieftain/Scorpion, the driver pulls right steering lever, which actuated the left steering brake, makes the track on left side go faster, the track on right side go slower, and the vehicle turns right. 

 
Another important design feature of the H4/Z5 gearbox is the reverse gear. When reverse gear is selected, the main shaft(E) of the gearbox is locked and stopped. The main shaft is connected to the F1/F2 ring gear, so the ring gear is brought to a stop. F1/F2 sun wheel going reverse, driving the planetary carrier reverse. This design has advantages and disadvanteges. The advantage is that the gearbox doesn't need to insert a idler wheel between range gears to change the driving direction, thus ease the operation of gear changing. The disadvantage is that the reverse gear is very slow, due to the large reduction ratio. The reverse gear ratio of Z5 gearbox is approximately 22.894, makes the tank's reverse speed very slow. 
 
When the vehicle is stopped on a solid plain terrain, and neutral position is selected, the planetary carrier stay still.  The sun wheels go reverse, bring the ring gear and main shaft rotates forward. Pull left steering lever, right sun wheel is stopped and forward-rotating ring gear bring the planetary carrier slowly forward, so the right track goes forward. The left sun wheel reverse double-time and faster than forward-rotating ring gear, bring the planetary carrier slowly reverse, thus the vehicle pivot in place. 

Early design of armata and Kurganets


http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/armata_brigada.htm

New photo of Object 195
 

 
Oh f*ck. Itsa awesome 

Israeli defense writer for news site "IsraelDefense", Ami Rojkes Dombe, brings up a good point in a so-far-hebrew-only speculative article, that the Israeli MoD's project for a joint APS developed by all major gov't owned companies - IAI (radar), IMI (interceptor), and Rafael (electronic and overall architecture), is probably even more dead right now than it was in 2014. 
 
The history goes a bit like this:
 
2006 - Rafael and IMI demonstrate their APS in state trials.
2007 - Trophy is selected to enter service.
2008 - Trophy enters production.
2009 - First battalion is fully equipped.
2014 - IMOD initiates program to develop joint APS by Rafael, IMI, and IAI, with Rafael being the prime contractor.
2016 - 2 brigades are fully equipped, and preparations made for production for Namers and Merkava 3 tanks.
2017 - Total of 1,000 new systems are on order until 2027, with an average production rate of 100 vehicles per year.
==============================================================================================================================
 
Now for the future:
 
2019 - Carmel project ends (cockpit design) and is superseded by Kaliya/Bullet, thus increasing the urgency for next gen APS.
2021 - Merkava 4 Barack tanks enter service with new APS capable of defeating KEPs.
2027 - Vehicles developed in the Kaliya/Bullet program enter service with a next generation APS.
 
So by 2021, which is relatively speaking right around the corner, The IMOD should have an anti-KEP APS already in service.
 
This puts quite a dent in that goal, but MANTAK can't really be blamed for falling behind schedule. It's very atypical for them. In the worst case, the MoD presents a schedule that is unnecessarily stretched, but MANTAK are known to always deliver.
==============================================================================================================================
 
Back to the speculation part:
 
The deal was that IMI, IAI, and Rafael will supply a joint APS. It was actually tried before, and failed. The companies did not agree to work together for a whole lot of reasons, mostly related to pride, even though they were government owned companies.
It was revived, and although nothing new of it came up throughout the years, other than that the Barack will get an anti-KEP APS which is without a shred of doubt a reference at the joint APS, it seems that the MAPS program of the US Armed Forces, along with the financial difficulties of IMI, have made a completion of this project somewhat unlikely.
 
What we know:
IMI is now being absorbed into Elbit, with the move perhaps being finalized before the end of 2018 (stock merger in November). Elbit, being a private company, can be far more aggressive in marketing than even Rafael and IMI were known to be, and they are showing that they can definitely swallow entire markets within Israel's defense industries. Rafael and IMI are fiercely fighting against each other in the US, Australia, and all over Europe, instead of working together on offering a joint system that shouldn't be more developmental than the new developmental iterations of the Trophy and Iron Fist. However there is one mitigating factor that should be taken into account:
The IDF is reportedly testing the IF-LC on the Eitan and D9 bulldozers, which should signal to Rafael that they may want a cooperation after all, to mitigate the threat presented by Elbit.

490A  Rebel - competitor of 490 Poplar
 
http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490a.htm
 

History repeats - in 1984 it was finally decided to chose 152 mm (490 and 490A were equiped with improoved 125 mm gun, like on Armata). Then they returned to 125 mm and will soon go to 152 mm.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181008005240/en/AeroVironment-General-Dynamics-Land-Systems-Join-Forces


 
 
 
also from twitter:



.

/well, this thing is even more interesting than my (wrong) guess about MCAS/














 




and this collage:
 

Development of future Soviet tank in 80-s and was a continuation of works started in 1970-s under designation “Project 101”. Necessity for development was grounded by the development of next generation tank in US and NATO. The importance of this task was well realized by Nikolay Shomin, a new chief designer of Kharkov design bureau, who replaced Alexander Morozov after he retired in 1976. The development of the tank had two main directions – conventional layout with 3-man crew and unmanned turret, which was known under designation “Object 490A” and later “Object 477” and unconventional 2-man design known as “Object 490”. The project “490” developed in the 80s was under development by Eugenie Morozov, son of the famous designer of tanks T-34, T-54, T-64 Alexander Morozov. 
The main features of the “Object 490” were:
- crew consisting of two people - commander-gunner and driver. Reduce the crew to two people and place them in a compact, well-protected capsule. Depending on the specific layout, this gives a volume saving of up to 1.2 m3. 
- the use of hydro pneumatic suspension. In addition to solving the main problem - increasing average speeds by improving running smoothness, it allows to control the clearance of the tank, which increases maneuverability and survivability in battle. In addition, controlled hydro pneumatic suspension by changing the hull angle allows to increase the pointing angles of the gun in the vertical plane. 
- Creation of a special armored refueling and reloading vehicle capable of accompanying the tank in the same formation, overcoming hard natural and artificial obstacles, passing through nuclear contaminated areas of the terrain, and operating under conditions of use of nuclear weapons. In layout no. 1 and 2, it was supposed to implement the replenishment of ammunition and refueling the tank without leaving the crews of the tank and refueling-loading machine. 
 
 
 
 
 

Object 490 "Poplar". Unknown Soviet future tank of 80s
 
http://btvt.info/7english/490_eng.htm
 

Nah, but Ramlaen suspects it's a new, compact version of the AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke 3 antenna (the electronic boxes are under armor) or a replacement for it.
 
It's either that or it's an antenna for the upgraded IVIS POS/NAV system. I doubt it's for the JTRS radio, though.

IED Jammer.

Avco Systems Division XM815 105mm HEAT-MP projectile. 
 
Its muzzle velocity of 1174 m/s was the same as that of the M456 projectile which it was designed to replace but, because of the lower drag of its pointed nose body and the stability provided by its slender pop-out fins, it proved significantly more accurate.

ZTZ-99A Autoloading—

ZTZ-99A Autoloading—

ZTZ-99A Autoloading—

ZTZ-99A Autoloading—

Suppose it will be possible to publish drawing in a next book

Red/dark blue: prospective
Brown/gray blue: modernization
Yellow/light blue: production
 
The orange bit isn't in the legend, I'm guessing it's a modernization that has already been applied?

Can we discuss the DTR article on the AJAX/ASCOD 2? I actually like the DTR magazine, but the "coverage" of the AJAX feels more like an advertorial, which includes exaggerated and sometimes incorrect statements. Maybe the coverage of the Boxer was also a bit biased, but it at least some to be based on facts (which were widely available due to the Boxer being an in-service vehicle with two users and a third customer), while the AJAX article seems to repeat too many advertising slogans from General Dynamics.
 
Let me just quote some of the statements:
"From what DTR undersands, Ajax protection levels appear to be higher than any other IFV currently in service and are on par with many NATO main battle tanks."
 
The Ajax has better protection than any other IFV currently in service? First things first: the AJAX does currently not exist in an IFV variant, so it is really a comparison between apples and oranges. As previously mentioned in this topic, the IFV variant requires a raised roofline and a stretched chassis to accommodate both turret and dismounts. That means that the article is quite misleading to begin with, as there would be less growth potential left for armor protection.
 
However I don't believe that both underlined parts of the statement are true even for the actual AJAX as purchased by the British Army. The Namer IFV seems to be in service, it is a lot heavier (60 tonnes combat weight without the turret) and has much thicker armor than the AJAX (with a combat weight of 38 metric tons and a GVW of 42 metric tons). The Puma IFV is also heavier (combat weight level C is 41.5 metric tons, GVW is 43 metric tons), has much thicker armor and has a smaller protected volume (due to the unmanned turret and the limited height of the dismount compartment). The Puma most likely makes use of more weight-efficient armor, as it reportedly uses SICADUR for its ballistic protection (with modified nano-structure by IBD Deisenroth), ERA and AMAP's NERA products. SICADUR is a brand for silicon carbide ceramic tiles for ballistic protection by ETEC, which stated that SICADUR is 7 times as expensive than aluminium oxide; given that the AJAX was designed to be very cost-effective and isn't known to make use of any weight saving construction techniques, it seems reasonable to believe that it doesn't use as expensive (and weight efficient) armor as the Puma.
 

 
The T-15 Armata is not in service yet, but I also cannot see a possible explanation why it should be less armored against ballistic than the AJAX, given its huge weight and massive armor thickness. Mine protection and the turret armor (is the unmanned turret of the T-15 armored at all?) might be better on the AJAX, but even then it would be hardly justified to claim that it is overall better protected.
 
 
Protection levels on par with many NATO main battle tanks? How does the author of the DTR article come to this conclusion? Did he fall for the "best protected vehicle in class" statement that GD made (ironically PSM, Rheinmetall and BAE Systems also claim that their current IFVs are the best protected vehicles in their class)?
Now arguably reaching a higher level of ballistic protection than a MBT isn't hard, given that the AMX-30 and Leopard 1 exist - but the AMX-30 isn't in active service with a NATO country anymore, while the Leopard 1 is only used by Greece and Turkey in the later variants with upgraded armor (1A1A1 and 1A3 sub-variants). Based on the armor thickness (more on that later), I doubt that the AJAX's frontal protection is enough to resist impacts from a 100 mm APCBC round at 1,000 m distance.  Given that the Leopard 1 is just a single tank type, speaking of "many NATO main battle tanks" wouldn't really make sense... so what would be "many NATO tanks"? M48, M60 and T-55/TR-85 are also operational with NATO, but these have even thicker (physicially) armor than the Leopard 1, it would be very silly to assume that the AJAX reaches a better level of frontal protection than those against ballistic threats.
Okay, most NATO MBTs don't feature any type of mine protection and have very weak side armor, so there might be some truth to this statement when it comes to the up-armored variant of the AJAX with thicker side armor - but then again, why bother making this statement regarding the AJAX, as it would also be true for a dozen other IFVs? Any IFV with ERA, composite armor skirts at the sides or side armor to resist more than just 14.5 mm AP rounds would be better armored than "many NATO main battle tanks". This would include the Warrior IFV with Chobham armor, the Bradley with ERA, the Strf 90C with AMAP, the CV90 Mk III with their mine protection kits, and many other types of IFVs.  So DTR might have smoked some serious stuff when writing this phrase..
 
Based on photographs, there appear to be three different armor configuration for the AJAX/ARES hull - there might be more when accounting for facts like the location of screws etc. on the different prototypes, but that shouldn't matter. They can be identified by the different thickness of the frontal glacis plate of the hull in relation to the height of the headlights.
 
One configuration as used on the ARES - lets call it the "light configuration" based on the thickness of the glacis plate - is the thinnest. Note that the headlights are protruding over the armor.

 
This version honestly seems to have thinner armor than the ASCOD Ulan with MEXAS. Note that the armor on the ARES is spaced, but the overall thickness seems to be identical near the driver's hatch. The engine cover appears to be thicker on the ARES (if the empty space is included), but that seems to be the result of the ARES featuring a composite fibre material cladding on the inner side of the UFP for thermal insulation, which the Ulan lacks.
 


 
Given that the Ulan with MEXAS does not meet STANAG 4569 level 6 - it is designed to protect against an unspecified type of 30 mm APFSDS from a distance of 1,000 m instead of the required 500 m, I'd also assume that this armor configuration for the AJAX/ARES fails to meet the level 6 requirements of STANAG 4569.
 
The "medium configuration" is used in most of the 3D renderings by General Dynamics of the AJAX and ARES variants for the British army and also used in the 3D renderings and models of the ASCOD/AJAX (and variants) offered to Australia. It also seems to be the configuration that is used for the series production model, though this is a bit harder to tell due to the Barracuda camouflage used on the pre-production vehicles. The headlights and the glacis plate have a similar height, resulting in them being one the same line.
 

 
There is a further configuration with thicker armor, but this seems to be limited to prototypes. Maybe the greater armor thickness is meant to be an upgrade option, part of an urban combat armor kit or result of different armor technology, which wasn't used on the final production model. The glacis armor is thicker, so that it is higher than the upper edge of the headlights. The turret armor thickness however remains identical to the previous configuration...
 

 
So who does make the armor for the AJAX? The armor for the AJAX - or at least some of the ballistic armor panels - are made by Permali-Gloucester. Permali-who? You've never heard of this company? Well, there is a reason for this: Permali-Gloucester pretty much exclusivley delivers armor solutions to the British Army (at least when it comes to land vehicles) with the exception of spall liners for the French VBCI. I've also never heard of them before, but according the Military Technology magazine (international version of the German Wehrtechnik) and according to press releases from Permali-Gloucester, the company was contracted by General Dynamics to deliver armor modules/materials for the AJAX family of vehicles.
According to Permali-Gloucester, the applique armor products from the company consist of "glass, aramid or UHMWPE materials and thermoset resin systems or advanced thermoplastic matrices" and can incorporate "ceramic tiles, for protection against armour piercing rounds, and aluminium or steel skins for greater rigidity or increased protection levels. " In other words they seem to make either make armor made of composite fibres/plastic or the generic ceramic-polymer armor arrays that pretty much every armor manufacturer offers and have been sold since the 1990s.
 
 
Now there are two big questions that should be asked:
Why does Permali-Gloucester deliver armor to the British military only? Why was this company chosen to deliver the armor for the AJAX?
I think the answer to both questions might be related, but that is speculation on my side. Maybe I am wrong and there are other reasons, but given that the company is not state-owned, one would assume that it is interested in selling its product abroad to as many customers as possible. The fact that only British vehicles are protected by their armor (and the VBCI by their spall liners), implies that something about their armor is not competitive enough. That might be the price, the performance or other, unknown factors. Given that the AJAX is designed to be cost effective, the former explanation wouldn't make much sense, which is why one could assume that the armor from Permali might not be entirely capable of competing against the  products from the big players like Tencate, Rafael, RUAG, IBD, etc., which all have sold some of their armor solutions to multiple export customers. So why does the AJAX use this armor then? Probably because the company is British and the ASCOD/AJAX was marketed with its high local industry involvement to the British government/army. Now, in theory the AJAX offered to Australia might be using armor of a different supplier, but the model seems to indicate that it is pretty much based on the AJAX with only some modifications.
 
Based on the armor thickness of the AJAX (and the assumption that the AJAX uses the same steel hull thickness as the ARES, which seems to be roughly identical to the original ASCOD, i.e. protecting frontally against 12.7 mm ammo only, when not fitted with applique armor), I don't see anything that would warrant the claims made in the DTR article regarding the armor protection. It is not really thicker than the armor used on other IFVs - the Puma and Strf 90C with AMAP-SC have thicker, multi-layered NERA arrays (in case of the Puma in combination with ceramic armor at the upper hull section and apparently also the LFP) for the frontal hull, the CV90 is also offered with similar armor thickness for the later models (CV90 Mk III and Mk IV). The Lynx KF41 armor thickness is hard to estimate, we also don't know which configuration has been displayed. AJAX for Australia and the AS-21 Redback are paper designs ATM, so armor also remains . The Namer's armor is also undoubtely better than the Ajax's.
 
 
I've seen no reason to doubt that the AJAX with the "medium armor configuration" reaches STANAG 4569 level 6 ballistic protection and exceeds the requirements for STANAG 4569 level 4 (like the Puma). I have however seen no reason to believe that it is better protected than any other current top-of-the-line IFVs. Given that the hull armor is not NERA, but ceramic-polymer armor, I don't believe that protection against RPGs is possible for the hull front and turret front. Aluminium oxide with polymer backing and encased in steel has a thickness efficiency of 1 or even below 1 (depending on the relation between backing and ceramic tiles) against shaped charges according to papers based on different tests made in China and Switzerland. Nano-ceramics and more expensive ceramics (silicon carbide, boron carbide) might perform better (IBD's AMAP-B can reach a thickness efficiency of more than 1 vs KE), but there is no indication that the AJAX makes use of such materials (and it would be contradictory to the aim of making a cost-effective vehicle). So the only option I see for saying that the AJAX's frontal armor is protected against RPGs is by counting the engine compartment and its rear wall as armor. The side armor when fitted with the add-on armor might have a better chance against RPGs, but I still wonder where all the stuff that is in the external storages boxes of the AJAX/ARES is supposed to go, when the add-on armor is fitted... or maybe the add-on armor isn't actually all armor, but also partly storage boxes.. There is probably a reason why the Tarian RPG net and slat armor were fitted to some AJAX/ARES prototypes.
 
PS: I actually wanted to talk about more than just one statement from the DTR article, but given the wall of text I've produced, I think it might be better to do that at another time.
 

More photos, a lot of them were linked on otvaga (400+ HD photos)