SH_MM

The contract entails a lot more than just MELLS and the new situational awareness system (which is not really comparable to Iron Vision). It includes the integration of MELLS changes preparing the hull for the installation of the turret independent secondary weapon system (TSWA) improved optics with for gunner and commander (greater magnification, color daylight cameras) the addition of a situational awarness system consisting of ~11 daylight and thermal camera modules (Rheinmetall SCM 60) with sensor-fusion capability the integration of the improved IdZ-ES soldier system and the new BMS' (BMS SitaWare Frontline for the vehicle, SitaWare TacNet for the soldiers) new digital radios as part of the D-LBO program improvements to reliability and system stability integration of new soft- and hardware interfaces (NGVA compliant) for future upgrades changes to the hull in order to raise the GVW to 45 metric tons improvements to the MUSS softkill APS (not sure if this already means MUSS 2.0 will be adopted) spare parts, tools and maintenance a study regarding potential future changes/improvements/upgrades Slovenia wants to cooperate with Germany on the Boxer purchase.

154 Puma IFVs will be upgraded to the S1 standard until 2026. The contract contains the option for the upgrade of a further 143 Pumas. https://soldat-und-technik.de/2021/06/mobilitaet/27649/schuetzenpanzer-puma-modernisierung-auf-den-rueststand-s1-beauftragt/

Not Karrar, but Iranian T-72 upgrade: Lots more here:

At the current point of time, the industry will come up with various proposals - such as Nexter proposing the ASCALON gun concept, Rheinmetall proposing its 130 mm L/51 gun - for the different vehicle categories and sub-systems. The "best" propsals will be selected. It is only normal for Nexter to keep marketing its ASCALON gun for the MGCS, even though currently most relevant factors (maturity, performance, technical risk) favor Rheinmetall's offer. The real problem is that France is extremely unwilling to let its state-owned industry go empty-handed...

Note the laser warning receivers and the new integration of the SCM60 situational awareness cameras. Better accuracy when firing on the move.

The final Boxer A2 vehicle of the second batch ordered by Germany has been delivered: The upgrade of the first batch of Boxers to the A2 configuration is still ongoing. Yesterday the German parliament's budget committee approved several major defence procurement programs, including the development and production of prototypes of the Boxer JFST-sw (joint fire support team schwer - i.e. heavy) worth €88.2 million. Currently the only properly equipped JFST vehicle of the German Army is the Fennek, though Wiesel 2 (for airborne units) and BV206S (for mountain units) were meant to act as JFST for the canceled mortar variant of the Wiesel 2. The upgrade of the Puma IFV to the Puma S1 configuration (worth €1.9 billion) was also approved, but only under several conditions: the funding is only sufficient for ca. 150-160 vehicles the funding also includes the installation of new software-defined radios in 50 command vehicles (Puma and Boxer) under the SVFuA program the German MoD has to gather performance (mostly regarding availability and reliability) data on the Puma VJTF 2023 version in a real operational environment (i.e. during the VJTF 2023) a schedule and analysis of financial requirements for ensuring the full operational capability of the first batch Puma IFVs has to be created the gathered data is to be used to evaluate the possible purchase of a second batch of Puma IFVs - as well as alternative options - based on the cost benefit ratio all Pumas have to be fitted with the same radios under the SVFuA program (the German MoD had offered the option of only using them for the command vehicles as a cost-saving measure)

Hungary also purchased a number of Leopard 1 variants (such as the Bergepanzer 2 Büffel) as interim solution until their Wisent 2s will be delivered.

FFG has handed its HiMoLap technology demonstrator to the BAAINBw (which had ordered it). https://esut.de/2021/06/meldungen/27866/demonstrator-mobile-landplattform/

Seems like it is being fired from a Nexter 120 mm gun without MRS.

Thank you for sharing that. Are there any more details regarding the exact nature of the issues? IIRC originally the turrets were delayed due to the required integration of Iron Fist.

There still is an ongoing investigation on APS suited for the Stryker with the Rafael Trophy VPS and the Rheinmetall StrikeShield being evaluated. Due to Covid-19, the program was delayed for a few months.

Yet no enhanced roof armor against counter-battery fire...

Yes and no. The problem is that DEF STAN 95-25 does not provide ranges for UTS, Charpy impact testing, elongation and yield ("Proof") strength, but only the specified minimums. The range of alloy compositions that are possible provides sufficient room for a wider range of different mechanical properties. The Challenger 2's turret shell could reach the bare minimum of the UTS, energy absorption, elongation and YS. Then you are clearly right and it is a much worse solution than MIL-DTL-12560 steel. But it is alsom possible that it might have a comparable energy absorption during impact testing.

Kongsberg MCT proturded quite a bit into the hull, maybe the new turret is less intrusive?

A new turret, probably based on Samson II technology.

The seats have been altered to increase available space. Originally Puma was designed to support dismounts with a height of 1.84 meters (i.e. 75% of the German male adults), the altered seats raise this to 1.89 meters height. The seats of commander, driver and gunner are designed with space for 1.91 meters tall soldiers (i.e. 91% of the German male adults). The British population is a bit shorter, current data suggests that 91% of the British male adults have a height of 1.86 meters or less and 98% have a height of 1.91 meters or less. Another factor in which the Puma fits better to the UK than to Germany...

Boxer seems like an obvious choice. But given British idea of "reconnaissance" (no extra sensors carried on the Ajax, no extra powerful radios on Ajax and commander's optic has to be removed when fitting an RWS), one simply could leave the dismount compartment of a Puma empty and call it a day...

The drive line is not from a MRAP, but certain design aspects seem to be inspired form them.

Well, Ajax carries no dismounts and Ares just four, so there are no problems with the Puma's available space. Even if Puma replaced the Warrior, it wouldn't be a dramatic issue. The US Army also transports 8/9 men squads with the Bradleys, which only provide seating for seven dismounts... they just distribute the squads on multiple vehicles. The immature state of the Puma at its adoption would have make it a perfect fit for the British Army However nowadays complaining about it is bogus. Software updates (as well as the German MoD actually starting to order spare parts and awarding maintenance contracts... ) have made it more and more reliable. Relability now has reached 60% and is getting even better (as the updates have not been rolled out to every vehicle, the HLI will also start Puma maintenance and there finally is starting to be a stock of spare parts). Accuracy and cadence issues are non-existant. Just look at the demonstration to the Czech Republic in 2017 regarding accuracy.

Because Jaguar has MRAP dna. Small survivability cell with less protected add-ons.

Aside of the budget issues, the Puma would be the perfect solution for the British military, as it is optimized for air-transportablity via A400M. In that sense it would fit much better to the British Army than the German one...

Rheinmetall wanted to buy KMW and nearly succeeded, if the German government didn't intervene. So much "hate" between them...

They took delivery of 30 Patria AMV, but the rest of the order was canceled after briberies were discovered.

I couldn't find them for free. There is one Google search result pointing to a German FTP server, but the file on the actual server was deleted some time ago. All other sources seem to ask for more money than I am willing to spend on that matter. Could you provide a link to the public available versions? I believe the outcry regarding the use of DEF STAN 95-25 steel (specifically on Twitter by people like Damian) is exaggerated. DEF STAN 95-25 is the successor to IT90G, which covered the same hardness ranges and dates back to WW2. The Chieftain's cast steel turret and hull used steel made according to IT90G and reached an average hardness of 260 to 280 HB, i.e. they remained at the upper spectrum of the standard. I believe that Challenger 2's turret also covers the upper spectrum of hardness specified in DEF STAN 95-25. The difference to DEF STAN 95-26 is just 25 HB, which I would consider negible. The difference in armor protection will be a minimal. However the impact on other aspects such as weldability/manufacturability might be much bigger. You really don't want to heat up a nine tonnes piece of steel every time before and after welding something to it. As RARDE 823/DEF STAN 95-26 steel was only used for the Stillbrew armor (or at least this is the only confirmed usage, whereas Chieftain relied on IT90G steel and Challenger 1 also on DEF STAN 95-25), one has to wonder if there were facilities capable of producing large air-hardened casting of such size, I also don't think that the quality of DEF STAN 95-25 steel is an issue. The hardness is average for cast steel. US tanks used softer steel (220 HB steel as tested on a M48) until 1978 before switching to 270-280 HB steel. The Soviets also used 260-280 HB cast steel, i.e. roughly comparable in protective qualities to DEF STAN 95-25. My understanding is that the casting of the Challenger 2's turret is quite thick, although I must admit that the informations regarding the exact turret geometry and plate thickness of the Challenger 2 turret remain largely unknown to me. The Challenger 1 also seem to have quite a thick steel casting based on the weight and size of the turret, and this was even increased on the Challenger 2. I believe comparing cast armor grades to the steel grades used for thin RHA plates makes not much sense. DEF STAN 95-24 defines for Class 1 and 2 steel grades with a thickness of above 100 milimeter a hardness of at least 255 HB and UTS of 850. There wouldn't be a noteworthy difference in protection when using a welded steel turret made of such plates, but such a turret might end up heavier (or more complicated to manufacture and more expensive) due to the fact that casting allows using much more variable material thickness. While DEF STAN 95-24 Class 4 high-hardness steel would also be available in the relevant thickness, this is specifically stated to be hardly weldable and thus is not suitable for the inner citadel of a turret to which all sorts of things (including all mounting points for the Dorchester composite armor) need to be attached. American RHA (according to the MIL-1250 standard) at similar thickness also does not seem a better solution, as the hardness range for plates with a thickness of 4 to 6 inches is just 241 to 277; the backplate of the Abrams' hull armor array might not be any better than the turret casting of the Challenger 2. The only real alternative - that depending on point of view might be better - is using thinner plates for the turret citadel, i.e. with a thickness of just 40-50 mm and incorporate multiple steel (or alternatively ceramic) layers into the composite armor array. ____ @Korvette and @BaronTibere regarding Nicholas Drummond: I don't think that calling him senile, a lunatic or assuming that he is a malevolent intent is correct. He makes mistakes, as everyone does. He is just not as involved into the technical aspects of tank development (but rather focuses on the tactical and political side of things, where he acted as witness to the UK parliament's defence committee on different issues). Most likely somebody from Rheinmetall told him that the companies' Challenger 2 LEP offer was based on the MBT Revolution concept and he assumed that this means a Leopard 2 turret is used. IIRC at DSEI 2017 the Leopard 2 Revolution was displayed and Rheinmetall made such comments towards the press (i.e. Jane's, etc.). That doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 turret is used, as the MBT Revolution is a modular upgrade concept (just like the Evolution armor concept on which it is based) using Rheinmetall-made components. There is also the Revolution/Evolution upgrades of the Marder IFV, the SEP 8x8, the Stridfordon 90, the T-72 and many other vehicles, though most of them exist only as prototypes or CAD-based proposals. That is assuming that the turret ring diameter wasn't reduced on the Challenger 1 or Challenger 2. In case of the Abrams, it was reduced to 83 inches (from 85 inches) during development, but in a later stage of development again increased to 85 inches. The Leopard 2's turret ring diameter is stated to be 2,200 mm in Paul-Werner Krapke's book. That would be slightly more than 85 inches. The MBT Revolution is a modular upgrade suited for a wide variety of vehicles.