SH_MM

That is something very different. They evaluated these vehicles to see what is possible with current tech, something necessary to come up with the requirements for the GCV. They did however at no point consider this an alternative to the GCV.

I'm fairly certain Mr. Drummond posted exactly the same photo and the same incorrect predicitons about a year ago, just with a different announcement date.

Not really. The Namer wasn't even offered for the GCV. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Namer as an alternative to the GCV program, but found it to be lackluster in more categories than the turret. It was estimated that it would have been the most expensive option, while having the worst mobility.

Source: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/citing-progress-uk-officials-commit-warrior-upgrad/ The requirements include upgrades to situational awareness, but based on what I've read, it isn't specified how (aside of night vision for the driver and commander based on current technology). I beg to differ. The UK military is currently running its own program for testing and possibly adopting active protection systems on the Challenger 2 MBT and various other vehicles. On the other hand, there is no program for a lethality upgrade (beyond the FCS changes required for the Challenger 2 LEP), despite army officials having specifically asked for a 120 mm smoothbore gun to counter the T-14 Armata and other Russian MBTs. The gun replacement is simply a question of money - if it is cheap and can be included in the LEP without making cuts at other places, then there is no need to start a separate program. Rheinmetall has chosen to contract Curtiss-Wright for providing gun and turret drives for the Challenger 2 (upgrading these is required for the LEP as part of the removal of obsolence), which are desgined to (also) work with the 120 mm gun from Rheinmetall. There is no need for BAE Systems to be involved in the gun upgrade with Rheinmetall having access to two Challenger 2 tanks. I think they might play it safe and keep the L30 gun on one demonstrator, while outfitting the other with a 120 mm L55(A1) gun.

This demonstrator was developed for the British MIV program, the LAV 700 is partially based on it. LAV 6.0 is just an upgraded LAV III.

Advanced LAV demonstrator.

No sensor units (optical, laser warner and radars) at the rear portion of the turret - or does the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from BAE Systems use only three sensor units (with the backwards facing one being located at the center of the turret)?

The 120 mm smoothbore gun and a 360° surveillance system in from of two SAS modules mounted on the turret. The upper part is the laser warning receiver, which is mounted ontop of a sitational awareness system.

So given that Iron Fist is not a requirement and was only integrated into the prototype to show that BAE Systems could integrate an APS, the vehicle is really underwhelming. Every change was already known before, it doesn't even match the capabilities of the 3D rendering illustrating Rheinmetall's proposal from 2 years ago...

https://www.janes.com/article/82991/new-lighter-weight-trophy-aps-successfully-tested-says-rafael

I wasn't talking about the report, but it is correct. I was talking about data from the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. The armor thickness is below 380 mm, you are counting non-hardened and partially hollow section behind it. This doesn't result in 320-330 mm effective protection. The bulge around the mantlet-less gun mount of the Chieftain reaches a maximum thickness of 500 mm, yet the overall protection is much lower. The mantlet of the M60A1 covers only a small section of the turret front, so it really doesn't prove anything about the frontal armor being immune to 100 mm AP ammo at all. The gun shield and mantlet of the M60A1 were identified as weakspots by the Soviets, so it clearly is not 115 mm APFSDS proof - it is also not stated in the Soviet report that it would be. In the Yugoslavian tests against the M47 Patton tank, the 100 mm BR-412B round was used, which has an armor penetration of just 140 mm at 1,000 m according to British data. It still defeated the 160-180 mm thick armor of the M48, because the US military prefered using very soft steel (measured on the M47: only 210 BHN) due to its greater ductility. The BR-412D penetrates 185 mm at the same range and is better against sloped armor, so being able to punch through 202 to 212 mm equally soft cast armor shouldn't be a problem. I'm fairly certain that the Soviets were aware of the M60A1 being 15 years old at the time of their report. It wasn't well protected from the direct front, because it still is vulnerable to 100 mm AP ammo at 1,000 m range according to the US Army's own protection analysis! The Chieftain was protected against 100 mm AP ammo at 200-500 m distance, so it was better armored. T-62 also had better turret armor due to its higher steel hardness. Are you really prefering your own fanboy fantasies over actual data from the US Army and Soviet reports? The armor thickness is below 300 mm, it is between 200 and 254 mm. The casting has a variable angle and thickness, that is why the Soviets listed intervalls for both angle and thickness. There are places where the slope is 45°, but at others the slope is 35°; 35° from the horizontal are btw. more effective than 45°. 95 mm at 35° horizontal angle and 55° slope in the other plane will result in 202 mm effective armor thickness. The values from the Soviet report are correct, your 300 mm figure is however pure fantasy.

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.

I was thinking more of the other NATO tanks in production of the time. The cast steel of the M48 tested in Yugoslavia had a hardness of only 220-240 BHN, the same hardness was kept for thicker steel castings for the M60 and M60A1 tanks until 1978 (when hardness was improved too 260-280 BHN). The Chieftain's cast armor also had reportedly a hardness of only 260-280 BHN, i.e. the same hardness reported for the cast armor of the T-55's turret in Yugoslavia. The cast turrets of the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 probably also have very low hardness, simply because creating cast steel with higher hardness was not possible without sacrificing ductility. Compared to these tanks, the Leopard 1A3 and 1A4 should have quite a bit higher steel quality. The low thickness means that it won't reach higher levels of overall protection, but it is still interessting, that Germany was willing to increase protection using superior steel quality, rather than opting for simply (and cheaply) increasing armor thickness only. Yes, the bad "myth". Why don't we say that the M60A1 turret is fully immune to any 120 and 125 mm KE projectile aswell? I mean there are no limit to our imagination - and imagination seems to be the only explanation for your statements. I posted an excerpt of a declassified protection anaylsis of the M60 tank variants made by the US Army a few pages earlier. This literally confirms that the turret front is only protected at 100 mm AP ammo from a distance of 1,000 m. 1,000 m, not point blanc range! Only "myths" here are your claims. That the turret frontal armor has a thickness of 254 mm is confirmed in documents from the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. So the US Army, which should have the most accurate knowledge regarding the armor protection of the M60A1 tank, clearly believed that the armor is 254 mm thick and can be defeated by 100 mm AP ammo. The Chieftain has better frontal protection. It had a specified turret front armor thickness of 280 mm and a minimum frontal armor thickness of 240 mm. Also: if you post claims about the M60A1's turret being immune to all available types of 100 mm ammo, some types of 115 mm APFSDS and its own 105 mm APDS round, you really shouldn't link to a source directly contradicting your claims. It says that in general the M60A1 had a low level of protection. Other articles from the same author, also posted on Andrei's website, also show that the protection level of the M60A1 wasn't impressive. The mantlet armor, that you believe to be 380 mm thick based on napkin math and wrong premises used by a Warthunder forum member, was actually considered a weakspot by the Soviet military: So when 380 mm would be considered a weakspot, the rest of the turret would need to be much thicker (which it isn't, because the mantlet doesn't have an effective armor thickness of 380 mm)! Yet the frontal turret armor is in certain places only 150 to 180 mm thick armor sloped at 22 to 30° according to Soviet measurements or 95 mm sloped at 35° horizontal and 55° vertical angle, if you want to use separate angles. That's just 202-210 mm of effective armor thickness, clearly vulnerable to 100 mm AP/APDS/APFSDS rounds, 115 mm APFSDS rounds and 105 mm AP and APFSDS rounds. So it certainly isn't immune to enemy fire. Only the places of turret and hull with the thickest armor were capable of surviving 105 mm APDS ammo at a range of 1,000 m. The turret is not immune to 100 mm and 105 mm AP, APDS and APFSDS rounds. This laymans "analysis" is mostly based on wrong premises, because he starts with the bias trying to prove that his favorite tank in the video game is misrepresented. A patent regarding a mantlet for a 120 mm upgrade doesn't say anything about the mantlet construction of the original version. The mantlet is hollow (or rather concave).

Puma S1 upgrade, a bit clearer image. There is a total of 11 cameras on the hull + two cameras on the turret (one in the gunner's sight and one in the commander's sight) + 4 optical sensors for MUSS + multiple thermal imagers + the TWSA will feature camera and thermal imager... no wonder that the Puma (and other modern AFVs) are so much more expensive than older vehicles. It has been confirmed by a Czech website that the Puma's turret is indeed certified to work with 35 x 228 mm guns. Previously it was claimed by Artec that the PuBo (Boxer with Puma turret) can mount a 35 mm gun instead of the 30 mm Mauser MK30/2-ABM. So the steel was quite a bit harder than the steel armor used on other tanks of the same time period. The question remains how much more efficient this would have been, given that there are numerous different factors and hardness is only a single of them. I'd say the overall result could be considered quite decent, given that the M60 (pre-A1) and M48 had thicker armor, but a much higher vulnerability vs 100 mm AP rounds. The Leopard 1A3 clearly had a smaller protected arc and therefore was arguably still more vulnerable overall, depending on how threats from different angles were weighed. However having only 154 mm steel weight to protect the turret cheeks to reach the same level of protection than the M60A1 with 254 mm cast armor seems impressive - that's 66% more protection per weight. Honestly that seems to be too much, but maybe that is related to the US Army using the softest steel on their tanks - or maybe Germany and the US were using different types of 100 mm ammo as reference? As Wiedzmin said, the armor is designed to resist 100 mm AP ammo, it won't have trouble stopping the 85 mm APHE round of the ASU-85 at combat ranges. The double layer in the mantlet covers only an small portion of the surface area (see the top-view photograph) and might be the result of using two different steel alloys. Two 30 mm plates with better hardness will provide a lot better protection than a single 40 mm plate. I think you are underestimating the gain in armor protection that was achieved by having two layers instead of one. In tests made by the US military during the 1950s, a 12.7 mm steel plate was enough to reliably de-cap different types of 57 mm and 90 mm AP(CBC) shells and break tungsten carbide cores of 90 mm HVAPDS ammo. In some cases jaw was induced to the penetrator, so that it hit the following layers at an increased angle, meaning more effective armor thickness had to be penetrated. Against sloped armor, this meant a massive increase in armor protection. The 90 mm M304 HVAP (APCR) round with tungsten carbide penetrator could defeat 3 inches of steel armor sloped at 55° up to a range of 1,850 yards (1,691 metres), when a 1/2 inch thick spaced plate was added, the same armor could only be penetrated at 50 yards (45 metres). A 4 inch steel plate at 30° slope with a 1/2 inch thick spaced plate was harder to penetrate than a 6 inch steel plate at the same angle.

Aside of the new paint, is there any modification to this K2 variant?

So roughly 177 mm steel when seen directly from the front, with a slightly higher effective protection due to the armor being spaced. Is the outer layer made of high-hardness steel like on the Leopard 2 PT with spaced turret ("Leopard 2K")?

The PT-91MA1 seems to feature only ERAWA-1 ERA. It is much thinner than the ERA on the PT-91MA2. PT-91MA1 PT-91MA2

PERI R17 of an Austrian Leopard 2A4 without armored cover during maintenance: Mainframe of the Leopard 2A4's digital ballistic computer: Spanish Leopard 2A6E with slat armor:

https://www.janes.com/article/82828/land-forces-2018-contenders-vie-for-australia-s-ifv-requirement

If Poland could afford to upgrade the tanks to the Revolution standard, the K2 would be only a side-grade, not an upgrade. Unless the K2PL is a major modification of the K2, it really is not suited as a replacement for the Leopard 2 and PT-91, given that Poland tries to join the MGCS program and has been offered an hypothetical next-gen tank by Rheinmetall. ___ Edit: btw, the Polish RWS offered for the Leopard 2A5: http://www.zmt.tarnow.pl/wordpress/en/items/zsmu/

We'll, they are sending mixed signals. I guess the PSM representative meant, that a lot more has to be changed to create a variant of the Puma than on other vehicles. In terms of physics, there is nothing that prevents using the same chassis, drivetrain or components. The small size of the useable interior and the armor package are making it harder to turn the Puma IFV design to other roles without major modifications. That is true, which is why I'd like to see PSM offering a larger hull. In the past, no non-IFV variant of the Puma has been showcased, but there have been quite a few mentions of variants being proposed to different governments: One of the very first variants showcased was a CAD model and a photoshopped image of a prototype Puma hull with the Skyranger turret, which Rheinmetall wanted to sell to Germany. A stretched Puma with modified turred was the bid by SAIC, KMW and Rheinmetall for the US' GCV program. The proposal was meant to meet the US requirement of transporting 9 dismounts. It was rejected, because only two proposals could be funded (which happened to be two of BAE Systems and General Dynamics). As previously mentioned, McGregor was told that the Puma IFV could accept a turret with 120 mm or even 130 mm smoothbore gun for his Recon Strike Group concept. How such a turret would look is not known yet. He also wrote (but that might be speculation on his part), that the Puma could be used as recovery vehicle, artillery (mortar?) carrier and self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, based on its powerful engine. PSM told a Czech military news blog, that there already would exist further Puma variants as 3D CAD data, but any variant offered to the Czech Republic would be designed based on the specific Czech requirements. The APVT, while being a radically different vehicle compared to the Puma, is actually making use of many Puma components. While it probably would be too far of a stretch to call it a variant, it certainly shows that it is possible to design other variants based on the Puma's drivetrain. ASCOD 2/AJAX and CV90 are very easy to adapt for other roles (the Lynx KF41 with its module system even more). That would ruin (some of) the signature reduction measures that were introduced with the Lynx KF41. The flat surface with no anti-slip areas is required to minimize radar signatures, the same was done with prototypes of various AFVs over the past decades (including the "Stealth AMX" and "Stealth Leopard 1):

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4089-msspo-k2.html

It is not a Rafael turret. Hanwha is using the Trophy APS as a placeholder for the 3D renderings, they announced that they will integrate the APS chosen by Australia into the turret.