SH_MM

Yes, the photo seems to support that the armor at the hatch might be thinner than the rest of the UFP. But the picture quality is so low... I think these photos currently lead to more questions than they answer: What was the reason to cut a hole into the upper front plate of the M1 Abrams? Was this used to access some components mounted into the (former) fuel tanks? There seems to be an acess hatch or "plug" covering a hole on the left side. If the cut-out wasn't made straight, but rather tampers down (so that a simple "plug" could be used), then it would appear thicker when seen from this persperctive, although this overall seems rather unlikely. Last but not least the question should bbe asked, wether the greater armor thickness is limited to the fuel tanks or also covers the center section of the glacis (i.e. the section in front of the driver). There are three main reasons why hydropneumatic suspensions have been fitted to armored fighting vehicles: hydropneumatic suspensions double-act as shock absorbers, so they can deliver a smoother ride unlike torsion bars, the height of the supsension units can often be variable adjusted, thus allowing the make a tank "kneel" in order to keep a lower profile on uneven ground due to their compact nature, hydropneumatic suspension systems require no penetration of the hull floor Arguably points 1 and 2 are pretty much irrelevant with modern electronics and fire control systems. Being able to fire accurately on the move is not a result of suspension performance anymore, but rather of gun stabilization and electronics. Specifically the advantage of point 1 can be minimized by simply using more/better shock absorbers. Hydropneumatic suspensions are not automatically better than torsion-bar or even spring-based designs, it always depends on the exact implementation. The Leopard 2 for example has more suspension travel (i.e. it can negate greater variation in terrain height without letting a "shock" hit the chassis) than the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, despite the latter two having hydrogas suspenions from Horstmann. The Leopard 2's swing arms and torsion bars are optimized for traveling over terrain at fast speeds, which lead to a combined travel (bump + rebound) of 526 mm, while the Challenger 2 has only 450 mm combined suspension travel. While hydropneumatic suspensions have been around for multiple decades, they tend to have their own issues with reliability, sturdiness and weight efficiency. In Germany hydropneumatic suspensions were found to be unreliable in the Leopard 1, the Schützenpanzer - Neu (project that lead to the Marder IFV), the MBT-70 and the Leopard 2 (PT 11), thus the all the tracked series production vehicles from the 1960s to the 2010s were made with torsion bar suspensions. A project in the 1980s supposedly solved the reliability issues, but it got extremely heavy (250 kg per module or 3.5 metric tons for a vehicle with seven roadwheel pairs), so the only realistic applications would have been a hybrid system as fielded on the Type 90 tank in Japan (i.e. only use HSUs at the front and rear, but keep torsion bars in the center section). Unlike torsion bars, most/all types of hydropneumatic suspensions are temperature dependent - at low temperatures, the track tension and ground clearance of vehicles can decrease, in hot environments they can increase. During fast travel over rough terrain, the liquid/oil inside the hydropneumatic system and the seals can be damaged by overheating (temperatures of 200°C and above can be reached inside the hydropneumatic suspension when having to absorb lots of shocks under heavy load). High localized pressue can lead to high wear of certain elements. Last but not least HSUs tend to be a lot more complex. These are some of the problems of hydropneumatic suspensions mentioned by Hilmes in his 2007 book. Modern engineering has managed to reduce or completely solve most of the issues, but I think to some extend they will prevail, thus always making torsion bars a more reliable, less complex and cheaper option. The Challenger 2 for example introduced a semi-active track tension adjusting mechanism in order to lower the influences of temperature on the tracks (but ground clearance still might vary). The Puma uses energy-absorbing end stops in the hydrostruts, which are used to spread the thermal energy on a larger surface area and thus preventing overheating. The main reasons speaking for a hydropneumatic suspension are mine protection (no penetration of the hull, specifically in combination with a decoupled running gear) and easier transportability (in case of wheeled vehicles, where HSUs are much more common: lowering the suspension allows air transportability in aircrafts with cargo height restriction). Actually the Puma uses Horstmann's Hydrostrut system: https://horstmangroup.com/horstman-products/horstman-hydrostrut/

Leopard 2 KWS prototype (AFAIK one of the two TVM tanks, but could also be the IVT) being refurbished and repainted before going into a museum. It will probably go to the Panzermuseum Munster (or maybe is already there?), which has requested a replacement for the old Leopard 2A4 (because children and young adults would be used to the wedge-shaped turret armor of the Leopard 2). Note the layered hatch construction: NERA spaced over the normal steel hatch Photos via the otvaga forum.

Oh, it was the NL model. Sorry for that, I somehow brainfarted. I don't think they are identical, AFAIK they use armor from different suppliers.

For the sake of completeness, here are some details about the CV90's armor: Basic steel structure, armor of UDES 09 and Strf 90 armor: Never purchased MEXAS kit for the Strf 90 (a similiar kit was bought by Finland, Norway and Switzerland): On the Swiss Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV9030 Mk II), the MEXAS armor panels have a maximum thickness of 70 mm. Armor measurements on the CV9035NL without add-on armor done by @Bronezhilet CV9035 turret during production: (this seems to be just 20-30 mm thick steel, but it is often fitted with composite armor on top of that) CV9035NL engine bay: CV9035NL add-on armor (SidePRO, RoofPRO and MinePRO from RUAG): RoofPRO composition (thickness might be different depending on application): Might post something regarding ASCOD, Boxer, Puma, BMP, etc. over the next days...

It's probably simply NERA/NxRA. The composite might be something like Dyneema or another elastic liner material, which offfers better performance than rubber in one or the other way (lower density, higher bulging, doesn't get hard and losses its elasticity over the years). At the first moment 15 mm interlayer might look thick, but Dr. Manfred Held tested 20 mm thick Dyneema panels sandwiched between two 5 mm steel plates. The high protection level is achieved by the slope. I don't know what this impact angle exactly is, but the frontal slope of the Patria AMV's upper front plate is less than 20° from the horizontal.

Last year there was a similar discrepancy between various Polish, French and Ukranian reports on the SETC, each claiming one of the other two teams placed last, but definetly not their own team. Only the first three spots are officially revealed, the placement of the other teams is not announced and there is a "gentlemen's agreement" to not disclose any ranking. The reported score difference between the UK (at place 6) and France (at place 4) was just 46 points, a relatively small lead that would be somewhat possible to catch up - maybe these scores were not the final result? Or did the British author(s) consider this negible? Were the leaked scores the final results or the results during the competiiton (although according to an Austrian article, the Swedes were in lead until the last day of the competition)? Did one of the British sources copy the other? The tasks in this year's edition of the SETC are identical to last years, but the grading (amount of points) has been altered.

No, this is the old one; the only reported incident of a Leclerc being hit by an ATGM. Supposedly it was not Sagger, but is believed to have been Konkurs or Konkurs-M by a French instructor of the UAE's army. The driver was killed and the commander was injured. The slat armor was added after this incident. I don't know wether is is capable of fuzing an ATGM warhead at an increased stand-off distance, but Konkurs(-M) has similar penetration to modern ATGMs. So it might have been added in case of a modern RPG being fired at the hull front.

DarkLabor, I see we won't find any agreement on this matter, so I make this short. You entered this discussion with the mindset that the professionals working for the military procurement agencies in countries that rejected the Leclerc - i.e. Sweden and Greece - are idiots incapable of measuring and doing simple math, who also lie in any about their statements made regarding the Leclerc. At the same time you seem to believe that the French engineers and state officials are more competent than people from any other country. You seem to think that France considered the UAE to be a more trustworthy partner than a NATO country and a Scandinavian member/associate of several European organizations like the WEU, OSCE, etc. That alone shows me, that we could go on for days without finding any conclusion. There seem to be some French sources interested in making the Leclerc look like a "char super", that was only unsuccessful on the export market, because other people had a malevolent intent or were simply dumb. There is for example this page of a French book, which lies about the results of the Leclerc in Greece, claiming that it proved to be better in categories like C3I and firepower, where other tanks got the first place according to Greek sources. Maybe because the leaked data is irrelevant for current Leclerc tanks, as it shows an armor package not in use anymore... So, he there is no reason for him knowing that stuff aside of "he should know, he was in the same company". And he is not biased, because at some point he left Nexter. Sure... You fail to see the point. I didn't say that any tank would be impenetratable; reality has shown that all tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry. What I was pointing out is that you cannot make an assessment about a tank's protection this way. To show that a tank is well protected (against the relative threats), it has to be hit by these threats and its armor has to stop the threats. If only a single ATGM hit has been reported and in this case the ATGM managed to penetrate the armor, it doesn't allow us to deduct that the tank would be well protected. As for the UAE and AZUR: They fitted their tanks with additional slat armor protecting the hull front after that incident: And they also bought about 200 kits of DND's low-fragementation ERA: You might laugh your ass off, because you intentionally misinterpret my words. The French delegation was accused of stripping off armor modules/weight demonstrators and internal components of their tank before the start of the mobility trials in order to make it several tons lighter. The Greek military wanted to weigh the tank following these accusations, but there was no scale within a reasonable distance that could withstand the weight of tank. They would have been required to delay the evaluation by several days, which they didn't consider feasible. As for the radios: first of all, radios are an integral part of any modern MBT. They might not be a corner stone, but when you have two tanks with similar performance, you'll end up choosing the one with a working radio, rather than the one which has an unreliable radio. Secondly, there is are further implications: If a manufacturer tells you that the radios of his tank have a MTBF of 10,000 hours and then it fails to work 10 times within a two hours period, will you still believe in the other claims regardless reliability/MTBF made by the manufacturers? Radios might play only a minor role, but Sweden at least values reliability as high as firepower, mobility or armor protection. You keep directly contradicting with statements made by people involved in the Swedish testing program and expect us to believe you... I don't think that he meant me - or at least I hope that - but rather the Swedish government worker who leaked the data. If that only had anything to do with the driver's hatch... The original source speaks of the ATGM penetrating the hull front, which (as we can see by looking at photos) was reinforced with slat armor on UAE Leclercs over the time. That the ATGM hit the driver's hatch is a claim made by DarkLabor, who as always didn't bother to provide on of his "super sekrit" sources to support his claims. The point of my original statement is that you cannot say "my favorite tank is well protected, look at that war were only one was reported to have been hit by an ATGM (which penetrated the armor)".

That's not the Leclerc, but a generic MBT. Take a look at the location of the gunner's sight and the smoke grenade launchers...

The FMV employee did not disclose those slides intentionally to the public, and the data is valid for an outdated variant that isn't even in service anymore. Just us not having heard about any sort of response, doesn't mean there wasn't one. Oh, an anonymous engineer, what a great source! When some "engineer" tells a story that supports your ideas, you are willing to accept it without any proof that said engineer even exists, that he made such a claim and that he does know what he is talking about? This whole story stinks and could be mere fiction of the originator or - if he exists - of the engineer. This has the same quality as the usually wrong hearsay stories from sources such as "a friend of a friend" and "the brother of the boss of my uncle's second wife". "An engineer" also supposedly told Paul L. that the Challenger 1 would have turret armor providing protection against APFSDS ammunition with up to 620 mm penetration into steel. As we know nowadays based on declassified document, this was complete bullshit. An engineer most likely shouldn't have access to informations such as wether GIAT send protection data to Greece or not, as this is a decision made by the management, not by an engineer. You complain about me supposedly being "the kind of guy to swallow hook, line and sinker...", yet you are willing to believe illogical and unreferenced claims based on a single footnote from a single book? Let me guess, you didn't even consider the possibility of the "engineer's" word being a bullshit excuse made so that other potential customers would not generally reject the Leclerc tank in favor for an Abrams or Leopard 2? And what has been learned in Yemen? That the Leclerc is good with add-on armor (slat armor, the AZUR kit or DND's low-fragmentation ERA)? How many "naked" Leclerc tanks were hit, by what type of ammunition, at which location and from what angle? You keep asking a lot of questions, but ignore the most important ones. According to a French instructor at the cavalry school of the United Arab Emirates, at least one Leclerc was penetrated at the frontal hull armor (!) by an ATGM - probably a Konkurs or Konkurs-M missile - killing the driver and wounding the commander. That suggests that the older armor package used on the Leclerc Tropicalisé does provide significantly less than 1,000 mm vs HEAT at certain points (or rather less than 800 mm vs tandem shaped charge warheads), the former was in Sweden the required level of protection for the hull against ATGMs... It is not just "some random CAD drawing", but a protection analysis done by the Swedish FMV (the government office reponsible for testing arms and other material for the Swedish military). One can easily see that this is the original armor package for various reasons: First of all, the chart shows the original armor packages of the Leopard 2 Improved and M1A2 aswell, so why would they show the Leclerc with an indigenous armor package instead? R. Lindström, who is proven to have worked for the FMV during the procurement process of the Strv 122 and the testing of the three contenders aswell as an article published on the website of the FMV, claim that when fitted with the Swedish-made MEXAS armor package, the M1A2's and Leclerc's protection increased in certain locations by 50 to 100 percent depending on ammunition, a fact that surprised French and US representatives. So France has given protection data to Sweden, otherwise they couldn't make such a statement and generate a vulnerability analysis; as a matter of fact the up-armored Leclerc with Swedish armor package was designed to meet the higher protection requirements, the "CAD" data clearly shows a tank that is not meeting the requirements. If this showed the Leclerc with Swedish armor package - as claimed by you - the contemporary French variant would have significantly lower level of armor protection. The armor package in the US was assessed by firing different reference projectiles (which were supplied by Sweden) from different angles against it. As we can see in the leaked data, the Swedes also measured the leftover penetration capacity (if there was any) and the leftover armor thickness (if there was any), in order to come up with protection values. The "CAD" data is a vulnerability anaylsis. These types of computer analysises have been done since the late 1970s and are still common in the AFV industry. There are numerous companies specialized on vulnerability analysis tools like Condat Scheyern and recently also IBD. The computer program takes data about the performance and physicial dimensions of the armor (the armor performance is based on tests at various angles, at some point the program has to interpolate the data in order to provide accurate readings for the complete surface and all possible angles of impact) and generates a protection coverage. When the armor package is being tested is depending on the nation's requirements, there is no general rule. Shortlisting companies without having proven that the claims made by the manufacturer's marketing team have any substance is not a good idea. The Leclerc was one of the three tanks shortlisted for Sweden, yet you seem to deny that Sweden tested the armor - despite employees of the FMV saying so. Greece might not have shortlisted the Leclerc, but they definetly assessed its protection based on testing the armor and/or data for armor protection supplied by France. That's why they came to the conclusion that it has nearly the same protection level as the Challenger 2 (at 62.5 metric tons and a much greater volume!), which happens to show that your claims about the Greek military being to dumb for understanding that a smaller/lighter tank doesn't automatically offer a lower level of protection are wrong. In fact, even if this "GIAT engineer" told the truth, Greece could simply have done a little bit of fifth grade math to calculate how well the Leclerc would perform, if its armor offered the same protection per weight/thickness as the armor fitted to the Leopard 2, Challenger 2, M1 Abrams or T-80/T-84, for which Greece received protection data and/or ballistic modules for ballistic testing. Unless the Leclerc's armor includes some super secret material, it won't outperform armor arrays from the same time in terms of efficiency. Armor tests are mostly made using special ballistic parts rather than firing on a proper tank (you don't want to waste a few millions if the armor fails to protect it). So supposedly only two Leclerc tanks being used for armor tests is pretty much irrelevant; the amount of armor modules tested might be tenfold this number or even more. The US tested the Leopard 2AV's proteciton using armor modules only, no complete MBT was shot at. In fact the updated Leopard 2A4 armor package (from 1991) was offered to various customers that operate ex-German tanks with images showing how well armor modules performed against certain threats, no proper Leopard 2A4 tank was used to demonstrate the protection level. The same happened with the Leopard 2 Revolution, where the armor performance was shown by firing against modules, but not against a full vehicle. Greece tested a "full" Leopard 2 turret randomly taken from the product line to verify that their tanks were fitted with the same type of armor as used during the tender. The US used a single M1 Abrams prototype at the end of the development program to test that it matched all protection requirements, before that point, they only used armor modules for all ballistic tests. GIAT was desperate to win in Sweden and Greece, which is why they offered much better deals than required (offering 60% more parts to be made locally in Sweden than required in order to indirectly cut the price of the Leclerc) or cheated (by jamming radios of other competitors and making their tank lighter in Greece). The photo is by the way showing a hull shell made in Sweden. Sweden had to made its own steel shells for testing the three main battle tanks in case of the variants with improved protection, because the manufacturers were not interested in supplying them with enough data on how the tanks would perform when fitted with the Swedish armor: "Då vi inte fick tillräckligt med underlag från leverantören lät vi bygga delskrov efter eget huvud för att kunna utföra skjutprovning mot de olika stridsvagnarna med det svenskutvecklade skyddet - något som särskilt förvånade fransmännen..." Your way of arguing - "I have not heard about it, so it never happened" - is the second bullshit argument after your "anonymous engineer" statement. You knowing only of two Leclercs being used for ballistic test doesn't mean there were only two. No, you are wrong. Sweden at first hoped that the MBTs planned to be tested would already meet the desired level of protection. Data provided by the manufacturers and the results of the ballistic tests were used to create a proper analysis of the protection of all contenders. However all of the three tanks failed to meet the required level of protection, which is why Åkers Krutbruk acquired the MEXAS licence from IBD and designed add-on armor kits for all tanks. With add-on armor all three tanks were meant to meet the protection requirements or at least get reasonable close to them. After Sweden designed and tested its add-on armor kits on the existing armor modules, GIAT decided to offer a redesigned turret, that would incorporate the Swedish armor. This turret is not identical to the previously posted CAD image, as GIAT's new design looked like this: Note that the gun shield is still the very thin one as found on the actual French models of the Leclerc. The Swedes didn't like this design, just like they wanted more armor in the area of the gunner's sight (creating a "channel" like in the Leopard 2A5's add-on armor), but GIAT prefers keeping the thin gun shield - they also kept it on the up-armored later French Leclerc models, the AZUR up-armor kit doesn't change it and the much improved Leclerc tank offered to Turkey kept the same weakspot. Ah, I forgot that the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 upgrades were not designed to deal with the latest threats from the Warsaw Pact, but instead were designed to defeat the alien army from outer space...

So something in the weight demonstrators is radioactive?`

The problem with Rheinmetall and KMW/KDNS is that Rheinmetall broke an unwritten agreement by creating the Leopard 2 Revolution. The Leopard 2 market was essentially KMW's property, so they got really mad when Rheinmetall started "stealing" the contracts with Indonesia and Poland. This lead to a nearly two year delay in the Leopard 2A7V upgrade, as both companies couldn't agree on how to contract (mostly the money) should be split between them. I think there are multiple options available. The French government is probably pushing for KMW/KDNS to become the primary contractor, but being secondary contractor (like MaK for the Leopard 1/2) also means that KDNS could end up manufacturing a large amount of tanks. Being the primary contractor has a number of advantages such as being responsible for the management of the project, being contracted for the development of upgrades/tech demonstrators and the right to export used tanks (although Rheinmetall also did that with the Leopard 2, it is actually a bit more complicated). The question remains wether Germany will choose the less capable company just to please the French wishes. A third option that the government(s) could decide to choose would be asking/forcing the companies to bid as a joint-venture, i.e. as done with the Puma (the joint-venture PSM is the official prime contractor) and the Boxer (where all contractors are handled by OCCAR, which then talks to the prime contractor ARTEC).

The age of these simulations doesn't change a number of facts: when seen from an angle, the surface area behind which the crew compartment is located is greater on the Leclerc the turret bulge, gun mantlet and gunner's sight are weakspots in the armor layout that remain existent even in the more modern Leclerc variants the Leclerc's armor is physicially thinner Yes, the current models of the Leclerc (and also the Leopard 2) use much newer armor inserts than tested in Sweden; however that doesn't guarantee that the Leclerc will reach or exceed the protection level of a modern Leopard 2. Given above points, the Leclerc could even be considered inferior protected, if its armor offered a higher protection level per weight and thickness (which I doubt given that the Leopard 2A7 features new armor inserts). That's frankly a lie. Just like the stupid lie from Froggy on the SteelBeasts forum about the Greek military using the AMX-30B2's armor to simulate the Leclerc's protection level. It is stupid to lie just to pretend your favorite tank/toy is perfect, that is not true. Nobody buys a tank without knowing how well its armor will perform. Sweden was supplied with performance data (or protection level estimations) of the tanks and tested armor modules to verify that the data was correct. These tests were not necessarily done in Sweden, for example the M1A2 Abrams' armor was tested in the United States in order to ensure that the exact composition and layout of the armor array remained secret. The Swedes supervised the armor tests in the US and brought their own reference threats (i.e. two types of APFSDS, two large calibre shaped charge warheads to represent ATGMs and one smaller shaped charge to simulate the HEAT rounds fired by the Carl Gustaf recoiless rifle). We know from Swedish sources, that the M1 Abrams with Swedish armor package provides a much higher level of protection than the one seen in the comparison chart: Note that the M1A2 turret is shown with the original armor package! We also know that the Swedish armor was designed to meet the requirements (best possible protection against APFSDS with 700 mm penetration and 165 mm shaped charge warhead along the frontal arc of the turret). The Leclerc shown in the comparison chart clearly fails to meet this requirement, therefore it is not the one with enhanced armor protection. Last but not least we know that the Swedish armor was designed as add-on armor and that the base armor of the tank was kept. Therefore your claim that the comparison chart showed the Leclerc with Swedish armor package would mean that the basic Leclerc's armor would be a lot weaker. The add-on armor would replace the storage boxes at the side of the turret while adding a wedge-shaped module (like used on the Leopard 2A5) to the turret front. The Leclerc at 54.5 metric tons was designed to reach a similar level of frontal protection than the Leopard 2A4 (pre-1991: 55.15 metric tons) and the M1A1 (57 metric tons). It did so, while being lighter, having a bigger gun and having more side armor. To expect that a 54.5 tonnes tank would reach a protection level even broadly similar to MBTs with a weight of 62.5 tonnes (M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 prototype) is silly. You are misinterpreting the news. The contract between France and Germany only decided that the MGCS, the CIFS, EuroMALE and the SCAF will be developed. For the first three programs, German companies will be primary contractors, while the development of the SCAF will be headed by a French company. Which company will be chosen has yet to be decided. Germany's anti-corruption laws mean there has to be a bidding process, rather than the government dictating that KDNS will get the contract. The official press statements from the French and the German ministries of defence do not say that KDNS will be responsible for the MGCS, because they cannot make the decision yet. The press releases from KMW and Nexter pretty much say "we are cooperating, please choose us". As a matter of fact, Rheinmetall is also bidding to become the primary contractor for the MGCS. The rumor mill suggest that they are in a better position and might be prefered over KMW. Back when Krauss-Maffei was chosen for the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 programs, it was the largest defence contractor with the capacity to manufacture MBTs in (West-)Germany. MaK, the second-largest, was chosen as a secondary contractor (making 45% of all tanks, while Krauss-Maffei made 55%). However in the past decades Rheinmetall has become a gigantic company that has swallowed roughly a dozen of smaller German & European defence vehicles and arms manufacturers (among them MaK, Thyssen-Henschel, Oerlikon, KuKa, Chempro, MAN military, etc.),: currently Rheinmetall has more than 23,000 employes, while KMW has just 2,700. The larger company also invests more into research and development (even without an official government requirement), while KMW over the past years has been satisfied with only becoming active once a requirement has been published. Finally there is a difference in structure: Rheinmetall is easier to work with, as it is not a family-owned company (like KMW). Only the future will show wether KMW's move to join sides with Nexter to form KDNS was a way to win the MGCS contract or not. Rheinmetall has announced that they will show "something" in regards to the MGCS in December of this year. Probably just some 3D models or testbed, because the exact concept of the MGCS has yet to be revealed by the governments. Rheinmetall is already working on its own idea of a next-generation tank (might become independent of the the MGCS) in their own secret facilities. Interesting note is that Ben Hudson from Rheinmetall asked "How do you defeat a tank that has four active defense systems on it?"... General Dynamics will apparently not bid for the MGCS, as they think their ASCOD 2 might be enough for the tank market of the future. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/25/tank-makers-steel-themselves-for-europes-next-big-land-weapon-contest/ https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/14/when-does-industry-expect-france-and-germany-to-set-its-future-tank-requirements/

I think the Puma might have worse chances than previously expected given the requirements. Wanting all vehicles to be based on the same hull is going to be more costly in case of the Puma, as the hull is already very expensive and highly optimized for a specific set of requirements (lower internal volume to fit into the weight and size envelope of an A400M aircraft). While PSM has told several potential customers (including Australia and the Czech Republic), that they can easily create a number of Puma-derived variants (and have already designed some using CAD programs), I think the ASCOD 2, CV90 and Lynx all have advantages in this regard. Given that Australia seems to be prefer the 30 x 173 mm calibre and the Spike-LR (II) missiles, I don't see much reasons to doubt that the Puma IFV might outperform the competitors based on its technical specifications and the great performance achieved in the Czech trials (most mobile vehicle, hit twice as much rounds as the others, only vehicle that didn't have to repeat a test due to reliability issues). But it is not really designed to be a good ARV or ambulance vehicle. It would be much easier for the Puma, if the US had funded SAIC's offer for the GCV program instead of the paper designs by BAE Systems and General Dynamics. While the program was canceled, the initial funds would probably have been enough to create a demonstrator (i.e. stretched Puma hull with seven roadwheel pairs), which then could have been used for other purposes. Obviously the boss of GD UK will say good things about the Ajax, just like the boss of General Dynamics European Land Systems Santa Bárbara Sistemas (GDELS SBS) will say good things about the Pizarro. The Ajax - or rather the decision of British politicians to pay an hefty extra for the local production of the ASCOD 2 hulls - is the only reason why GD UK has the option to even consider exporting vehicles. The Ajax as it is will never be exported; you can see that by looking at the vehicles offered to the Czech Republic, which were highly modified. I know that you want to imply that the "Ajax" should be used as a synonym for the ASCOD 42 chassis, but I don't see a reason to do that. Not only is the name "Ajax" only used for three very specific variants for the British army (so calling it "hull for the fromer Scout SV program" would be more appropriate), but it also pretends that the vehicle would be a British design and undercuts the development efforts made in Austria and Spain. None of the ASCOD-SV prototypes was made in the UK, only very little development work was done locally, with the actual ASCOD 42 hull being pretty much designed in Austria and Spain only. They added a new engine, transmission, tracks and final drive (all components happen to be made by German contractors), while modifying the Spanish-made suspension, The ASCOD 42 hull prototype was made by Steyr SF and blast testing was done in January and early February 2010 at GDELS' facility in Austria. At the 18th Feburary 2010, the company also announced that the ASCOD prototype was capabable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 42 metric tons, four days before being awarded the Scout-SV contract and years before the British army opted for the name "Ajax" - this means that 42 metric tons GVW is not a result of British changes to the platform afer winning the contract and are not exclusive to the "Ajax". The name "Ajax" is a local designation for an UK-made version, but potential customers such as the Czech Republic and Australia want local production and adopt their own names. Then there is also the fact that the Ajax hull makes use of an add-on mine protection kit from a third-party manufacturer, but GDELS SBS has been developing its own anti-mine plating for the Spanish VCZAP, which can be directly integrated into the vehicle base structure and might be more attractive to potential customers (and more lucrative for General Dynamics). There are numerous components that were added to the Ajax (and other British ASCOD variants), which will probably never be used on models for other countries. I disagree. That's a result of the different armor packages and different angles at which the photos were taken. The interior photo of the Ares (which is based on the ASCOD 42 platform) and the ASCOD 35 prototype from Eurosatory 2018 show comparable amount of interior space. The photo of the ASCOD 42's interior seems to be taken at a different angle and with a different focal length, hence distorting the image compared to the other photos. Here is the interior of the Ulan, which has the same width and length than the interior compartment available in an Ajax, ASCOD 35 and ASCOD 42. Note that the different angle, focal length and seats make it seem as if there was much more legroom available than in the other vehicles. The ASCOD MMBT is bulkier due to its thicker armor; the hull however isn't as tall as the ASCOD 35's one (due to the raised roof of the later) and the length is also identical. It's just a question of perspective: The width of the usable hull interior for the crew is also the same (note the distance between the headlights): I really hope that the people who provided this feedback have nothing to say in the procurement process. Wishing for a MTU 8V199 TE20 engine (or even the uprated TE21 variant) on a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 50 metric tons seems to be a joke. 720 hp or (or 815 hp) are nowhere enough for such a heavy vehicle. The Liebherr engine is proven, off-the-shelf and much more powerful. The lack of capacity also seems to be a questionable point of critique, as pretty much all modern IFVs make use of external storages boxes for at least some parts of the equipment, but the Lynx KF41 has not yet been showcased with such (although it was also not showcased with the seating arrangement for nine dismounts). The KF31 obviously seems to be more mature, given that it apparently is a reskin of the Marder hull with new internal components + LANCE 1.0 turret. IMO the ASCOD 42 is unlikely to be offered, given that no IFV variant of this vehicle exists (if the version presented at IDET 2017 is indeed an overloaded ASCOD 35 hull). That would also mean that the ASCOD 2 could be offered with a "decent" power-to-weight ratio of more than 20 hp per metric ton at gross vehicle weight. This would still be much below the automotive performance of Puma (25 hp/tonne at GVW), Lynx KF41 (23 hp/tonne at GVW) and CV90 Mk IV (27 hp/tonne at GVW), but still somewhat competitive. It also would avoid going up against the heavily armored Puma and KF41 Lynx, which due to their greater supported weight and/or their more weight efficient manufacturing techniques (in case of the Puma) have clear advantages over the ASCOD 42. This however could mean that for General Dynamics the problems of the LAND 400 Phase 2 repeat themselves again: offering a less costly, but less competitive solution with no manned turret (as the LANCE turret apparently isn't available through GFE and the Steyr plant where the SP-30 turret of the Pizarro and Ulan was made has been downsized to near non-existence after winning the Scout-SV contract with a LANCE-based turret)...

I wonder if the UK actually holds any intelelctual property rights on the Ajax. Usually IP is related to funding the development of a complete vehicle, the FRES Scout SV program however only considered only variants of already existing vehicles that were in service with at least one user country. The new turret is largely based on Rheinmetall's design. Basically this whole program looks rather similar to the LAND 400 project, with the exception of the UK wanting a greater amount of special modifications to their platform. The image showing that they ASCOD 2 PSO is indeed just a Scout SV MTR, where the sign was removed using photoshop, which is quite damning. However I remember having read somewhere that there also was a real PSO variant; maybe they simply decided to use it later as MTR for the Scout SV program? How much has to be changed to raise the weight limit of an ASCOD 2 from 35 to 42 tonnes? The CV90 Mk III was tested a weight of 40.4 tonnes, despite even the current CV90 Mk IV having a maximum gross vehicle weight of just 37 tonnes, in so far the Scout SV MTR (and the Ajax) could very well be overloaded vehicles with some changes to transmission, final drives and tracks only. General Dynamics hasn't really been strict with the nomenclature of the ASCOD family. Steyr SSF (the Austrian part of GDELS) described the Ulan as an ASCOD 2 variant, because it has a larger engine than the Pizarro - but it doesn't support the full weight of 35 tonnes. Also all Ulan IFVs were delivered before the ASCOD 2 was officially announced. There also is the curious case of the Donar self-propelled gun. This vehicle has a combat weight of 35 tonnes, which would mean that there was/is zero growth potential left given that it is based on the ASCOD 35 chassis... Why not? In the end the Boxer's modularity makes this extremely easy. I'd expect that Rheinmetall already has a LANCE 2.0 turret integrated into a Boxer module (at least as CAD data); the Puma's turret has been offered on the Boxer since quite a few years. The real question for the Lynx KF41 is how many components of the LANCE 2.0 turret are interchangable with the original variant.

Not at all in the current configuration. They might add ERA or slat armor at some time to deal with the latter.

This is how the ammo storage looked in the Leopard 2AV or early T14 mod. (before the turret was used to test an autoloader). Drawings from 1975.

The Brits ordered no IFV based on the ASCOD 2 hull, because they want to keep the Warrior...

The Ajax is one very specific vehicle based on a modified ASCOD 2 hull, which certainly will not be offered. The Ajax uses many special adaptions made to fit the British requirements, is not an IFV (IIRC it can carry only two additional soldiers and utilizes a wrong calibre put into a turret based on Rheinmetall's LANCE system (meaning Rheinmetall could simply block it). The Griffin never had a composite-hull. I somehow started this rumor based on speculations on my blog, but apparently it just looked different because of a new type of paint coating in combination with the poor image quality of the original photos of the vehicle. Apparently the Griffin was/is a mock-up mostly, the prototype presented at AUSA was supposedly making use of an old hull from a prototype of the original ASCOD program, rather than a newer ASCOD 2 hull, which would be used for a production variant. This is an ASOCD 42 hull with Kongsberg MCT-30 turret, the same turret didn't really make an impression when mounted on the LAV (CRV). Please note that this is based on the raised roof variant of the ASCOD 2, rather than the normal variant used for the Ajax. The original IFVs based on the ASCOD 1 (the Ulan and the Pizarro) aswell as the British Ajax all have the low roof line, which is not providing enough interior space to transport dismounts and their equipment while having decoupled seats and a mine protection kit installed. The Ulan and Pizarro therefore do not provide any noteworthy protection against mines, while the Ajax does not carry infantry. For the Australian army and the Czech army, GDELS has only offered variants of the ASCOD 2 with raised roof, as these countries want mine-protected IFVs. The CV90 Mk. IV however is very far away from being a budget approach. It has the weight reserves, the engine output and the armor kits to have a fair chance. AFAIK the ASCOD 2 PSO technology demonstrator was the first vehicle based on the ASCOD 42 chassis. The British PMRS Ares is based on this vehicle. The ASCOD 2 tested in the Czech Republic exceeded the weight limit of the ASCOD 35 chassis; it has to be an ASCOD 42. The question is not wether an Australian company could have manufactured the vehicle, but rather if the Sentinel II would have managed to reach the advertised performance. A lot of issues in combat vehicles become only apparent several months or even years after they were designed, so you'll need very though testing or experience gather by another military (that operates said vehicle) in order to be sure that everything will work as promised. The Bionix is not in production anymore, it also would be too small and be unable to compete in terms of armor and firepower. The new NGAFV from the same manufacturer might be offered instead, but it also would only have outside chances.

The Puma is a joint venture, because back then the market looked very different and both companies lacked the available systems to create an own solution. The decision was also supported by politics. Back when the Puma's predecessor project was under way, there were four teams bidding, each consisting of multiple companies. KUKA, Henschel, Wegmann, etc. were all still their own companies, rather than being purchased or merged into KMW and Rheinmetall. KMW is also not involved in the Lynx. This situation with the EMBT is very different for KMW: they already have a product for the market and have zero competition (for example the Czech Republic has the choice between the M60 Sabra upgrade or Leopard 2 tanks... not really a hard choice). You can read the interviews of the German newspapers with the KMW managers - they do not want to keep developing the EMBT into a proper product, but see it as a gesture towards politics: KMW wants to become prime contractor for the MGCS, where Rheinmetall is currently in a better position. The governments of France and Germany have revealed that a German company will be in charge of the MGCS, while a French company will serve as prime contractor for the next-generation aircraft system of both countries. Given that Rheinmetall has more technology and is about 10 times larger than KMW, KMW feels the need to appease politicians by creating the EMBT. Yes, that is the only problem of the EMBT compared to a Leopard 2A7...

I don't think the six squares have to relate to the armor thickness of the hull side; they are part of the mounting mechanism for the side skirt elements. Leopard 2A7 at Eurosatory

A few more Eurosatory pics from various websites. Rheinmetall announced that they have been contracted by an Asian nation to deliver "a few hundred" of their modular Mission Master UGVs. A Mission Master UGV was presented at Eurosatory in the cargo configuration, previously an armed variant and a scout variant were already presented.

The Patria AMV-35 had the same insufficient level of protection (or even less, if the ST Engineering/Elbit proposal to use the turret in an unmanned configuration and use the save weight for more hull armor was considered by the Australian military), yet it was shortlisted. The turret is one of the higher risk components of the Sentinel and therefore was one of the reasons why the offer was rejected instead of the AMV-35. It would be rather odd of the Australian military to say: "one year ago, we didn't like it for being too risky, but now it's perfect for our requirements". If I was a manager of GDELS, I would look for an alternative turret for Australia. Are you sure that this was the result of distrust? Given the fact that ST Engineering, the company that supplied the Terrex 3 hull for the Sentinel 2 vehicle, is manufacturing several Elbit components under licence, one should assume that these companies have rather good relationship. IMO it seems that turret and hull were first mated in Tasmina for practical reasons (with the turret probably being made in Israel, while the hull was made in Singapore).

I'm not really sure about GDELS's overall strategy with the ASCOD 2. They have presented two different configurations in Czech camouflage painting (makes sense, given that the Czech tender is starting earlier), but they never try to maximize the capacity of the chassis. The IFV from Eurosatory is based on the ASCOD 35 chassis (ASCOD 2 designed for a maximum gross vehicle weight of 35 tonnes) and seems rather limited protection. The rubber band tracks are limited to STANAG 4569 level 3a, the ballistic protection is below STANAG 4569 level 6 (i.e. it has been claimed to feature protection against 30 mm APFSDS from 1,000 m distance instead of the required 500 m). IMO that places GDELS at a disadvantage compared to the potential offers from BAE Systems, PSM and Rheinmetall. The turret is intriguing and having a hardkill APS and an integrated ATGM launcher is nice, but Australia already rejected the Sentinel II with exactly the same turret configuration, so I don't think that this would be a good option for trying to get a contract in Australia... The older IFV variant offered to the Czech Republic was based on the ASCOD 42 hull (ASCOD 2 hull with 42 tonnes maximum gross vehicle weight), but was limited to just 38 tonnes thanks to (also) relying on rubber band tracks from Soucy Defence. I don't think that the Samson Mk 2 RWS is as advanced as Elbits turret used on the other model, but it recently was said to receive Trophy APS as an optional upgrade offer. This ASCOD 2 IFV has better protection, including passive armor against RPGs on the upper half of the hull. IMO the CV90 Mk IV is a much more likely candidate to be offered to Australia: the AMV-35 came reasonable close to winning the competition (it got shortlisted, unlike the Sentinel II with Elbit turret and the LAV-CRV from GDLS) and has more potential (1,000 hp engine, more proven components, their own turrets, etc.).

They are not serious, they don't plan to offer it on the market. Also a KMW employee told the German press (which has been copying his words in most news articles), that the company (behind closed doors) considers the Leopard 2 a much better tank than the EMBT, so they have no reason to push for any production. Just think about it from KMW's perspective: why should they create their own competition and agree to take only 50% of the revenue? KNDS is not a single company. Its a cooperation of two companies, who try to split up the market (by not competing against each other) and help each other (by making joint projects).