Serge

@Marsh
Re-uploaded:

The art of teasing. 

Marc was busy at EuroSatory. 😩

A female tank crew has just finished the pilot program and demonstrated the women are indeed capable of manning tanks. Of course, they are not the first as there are countries where tank operation is already open to females.
Still, congrats to them. 
And to remind you guys of the aspect they probably don't want to talk about; They're there just to replace men in border patrol roles while the combat brigades are doing the fighting.
Overall they seem to be doing a good job. Uniform's kinda saggy on them, and the loading is kinda wompy, but otherwise all's good.
 
By the way, I've noticed there's some smoke coming inside the turret, and a dangerous looking bunch of sparks. I'm pretty sure this is not normal. Anyone with some insights care to comment on that?
 
 

1

My humble contribution :

I like the berlin camo

K9 is a hot thing.
 
K9 in Finland:

Altay thx combatmaster @PDF
 

So what are the proofs?
Some CAD made by the swedes disclosed without any sort of nuclear response between french army or Nexter and the FMW or the guy that disclosed those slides?
That's a joke at best...
 
Dunno where he got the AMX 30 thingy. But clearly an engineer of Giat Industries disclosed the fact that the design bureau didn't sent the quotes in time to the Greek authorities. As a consequence the protection offered by the Leclerc was considered/judged lower compared to the other western MBTs due to their lower volumes.
We may like our tank, but we keep in mind its achilles heel. We do not claim that its protection is the absolute best in the world. But we are sure it offers an adequate protection (reinforced by what has been learnt in Yemen).
 
You test the armor packages when you've selected a short list of contenders.
What the swedes asked were quotes and some armor cavities to test the protection with their indigenous solutions... (what you have in the photo).
No ballistic tests have been conducted on an actual tank in France for sure. The only two were one for the french army to validate their choices and one for Giat Industries to validate their softwares in the case of repeated impacts on armor packages and structures.
Another one underwent tests in UAE to validate the choices of the UAE land forces.
No trace of a potential swedish delegation to assess the armor packages with rigorous tests on ballistic modules...
That's about it.
 
So you just need some random CAD drawings to say "hey that's the original armor package!".
How did they assessed the armor package in the US?
How did they made their CAD to take into account the protection offered depending on the angle of the modules?
How do they know how the packages are oriented within the turret modules?

You are the kind of guy to swallow hook, line and sinker...

Here the full armor layout of the Le Klurk for you :

 
The swedes asked to be able to put their own armor on the vehicle. Hence the design bureau at Satory proposed a new layout for them to have more room for their solution.
It is anything but an add-on armor  on top of the legacy package modules...
The above drawing is the CAD proposed by Giat Industries to the swedish authorities (all modules are extended not the legacy ones with add-on on top...).
 
The engineers were not taking into account the other western MBTs when designing the Leclerc. They comply with the established specifications that took into account the latest warnings in the WarPact threats.
Weight is not evidence of efficiency.
The bigger the crew compartment, the bigger the structure (the weight of...), the bigger the modules to line the structure with...
The french approach was to design the smallest crew compartment possible while shaping the modules in such a way that you didn't have to stack armor up to the level that the roof had to be not to collide with the breech at lowest elevation while firing. All those surfaces and volumes savings made some weight reductions; all of wich were reinjected into the density of the armor. Hence the two-man-turret concept illustrated by the Leclerc.


Now think what you want.
Call me a liar if it pleases you.
But your logic is broken.

Leoboo vs Clercoo
 
Fight!

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)...
 
 

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.
 

Plans to upgrade the Norwegian Army’s Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs) have been abandoned following the publication of the government’s revised budget in May, the Norwegian MoD has confirmed.

EMBT moving around and shooting a bit in this video
 
 

https://www.facebook.com/mazidf/
 

 
 
 

So vintage.

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.

CMI had a 'Cockerill Firepower Symposium'.
 

Pics from the video:
 
 
Overall, quite beefy. And the side armor modules finally got their ERA inserts.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ministry-of-Defense-reveals-final-model-of-the-Eitan-APC-560177

A new video released about the Eitan
 
 
 
Will find english version of the article later.