Serge

Same Vextra demonstrator with the 120mm POLE turret demonstrator. 
The purpose of POLE was to test :
- light 120mm turret ;
- and 120mm indirect fire.

indonesian Leopard 2RI , Leo 2a4 and marder IVF  after training exercise 

@Willy Brandt
https://ir.rheinmetall.com/download/companies/rheinmetall/Presentations/181126_Rheinmetall_Defence_online_3.pdf

The 2700hp MT-883 was the version developed for the EFV, this thing looks like the EFV but Korean. If they get it working, it'd be tempting to offer it to the USMC.

South Korea KAAV-II

Three types of chassis are proposed.
Variant 1 has basic armor with turret at rear half, dimension is (LXWXH in meter) 9x3.6x3.1, turret dimension would be 2.2x1.6x0.6, Crew 3 and 20 infantrymen, engine will have 1500HP. It will bend bow flap and engine will be located on the forward and waterjet on the side of the vehicle.
Variant 2 and 3 are similar to each other but with minor difference. Variant 2 use composite armor and use Vshape bow flap while Variant 3 use basic armor bend shaped bow flap. Dimension for 2 and 3 is 9.4x3.5x3 and turret dimension is 1.8x1.7x0.6, with crew of 3 and 20 infantrymen and engine hp will be 2700. Turret will be located on front half and engine will be located in the rear and waterjet in the interior.
 

Proposed turret from left to right, K21, CTA manned turret, and CTA unmanned turret

hell that's a lot of seats
also boasted MT-883 to 2700hp, yeesh
 

https://m.blog.naver.com/jhst3103/221397823921
 
Original blog.

UAE moving Leclercs to Hodeida (Yemen)

 
 

from this article and comment section https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/the-american-s-tank/ 
so - I guess, that means 14 concepts, with 8 of them posted so far

....Including a couple of infantry carrying vehicles - Heavy IFV with tank-like protection, and another vehicle with remote-controlled turret (and machineguns) and protection against radiation
 
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/07/us-afv-concepts-no-5/


 

https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/us-afv-concepts-no-8-armored-infantry-carrier/



...
and another proposal, which reminds me of Soviet (Chelyabinsk) BMPT prototypes from late 80s - same idea of providing something better than port hole for every dismount, coupled with doctrine which demands to distmount as little as possible, coupled with reducing number of dismounts to 4-5.
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/us-afv-concepts-no-9-armored-combat-carrier/
 

 
and another proposal - lightly armored this time
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/us-afv-concepts-no-10-infantry-carrier-low-profile/


 
 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Museeblindes/posts/
 

 
Two weird EPC concept models from Saumur museum. I suppose that the 1st model with top-mounted gun is likely a solf-recoil gun.
Obviously they are different from the schemes described in Marc's book, in which all have six roadwheels.


 
 

And, I found this :

 
that :

 
and this too :

 
If you want more :
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/tracer.htm

I can’t resist posting this one :

And, I found this :

 
that :

 
and this too :

 
If you want more :
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/tracer.htm

I can’t resist posting this one :

It was also narrower - 100/107 inches according to this diagram from Raport WTO 2002-12 (article on AUSA-2002):


photos:

I don’t where to post it, so I opened a new topic dedicated to dress code.
 
US-Army annonces adoption of Pink and Green. 
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/11/11/us-army-announces-adoption-of-pinks-and-greens-dress-uniform/
 

White parts are measuring instruments. Green parts are from the Leclerc demonstrator. But, there is no radar and I never heard about any radar test for this MBT.  

And there is a livejournal post about AMX-30 test with Radar FCS(in Russian)
https://strangernn.dreamwidth.org/1786004.html
 

Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned  fighting vehicle. 
 
What we know now is that we don’t know so much.
 
What is sure, the US Army :
- wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;
- doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ;
- is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section.
 
Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were :
Griffin III from General Dynamic

 
CV90 from BAE

 
Lynx from Rheinmetall

 
Maybe a proposal from SAIC ?
 
 
My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. 
During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. 
 
The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ?
CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. 
The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. 
 
I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption.
What about monolithic forged hull ?
What about decoupled running gear ?
Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ?
 
I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange. 

Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned  fighting vehicle. 
 
What we know now is that we don’t know so much.
 
What is sure, the US Army :
- wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;
- doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ;
- is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section.
 
Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were :
Griffin III from General Dynamic

 
CV90 from BAE

 
Lynx from Rheinmetall

 
Maybe a proposal from SAIC ?
 
 
My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. 
During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. 
 
The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ?
CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. 
The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. 
 
I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption.
What about monolithic forged hull ?
What about decoupled running gear ?
Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ?
 
I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange. 

MTIP 2 (Manned Turret Integration Programme)
Created by BAE for Uk's WCSP and FRES SV. I doubt there's been any work on it since 2010.

speanking of TH-495 variants

and from romanian magazine "Știință și Tehnică" 1993-06:

FNSS first concept 

 
and later ....