Laviduce

http://news.tvchosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2022/12/14/2022121490191.html
The Canadian army has shown interest in the K9, supposedly 16-18 units.

A bit more on KF51 Panther:
 
based on this article https://defencereview.gr/ellinikos-stratos-chtizontas-to-mello/

 
 

Leclerc, VBL and VBCI at the range in Romania :
 
 

A little summary of what went down.
Both systems met the basic requirements of protection and performance required of the program. We don't know the specific scores of both systems so it's unknown which categories each system won. The Patria AMV was a much better value than the MAV which was one of the main reasons why it was picked. As for performance, the AMV's mine protection is one of the biggest factors as well. The MAV and Type 16 both have V hull add on plates, but are not purpose built so the AMV is much better in that category. Now to the specifics. On top of the AMV being a better value, another suspected reason why it was picked was to have other companies producing vehicles. MHI is already committed to producing the Hawkei under license, the Type 89 replacement and possibly the CTWV program. Alongside that, the JSDF has been rapidly arming in the last few years and the AMV would be much quicker to production which seems to be the trend the MoD wants. The AMV contract will likely be given to another company to relieve MHI production lines and maintain other companies production lines. While not specifically a requirement, the amphibious capability of the AMV is also another thing that was alluring for the AMV. While the MAV would've been really convenient for a vehicle family, it's not all bad news for the AMV. The AMV replaces the Type 96 and the Type 82 CCV 6x6, so it reduces those systems into a single 8x8 platform which is still an improvement.
 
Contrary to what I've been seeing posted a lot, the AMV is not part of the CTWV program which is the armed ICV, RCV, and mortar system posted above. The AMV is just a new WAPC for the entirety of the JGSDF which means that Type 16 commonality isn't as important. The CTWV is only for the RDR and Recon units already using Type 16s which makes the family more valuable. So far there is no plans for any competition for that program as the platform commonality is seemingly so important there that competition wont be considered. However there was a request for companies to sign up for unmanned turret research.
There is no guarantee that this is specifically for the AMV, but there is a distinct possibility. A competition could potentially happen for the CTWV, but it's unlikely. I more see it that the JGSDF wants to have organic IFV capability inside of normal units operating the AMV and will act as an army wide IFV rather than the recon/RDR specific CTWV.
 
The AMV is a good platform, but hopefully Japan gets favorable production rights such as modification and exporting. I know with some past AMV sales, the modifications countries would make would be considered Patria intellectual property. I trust that Japan made the right choice on this one.

More photos of MPF from the game as well as the AMPV that was there also.


 

Tracked Boxer moving:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cl9Sq4AtF3t/

Jihaded 4 RPO Rys to BTR-70, A-stan, early 1980s

 
 

Near Svatovo, Ukraine
 
 

If you are referencing the ERA solution fielded on the UAE's Leclerc in Yemen: this is made by Dynamit Nobel Defence, not by GEKE GST.
 
GEKE provides the roof armor, mine protection plate and components for the NERA for the Puma IFV.

Since Brazil's 8x8 program is wrapping up I thought I would talk about the VBC-CC which will involve Japan that has little to no coverage outside of Brazil. There is basically nothing in terms of Japanese or English sources.
So back in 2019 the head commander of the Brazilian army traveled to Japan the look at some Japanese weapons systems, but primarily the Type 10 and Type 16.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190821132735/https://www.defesanet.com.br/br_jp/noticia/33633/Comandante-do-Exercito-Brasileiro-em-viagem-oficial-ao-Japao-visita-escola-que-prepara-Forcas-Blindadas-Japonesas/

 
The Type 16 wasn't possible for VBCAC-MSR as it was conducted before Japan's relaxation of weapons exports. However the succeeding MBT program is taking place in 2023 and so the Commander recommended these specifications for the future MBT program
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/brazilian-army-releases-requirements-for-its-new-mbt-project
The requirements for the program basically eliminates every MBT besides the Type 10, one special vehicle and arguably the T-84-120, but that doesn't feature the required low recoil gun.
But then the requirements go further and even eliminate the Type 10 and T-84 with a 4 man crew requirement. This leaves only 1 maybe 2 options.
https://caiafamaster.com.br/exercito-do-japao-visita-a-guarnicao-de-santa-maria-com-propostas-de-parcerias/

 
Just last year a delegation from the ATLA went to Brazil to evaluate Brazilian vehicles and discuss technology transfers.
"'As part of our national defense strategy, we are challenged to seek solutions. In this sense, the Japanese Army is very open to interaction and technology transfer', evaluated General Ribeiro."
The biggest thing to note is that they evaluated the Osorio during that time which is essentially the only MBT that qualifies under the released specifications.
 
The current options seem to be a modified Type 10 to accommodate 4 crew members, new MBT co-developed by both countries, or an updated Osorio using Japanese electronics, JSW cannon and, Japanese armor from the Type 10.
 
I see the upgraded Osorio as the most likely candidate, but it will be interesting to see where this program goes now that it will start to pick up some steam.

T-90M in Ukraine.

Near Bakhmut
 
 

An updated design of the Hyundai Rotem Next Generation Main battle Tank was showcased recently at the autumn conference of the Korean Institute of Military Science and Technology. Don't have much other in the way of info.
 

 

More from Razvedos from Kazan tank school.

Dozer blades mounted on the prototypes of both the K21s and K2s. The Dozer blades were (most likely) inspired by the T-72M and T-80Us the ROK studied, but as far as I have found while reading the dozer blades were unpowered and needed the crew to dismount to lower and raise them.
 
K21
 
K2
 

EDIT - source for the CATTB construction images: EME Journal 1994 issue #2
 
AAI RDF-LT on display at Nokesville, Virginia, in September 2021:
 
 
Blast from the past: RDF-LT with unmanned turret and two quad Stinger launchers, at AUSA 1984.
 

 

A rare picture: an overhead shot of the M1 Thumper, used to test the XM291 ATAC gun (sometimes referred to as LW120) in conjunction with the XM91 cassette autoloader.
 

 
The Thumper, which was built out of a M1A1 at Anniston Depot, used a 120mm XM291 in three different barrel lengths, one 265in/6.75m long (the standard, "long tube" XM291), a second one cut the same length as the M256 ("short tube", 5.3m) and a third, intermediary one ("medium tube") that stands somewhere between 6.75m and 5.3m.

On-the-move test fires done at speeds of 10, 15 and 20mph showed that the target impact dispersion (TID) was bigger (read: lower accuracy) with the "long tube" XM291 compared to the "short tube" or EVEN the M256, which was problematic. To support the increased barrel length, Benét Labs also had to create a 415lbs and 22in-long extension for the gun cradle...which was later reused in the proposed installation of a XM360E1 inside the notional M1A3...and, quite likely, inside the M1 AbramsX demonstrator showcased at AUSA 2022.
 
 
 
The 1988 M1 Thumper was only fitted with the 120mm ATAC gun, but the XM291 installed on the 1993 M1 CATTB, on the other hand, went on to trial a 120mm and a 140mm barrel. At one point, the ATAC prototype pool was noted to have successfully fired 1,300 rounds, 150 of which were of the 140mm variety. The latter (at least the KE part) was even judged capable of defeating the armor of what was tentatively described as the FST-3 (Future Soviet Tank 3, essentially a Obj.477/477A); there are no known numbers for the 140mm XM964's performance, but the 140mm ATAC itself was expected to produce a great maximum of 25MJ of muzzle energy. The ammunition for the ATAC was developed by Valentec International and Hercules.
 
 
 
While the Thumper was originally meant to trial the 120mm ATAC, some of the official literature indicates it may have also undergone the 120-to-140mm tube conversion and done static test firings at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, where it showed precision equal to a M1A1 but "with greater penetration".
 

>> Source document for the two above scans <<
 
Also, a common mistake (one I've also been guilty of, mea culpa) I often see around in forums and milblogs is that the Thumper is a derivative of the CATTB, which is false, as the Thumper (AKA the ATAC Demonstration System) predates the CATTB Phase I by at least five years.
 
M1 CATTB Phase I (using a M1 hull as basis), in 93/94, about to be shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for testing:
 

 
Picture of the CATTB Phase II (ATTD?) hull under construction, completed in 1994. Note the closed back with no exhaust grille, the absence of apertures for torsion bars (replaced by a hydro-pneumatic suspension system) and the smaller engine compartment designed to receive a Cummins XAV-1000 AIPS instead of a Honeywell AGT-1500. The freed-up volume between the XAV and the turret basket was reclaimed to accept two vertically-stacked non-ready cassettes housing a total of 22 rounds (either single-piece 120mm or two-piece 140mm), which would have given the CATTB Phase II a maximum loadout of 39 rounds (either 120mm or 140mm), just five less than a M1A2. The huge tradeoff, of course, was that all this made the CATTB massively overweight.
 

 
Apparently, at least one of the two CATTB testbeds is currently sitting at the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California, but one has to wonder if it's not a case of mistaken identity; the Thumper was, after all, spotted in 2010/09/30, in Ohio, as it was being relocated by train to parts unknown. Here's to hoping any of these big bois shall make their way to a museum one day, as did the TTB, the Crusader and many others before them.
 
XM291 ATAC with its 17-round Benét Labs XM91 bustle autoloader:
 

CATTB turret

72B turret after test fire. Note Drozd launcher unit piece laying near