Kal

yeah, I am old....  Not so much the TAAs but how the vendors use "its ITAR" Much like Classification, everybody defaults too high, too wide etc,  The clear motive in the ITAR case is to tie customers into equipment that they must purchase (in a support sense) from the OEM in perpetuity with the associated immense cost.

Heh, Andrey's blog have some pics of MGCS
http://btvt.info/7english/mgcs_eng.htm

 
 

https://ir.rheinmetall.com/download/companies/rheinmetall/Presentations/191120_CMD_2019_Unterluess_CEO_online.pdf

I think it is most likely a vehicle design based on a reconfigured Lynx KF41 hull. The rear of the hull (which has a ramp in the center and exhaust air-vents on either side) looks almost identical.
 
 
Yesterday's capital markets day (i.e. where Rheinmetall presents last years results and forecast for the next year to investors). Unfortunately this year's slides are of poor quality, almost as if someone took screenshots from a low bit-rate stream.

If they can get it work.  2xxx series has about 50% improvement over 5083 for ballistic resistance.

This is a big win for SAAB.  The T38 was operational for 60years, so the T-7 could also be in operation until the end of manned fighters!   
 
Marketing wise, there are also interesting possibilities, Saab marketing to euro centric states, Boeing marketing for rest of globe.  
 
Perhaps a lot of porting from gripen/super hornet to T7A cab also occur for other operators.

Can't speak for UAE but Australia definitely does not have this gun on any LAND platform and I am pretty sure, no AIR or SEA platforms either.  We do have the R400S Mk2 D-HD-3X remote which is claimed to be able to carry that gun.  The remote will be on BOXER and whatever wins L400 Phase 3 (REDBACK or LYNX)

A Northrop product now since they recently bought Orbital ATK, IIRC they are manufactured in Arizona.

the best tank and being the benchmark tank often are quite different.
Leopard 2 is a "better" tank than the T90/T72.  doesn't mean that the T90/T72 isn't the global benchmark tank.
Abrams is probably a "better" tank than a Leopard 2,  doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 isn't the western benchmark tank.
 
Egypt is supposedly buying some T90, despite getting near free Abrams, whatever the politics, I suppose ongoing costs are also large.  just how much training can a non oil state afford with an Abrams.

People are conflating requirements -  parameters a system being procured has to meet - and conditions - parameters that respondents to the procurement have to comply with in order to participate. 
 
It doesn’t matter whether a system, in this case, KF41, meets the requirements stipulated by the customer, if the respondent (i.e. Rheinmetall) cannot meet the conditions of the RFP, in this case, delivery of an example system by a specified timeframe. 
 
A respondent has to meet the requirements while complying with the conditions. 

If they made another prototype and shipped it to Raytheon back in March/April when the RFP came out, they'd have been fine. Just the stupidest way to lose a potential 3500 vehicle contract.

Unlikely. Bid deadlines are usually an absolute. 
 
Once saw a major military communications company excluded from further consideration as the guy delivering the physical copies of their bid got caught in traffic and missed close by less than five minutes. 
 
Only having a single prototype smacks of under investment by Rheinmetall. 

Australian government procurment is generally very skeptical of Australian manufacturing.  Particularly federal bureaucrats are skeptical.  EOS being located in Queanbeyan and Mt Stromlo is going to be very mentally discordant for them.
 
(Queanbeyan is seen as the backward bogan town adjacent to enlightened Canberra)
 
(Mt Stomlo is inhabited by elvish CSIRO magi who spend all day playing sudoku with interstellar quasar maps)

Its largely to do with ownership.  European companies really nickel and dime you if you want to make any modifications, American companies would be just as bad except the Pentagon gives us, hand me downs at mates rates.  (Often the depreciated USA hand me downs are equivalent to EU latest and greatest). (Ie fighter radars)
 
Case in point Poland has some excellent ceramic ERA, but Germany wont allow installation of polish ERA on polish leopard 2 tanks.  Despite the need for those to have it.
 
Australia likes to optimise their equipment for local requirements, that will get really painful (expensive) if we go the German route.  Boxer is unique, there is a clear partition between hull and mission module, so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better.
 
More thoughts later.

Australian government procurment is generally very skeptical of Australian manufacturing.  Particularly federal bureaucrats are skeptical.  EOS being located in Queanbeyan and Mt Stromlo is going to be very mentally discordant for them.
 
(Queanbeyan is seen as the backward bogan town adjacent to enlightened Canberra)
 
(Mt Stomlo is inhabited by elvish CSIRO magi who spend all day playing sudoku with interstellar quasar maps)

Gillette NERA
 
+ NERA Inserts and ERA around turret, with bonus heavy NERA
 
co axial 30mm autocannon, equivalent to M230LF, rounds ballistically matched to 120mm rounds.
 
engine is 6TDF,  early 5TDF were 700 hp (522 kW ), so equivalent generation 6TDF would've been about 20% more, so 840hp or 626kW. 
 
opposed piston 2 stroke diesels can be assembled to allow power take on both ends (due to twin crankshafts), the transmission will be twin transmissions, each with lockable fluid torque convertor,  and a ravigneaux planetery gearset giving 2 forward gears and 1 revers gear.  there are no differentials.    general principle of veering left or right is that the side to turn to, is unlocked (and can be slightly braked if desired), the side to turn from, is locked.   Tank can rotate on its centre as tracks are independent.   These are all compact, pancake technologies that were available back in the 50s and 60s.   The outline of the motor and transmission is behind the man, it is compact, 6TDF motors are magic, if exhaust emissions are not a high concern.
 

oops, inspired by DP 27, M 789 HEDP, OBUS G and the glorious 2S7, Kal corp offers a 12 round, 240mm HEAT autocannon.
(also capable of lobbing a Kleshchevina derivative:  Nuclear shell, if needed.
 
standard shell, M789 but at 240mm dia, so at 1.5x that 360mm penetration plus blast effects
enhanced ported shell Obus G but at 240mm, so at 3.5x thats 840mm penetration plus blast effects
mercury float HEAT shell, single charge at 5x, thats 1200mm penetration plus blast effects
mercury float HEAT shell, dual charge at 5x, thats 800mm precursor + main 1200mm penetration, less blast effects
 
each round is accurate to 3,000 metres, substantially superior to peers.  (tradeoff, penetration for increased accuracy)
 
barrel is mildly rifled, ala M230 LF & AMX 30's gun
 
unfortunately, each shell is just a tad over 100kg, so must be reloaded at depot via crane.  so despite onboard storage being plentiful, official capacity is limited.

Re Mg vs Al for welding.
 
The Mg is easier for fine welding like bikes and lightweight structures, but is unsuitable for thick welds.  Mg welding uses only about 40% of the heat for the same thickness as. Al welding but is unsuitable for deep penetrating welds because the Mg boiling point is a lot lower than Al boiling point.  (Even though the melting points are almost the same.)
 
Al obviously conducts heat away from the weld a lot faster than Mg.

hull armour
Nose 189mm CE, 125mm KE includes bulkhead 1
Fuel tank 120mm CE, 103mm KE includes bulkhead 2
NERA ERA array
Horizontal Nera at 82
Vertical lefthand Era at 60
Vertical righthand ERA at 60
Horizontal NERA at 82 contines
Includes bulkhead 3 
Final armour, ceramic dwell package
193mm CE, 132mm KE
Includes bulkhead 4
 
Each bulkhead is 100mm Structual Cast Magnesium followed by 25mm textolite (as spall liner/fire resistence).   Bulkheads take up 30% of volume but maybe 10% of protection, 20% of weight
 
I have used interface defeat / dwell structures (shock wave attenuator, confinement, buffer/shear support, weak layer, ceramic, base ) twice but left the KE and CE as given for borosilicate.  Against steel, borosilicate glass can provide some dwell protection but doubtful against tungsten etc.   Is mullite an acceptable choice for 1961? its roughly halfway between quartz and alumina and is basically just high quality porcelain.
 
Total array is about 4.5 tonne per m2.  And fits within the 1.75m depth allotted to it (1.68m).
 
No way is turret anywhere as well armoured as hull.  But design is commander and driver in hull, gunner 1 and gunner 2 in turret.

Thats fine, i dont have a military background so dont trust anything i write.
 
But review this doc.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242230270_MULTIPLE_CROSSWISE_ORIENTATED_NERA-PANELS_AGAINST_SHAPED_CHARGE_WARHEADS
 
When i backcalculate the Various k1s for their nera (after including a 390- 490mm space effect) i got
First nera k1 = 3.3
Standard Follow up nera k1 = 1.1
Alternate follow up nera k1 = 1.6
 
That was for a 3/5/3 nera
 
Anyway, point is that the norman turret upgrade is a good example of how to make these calcs work.  Outer layer is ERA, on a vertical surface, chevron stye.  Inner layer is NERA with a horzontal aspect to its lay.   NERA calcs are for the optimal single nera cassette that gets stacked to maintain coverage.
 

Most of China's contested territory is either mountains or islands.   
 
When i saw that lynx, i immediately thought how useful for either side it would've been for india/pakistan mountain skirmish.
 
(Followed by, what a great platform for development of robotank.  I wonder if logistics make it a cheaper robotank than reuse of excess type59 tanks)

General engineering principle for roads is called the 4th power.  Road damage is approximate to axle loads to the 4th power. So 60 tonne over 4 axles is roughly 5 times more damage than 60 tonne over 6 axles.
 
The boxer crv also makes me cringe for road damage. 
 
Maybe israeli roads are tougher than australian roads

The sentinal ii was a more realistic solution than procurement could comprehend.
 
Elphinestone tasmania had made about 5,000 underground vehicled over the past few decades. I used to drive a 2900 loader.  The bucket and other components would probably be bissaloy armour plate, the body more general steel.
Vehicle weight empty 50 tonnes
Vehicle weight loaded 67 tonnes
 
Elphinstone Tasmania may not know how to design weapons, but their ability to manufacture off road machines that are tank weight, and used in highly abusive environments was excellent.