DIADES

More photos and video. So far all vehicles fulfilled all requirements. What is left is climatic and EMC tests. Also interesting info about criteria for the final selection. 55% weight goes to the contract price. 30% to technical parameters and 15% to the offset offer. 
https://www.novinky.cz/domaci/clanek/strelba-i-jizda-tezkym-terenem-vyrobci-v-libave-predvadeli-sve-obrnence-za-miliardy-40361588
 

Nice gallery from Czech IFV trials from today (opened day for media) inlcuding a video at the end (some driving and firing). A lot of details inside. Also the competitors were invited to prepare their final bid before the 1st July. 
https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/nato/bvp-armada-ascod-cv90-lynx-obrana.A210527_115942_zpr_nato_inc/foto/nahledy#TBR8babef_135356_9542183.jpg

Boxer seems like an obvious choice. But given British idea of "reconnaissance" (no extra sensors carried on the Ajax, no extra powerful radios on Ajax and commander's optic has to be removed when fitting an RWS), one simply could leave the dismount compartment of a Puma empty and call it a day...

What is it “vismod’ing”, other than a K21-105? 

That´s an ugly turret

I happen to know the man personally. He's a consultant, so in that sense yes he "works" for the companies. What he does not do is actually work on these projects, he's closer to an influencer.

I would, hmmm, treat Drummond a bit like one treats a fortune from a trailer park psychic. Maybe there's something there, if you do enough interpreting but, chances are...

still not solved.  A very real problem in a technical sense.  Definitely impacting burst grouping.

sorry no.  From conversations

CR1
 






 
 

This news is a bit old but posting now I have time:

UK outlines future anti-armour requirements
 

Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) - Long Range ATGM

Proposals by Thales, MBDA and Lockheed Martin using Brimstone missiles:

Thales:



"Dstl also showed a concept developed by Thales showing an Ares vehicle equipped with a remote turret that does not protrude into the vehicle’s hull and carried eight missiles."
 

MBDA:
 


 
"During a presentation on the capability, Dstl showcased concepts from MBDA detailing an Ares vehicle carrying eight Brimstone missiles on a swing launcher as well as a Boxer module carrying 16 Brimstone missiles on one side of the vehicle as well as its previously shown concept of a TheMIS UGV carrying a Brimstone launcher."

 
Lockheed Martin:
 



 
"As well as devising the Boxer module, Lockheed Martin has also developed a concept for an ISO container filled with VLS tubes and carried on a MAN SV truck. This MAN SV-based system would be able to carry 50 plus missiles." - Boxer module can carry 16 missiles


CCAAW – mounted and dismounted effects
 
Javelin ATGM replacement. Supposedly Spike 2 has been earmarked for this. The Army was waiting to see what the US did with Javelin.

Sources:
https://www.army-technology.com/features/lockheed-martin-uk-unwraps-future-anti-armour-concept/
https://www.army-technology.com/features/lockheed-martin-uk-unwraps-future-anti-armour-concept/


 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
UK Warrior upgrade cancellation makes sale of CT40 cannons likely

 
 
Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-warrior-upgrade-cancellation-makes-sale-of-ct40-cannons-likely
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Pretty much what I thought would happen. The Army dumping CT40. Not even keeping them as spares for Ajax is a telling sign.
I can see Rheinmetall pushing a British-ised Lance turret.
 

Which problems does the Lance turret have in Australia? Ajax's turret is a different story with most issues being self-made (as far as I've heard, most of them were related to CTA gun and its ammunition handling system).

Yep - but the difference is that 121 and 400 Ph2 are in contract so changes to BMS will be ccp.  Paid work.  Hanwha are faced with having a key partner on the shit list.

The physical interface is the same and a launcher for LR will fire an LR2 but will not support all LR2 features.  You are correct  to put simple in quotes.  There is nothing "simple"about changing the software in a turret, let alone software that controls ordnance....

Spike in general has problems. High dud rates even years after initial adoption.
 
 
I doubt that. There is nothing hidden about Iron Fist's capabilities - two launchers each with two ready-to-fire rounds each. Weight, elevation angle, slew rates, energy consumption etc. all has been published. The integration of Iron Fist on Redback results iin a reduction of overlapping coverage, but then again the turret roof is less cluttered.
 
One could speculate that no video footage from the Iron Fist tests was released, because the result of these tests are classified. But it also could be due to Iron Fist having issues with defeating all threats (dudding was a major issue in US tests of Iron Fist). Or it could simply be some guy at Elbit's PR department thinking that the footage from the Spike launch is more pleasing to the eye.
 
 
The decision to offer an Australian-made launcher in order to appeal Australian decision-makers probably has delayed the test-firing of Spike missiles from the modified Lance 2.0 turret offered to Australia quite a bit. Supashock's launcher is a new product and has to undergo lots of certifications, qualifications and maturity assessements before it is ready for firing. Meanwhile the Redback turret simply integrates an existing launcher that already has been qualified, tested and sold to other customers.
 
 
MELLS is just the German designation for Spike LR and the program under which it was adopted. Other customers of EuroSpike (such as Poland or Italy) have their own designations for Spike LR.
 
Spike LR and Spike LR2 both utilize the same hardware and software interfaces; just a "simple" software update should enable any Spike LR launcher too fire the newer version - at least according to Rafael.
 
EuroSpike currently advertises the Spike SR, the Spike LR2, the Spike ER2 and the Spike NLOS missile on its website. My understanding is that EuroSpike itself doesn't have any intellectual property of the Spike missiles, but Rafael keeps it - while its two partners Diehl and Rheinmetall are responsible for manufacturing, marketing, distrubition and integration of Spike systems on the European market. Denmark has just ordered the Spike LR2 missile from EuroSpike.
 
________________________
 
These interviews in the DTR Magazine... both Hanwha and Rheinmetall use lots of words to say nothing, distract from the original question and then make a blanket statement regarding how their system is a good choice. Three questions regarding the AS21's turret are essentially answered with "It is not the XYZ turret, it is the Redback turret", while both Rheinmetall and Hanwha answer the question how the data accumulated by the vehicles' sensors are used with "we use it".

No, definitely not

If I remind me well :
- KF41 seats are from Schroth ;
- AS21 seats are from Mobius. 

The Requirement is six and always has been,  8 and even 9 is occasionally stated by the Primes.  Utter bullshit.  No matter how many bodies, you must carry their gear.  6 plus gear is a challenge for both teams.  8 is simply not possible.

The Requirement is six and always has been,  8 and even 9 is occasionally stated by the Primes.  Utter bullshit.  No matter how many bodies, you must carry their gear.  6 plus gear is a challenge for both teams.  8 is simply not possible.

Ahahahahahah - chose sides much!?  Seriously, your kimchee is showing again,  I like my sauerkraut better!  But, yes, both are just cabbage.

Odd choice given they are promoting LR2 and colour is one of the features.  I reckon its just bullship PR using LR not real LR2

The impact sequence is not recorded with an IR sensor - just look at the lack of contrast between sunny regions and shadow.

Maybe IR mode.

I really don't like these kind of questionable discussions on World War 2 tanks, specifically not those bashing topics and "what if" scenarios with any set number of requirements and realistic look at the constraint and different doctrines. "Germany simply should have build more PzKpfW IV with sloped armor or more StuG IIIs!" is a useless statement and doesn't work. All this bashing of American/British/French/German/Soviet tanks using criteria from the respective other parties or modern day is silly. Obviously an American report will complain about the gunner/loader in other tanks not having enough optics, as in the American tank commanders - even in modern day - still love manning the turret-mounted MG to play Rambo (not the catious Oscar-worthy First Blood Rambo, but the Rambo from the later movies).
 
That is also why its silly to make any statements on the best tank - there are different ways to operate a tank, different requirements and different capacities. For the Brits the Panther might have been a bad tank (even though they copied the concept in some form to create the Centurion, but whatever...), but for a German or Soviet tank commander the M4 Sherman might have been a bad tank. That is why most such arguments are usually bullshit.
 
When the Brits tested the Leopard 1 in the 1960s, they came to the conclusion that it would offer less (or at best: comparable) mobilty when compared to the Chieftain, as the rubber-coating on the road wheels would overheat and thus limit maximum possible speed. This was obviously a false conclusion, thee rubber-coated road wheels never made issues and even faster tanks such as the Leclerc and Leopard 2 retained the concept. But this shows how silly it is to limit one's sources to a single side.
 
 
The hatch for the Panther's loader is too small? No, that is a matter of preference. The loader's hatch is not really smaller than those found on much modern tanks such as the Centurion, the Japanese Type 90 and the K1 tank. The loader of a Panther is lucky enough to have his own hatch (!) and not to be required to use the commander's hatch as in case with most early Sherman variants!
 

 
Certainly that is a good design, huh? Having gunner, loader and commander all escape from the same hatch onto which usually an machine gun was mounted.  Good luck getting out of this thing when it burns, but let me guess, its still "the best"? The Panther's loader also could escape the tank through the rear hatch of the turret, if necessary (which mean that he actually could exit the vehicle under cover...). The rear hatch might even have been the primary exit for the loader by design.
 
Just like having only a single optic for the loader isn't bad. This is a not a flaw, this is a different preference. It was good during WW2 and is still standard on many much more modern tanks just look at the Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 or at the T-54, T-55, T-62... they all have similar setups for the loader (but due to them being newer, these are better). On some of these tanks they are not fixed, on others they are fixed or effectively fixed (by not being usable outside of a very narrow field of view due to the interior or exterior layout).
 
The gunner had only a single optic? That's perfectly fine. How many modern MBTs provide the gunner with more than one primary and one back-up optic? Its just some bollock statement that is based on a different doctrine, not on actual short-comings.
 
The positions of (some) crew members are cramped? Well, this was a WW2 tank for fuck's sake. Pretty much all of them were cramped. The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were more cramped, the M3 Lee/Grant, the Firefly variant of the M4 Sherman, etc. Every tank in WW2 was cramped if you apply modern ergonomic standards... even the Sherman. The Sherman however was also an incredible tall target. The gun wasn't awkward to load from a modern perspective, but by WW2 standards the huge size of the shells was uncommon and akward. I don't remember exactly if it was the Firefly or the Pershing, but in one of these tanks the loader had to rotate the round taken from the ready rack in both axis in order to load the gun. That was awkward.
 
 
Certainly the Panther was far from perfect - but it also was designed and produced in the middle of a war with an urgent need to rush tanks into service as fast as possible. The attempts to improve the Panzerkampfwagen IV (by reducing the amount of individual parts required for welding turret & hull, by replacing the commander's cupola and by implementing sloped armor) for example all failed due to the industry stating that it would introduce war-loosing delays into the delivery of further tanks.
 
The Panther's issues were known and several improvements were developed. The Panther II hulll had a completely new road wheel arrangement (that still wasn't optimal, but would reduce the amount of additional roadwheels that needed to be removed for replacement/maintenance significantly) and a new gearbox - but it didn't went into production due to the course of the war. New engines, stabilized optics, stabilizers for the gun, mechanical autoloaders and optical range finders are all upgrades that were in different stages of development at the end of the war. Meanwhile the M4 Sherman is "upgradable", because the US Army produced new and new variants every few months?
 
 
 
The reliability of the Panther certainly was bad, but its issues also seems to be massively exaggerated due to the French report on post-war use. It might have required some skill to drive, but that is also nothing unheard of for a WW2 tank. The Centurion had reliability issues well into the fifties, its specifications were massively affected by the British desire to have a Panther-equivalent tank, yet it somehow "the British got it right" with the Centurion?
Even the Sherman was not the reliability wonder that people love to make it seem. The M4A4 variant was rejected as lend-lease tank by the Soviet Red Army due to reliability concerns, and the US Army also only took a few hundred (with the bulk of the ~7,500 M4A4 tanks made being sent to the UK, who had issues making competent tank designs on their own). But hey, we only count reliable variants (for which there often is very limited data)...
 
 
The Panther was bad. The Sherman was bad. The Centurion was bad. The T-34 was bad. Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

Let’s all take a breath, mates; it’s getting a little heated in here, and we’re better than that. 
 
I think arguing about whether the 7.5cm KwK42 or 75mm M3 is the better weapon is like arguing whether the M1 Thompson or the Kar98k is a better gun. They’re quite different, the M3 being (effectively) a lengthened howitzer that can use AP shells, while the KwK is a dedicated anti tank weapon. A better comparison would be the 76mm M1 (or 17 pdr) which was an anti tank weapon from the start.