DIADES

I had a good look at these "armour" modules at Eursatory - they are dummies, purely for show.
 
But I agree, we have not seen what was actually offered by either Rheinmetall or Hanwha.  The armour capabilities required are defined by the Spec and yes, bomblet protection is required as is IED and EFP.  Both contenders will offer solutions.
 
No.  Not possible.  This would be a breach of the Phase 3 RMA contract conditions.  There will be differences permitted but they are about test practicalities, not configuration with respect to features.  So, turrets can have dummy APS (for example) providing one has real.  The RMA compares one configuration from Rheinmetall and one from Hanwha.  Yes, each provides 3 vehicles but that is to facilitate the test program, not for config differences.
 
Rheinmetall and Hanwah can SHOW as many different configs as hey like to the public, but only one will be considered by CoA during RMA.

So, KF41 exceeds requirements? Unless it’s the same price as the AS21, and the AS21 meets the requirement, there’s no competitive benefit (under Australian tender rules) to exceeding what’s been asked for. Otherwise the requirement is wrong & they’d have to go back to market. 

Really? To me both offers look to be quite different based on their specifications and used components.
 
When Hanwha released first informations regarding the AS21 Redback, it was reported (by Defence Technology Review, MONCH, Jane's and other news outlets), that the weight of the prototype was about 40 tonnes. IIRC the gross-vehicle weight was supposed to be around 43 tonnes. Now a lot has changed since then and the Redback's combat weight has grown from 40 to 42 tonnes, but I don't believe that gross-vehicle weight was massively increased. At least with the rubber band tracks from Soucy they are limited to 42 tonnes.
Meanwhile the KF41 Lynx has a combat weight 44 tonnes as presented at Eurosatory 2018 and a gross vehicle weight of 50 tonnes, which translates to better armor protection and more growth potential in the future. Rheinmetall already stated that they have designed an add-on armor kit for urban combat, raising the vehicle's weight to 48 tonnes... can the AS21 match that?
 
Furthermore the Lynx has the advantage of its modularity. In the past people always downplayed the Boxer's modularity compared to just procure multiple variants of the same vehicle in a Stryker-like fashion, but it has been cited as one of the reason speaking for the Boxer during LAND 400 Phase 2. The modularity allows faster upgrades, easier repairs, in-field conversions and keeps life-cycle costs down.
 
The Lynx also seems to have a more future-oriented power pack, being fitted with the state-of-the-art Renk HSWL 256C transmission coupled to a modern Liebherr engine with 10% more output. The Redback's engine design will be close to 40 years and its transmission design will be close to 60 years if it entered service around 2030... in my opinion that is not ideal. The same applies to the exhaust and cooling system. The Lynx's design takes attention to cooling the exhaust gases and to redirect them to the vehicle rear in order to minimize the thermal and noise signature, while the AS21 Redback simply has an exhaust pipe sticking out of its side. Generally the AS21's design doesn't seem to pay as much attention to signature reduction.
 
Then there are further small differences that might not be that relevant, but at least have influenced my opinion on the vehicles, for example the turret choice for the prototypes. I understand that the turret choice is not set in stone and that the designs will change - for example by including different missile launchers, integrating active protection systems, etc. - but I am really wary of the EOS T2000 turret. While a lot of Australians on different web froums and in social media have declared it to be a perfect turret, aside form the fact that it looks cool I have not seen any real fact why it should be much better than the original Elbit UT/MT30 turret it is derived from. And the MT30 turret was offered during LAND 400 Phase 2, loosing to the LANCE 1.0 design. So the EOS T2000 not only needs to close the gap between its predecessor and LANCE 1.0, but also needs to beat the newer LANCE 2.0 turret... that seems like a lot too much to ask from the first turret design by EOS.
 
There are also the differences between Mk 44 Bushmaster II and Mauser MK 30-2/ABM (electrical driven vs gas-operated, dispersion), missile load-out (current Lynx prototype has four ATGMs vs two in the EOS T2000), the way the air-burst ammunition is programmed (where Rheinmetall's external programming allows using more types of ammunition such as AHEAD/KETF), etc.
 
I am by no means an expert on Australian defence procurement policies, the involved politics and the exact relevance of the difference to the requirements. Maybe the Australian military doesn't care about higher armor protection, when both vehicles manage to hit the baseline requirements. Maybe the LAND 400 Phase 3 IFV's inherent growth potential is also not seen as relevant, given how long M113 and ASLAV managed to stay in service. Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.
 
 
You make that sound as if torsion bars couldn't be modern. That's not true.
 
 
Liebherr managed to beat MTU for the German Marder 1 engine replacement. They did not offer a crane engine.
 
 
Currently both use different guns; Mauser MK 30-2/ABM and Mk 44 Bushmaster II. The armor specifications are also different; both managed to meet the Australian protection requirements, but this is not an upper limit for protection.

Yes, having some more users will definitely be a plus for you down under.
 
And I am pretty sure that Lynx was a bit in front of Redback (my feeling) up to now since Australia seems to do good work with RLS (Boxer, MAN trucks etc.). Further Korea (my opionion as well - many will see it different) was allways good in doing better copies of existing vehicles (K9 - M109; K2 - Leo2/Leclerc, normal cars as well) but I am not so sure if you what to go with something really new. Besides RLS has many good vehicles as references, too.
 
I will follow the testing phase of L400 and maybe this will prove my opionion wrong but I won't be surpised if Boxer and Lynx will work side by side in many countries in 10 years.

Hungary had no issues buying Leopard 2A7+ tanks, Panzerhaubitze 2000 SPGs, Wisent ARVs and Leguan AVLBs under the same German government. I expect no problems with the Lynx order.

Clearer image of the TARDEC Abrams replacement that came out some time ago.

Seriously?  The exhaust just points straight out the right forward of the hull?  I mean, yes, that is exactly what it does but in this day and age?  No way that will meet the detection requirements as shown.  Cannot be the intent.

This website?
 
That article was my first encounter with Sparks btw, and I think it's just perfect. Repeat misunderstandings of the way equipment was/is designed and employed, endless use of buzzwords only Sparky and his ilk know, insisting that failed shit from the past was actually great and should be replicated today, childish insults and aspersions about actual officers, ranting and raving about moron historians who he knows so much more than, and the inexplicable pictures of women's cleavage at the bottom. But probably my favorite part is when he praises a U.S. Army turretless light tank concept from the 1930s and its creator, only to trash the medium tanks the U.S. Army actually fought the war with in the same paragraph... apparently blissfully unaware that Gladeon M. Barnes, creator of the conceptual light tank, also was heavily involved in designing the M3 Lee/Grant, M4 Sherman, and others.  
 
Try reading that article and the other ones linked in it if you want a laugh. Or a brain aneurysm. 

Which requirement do you feel is too difficult? They dropped the airlift requirement from 2 per C-17 to 1.

OMFV continues on.
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/omfv-army-wants-smaller-crew-more-automation/

LOL.  They always get graphic designers to do these faux DPP schemes and they are always laughably lazy.  If they spent a little time with a thing called the internet, they could easily see what an Australian DPP looks like.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/jette-says-original-competitors-intend-recompete-omfv
11 competitors have reached out to the Army about the new OMFV.

LOL, to far too many of us, this stuff is religion.  Points to you for remaining calm under fire.
 
In my view the discussion is hypothetical at best.  The truth lies in the factory drawings and in the formal requirements and the forma test reports.  Without those, all is speculation, interesting tho!

No, never implied that. Difference is I've been talking about the requirements for the production version the whole time, whilst you've been mixing it up with the initial ones. The Leopard 2K & 2AV couldn't meet updated requirements, hence the 2A was born.
 
 
I have Krapke's book thank you very much.
 
"neither failed to meet specifications" & "it was decided to raise the weight limit and incorporate more advanced multi-layered special armor into the tank to meet new requirements for higher levels of protection"
 
I hope you see the conflict 
 
But hey man, like I said I'm not here to discuss religion or politics. I don't care wether the sides are 30mm or 45mm, I've expressed my opinion (45mm) and provided an argument for it, and you yours.  It's a pity some of you couldn't hold a good tone however, must say my respect for you has faded because of it. 
 
A wise man once said:
"Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it."
 
 

That's not a plan drawing showing actual armour thickness Laviduce, hence very bad idea to make guesses based on that. The 10mm sponson armour being a prime example as that would be insane to have as the only cover for your fuel tanks, as that would allow regular smallarms fire to cripple your tank. So I'm sorry but there's no way those guesstimates are accurate.
 
To prove it you can observe pictures of the actual tanks sponsons opened up:

As you can see the plating at the back is more like 20mm thick (with another angled plate in behind where the tools are mounted) rather than a mere 10mm which would be even less than the initial Lochbleche skirts.
 
The section infront of the engine bay covering the NBC system & fuel tanks looks like a continuation of the Leopard 2K sponson protection scheme, with a 12mm + 30mm spaced array, as seen on the NBC hatch:

 
 
Hence it's likely to look like this:

 
The hull side continues up behind the sponsons in the crew area, and features another spaced array used for NERA inserts on later variants, and they also looks quite thick (again not present on the Hilmes cutaway, because it isn't a drawing meant to show armour thickness or layout):

 

Again, you are too focused on penetration values against single layered (lower quality) steel armor. The Leopard 2 employs spaced armor providing a much higher level of protection.
 
The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were fitted with just 5 mm thick steel skirts on-top of 30 mm thick base armor (of much lower grade steel than used for making the Leopard 2) and could stop 14.5 mm AP rounds fired from less than 500 m distance. To assume that the Leopard 2 with 30 mm base side armor and 12 mm perforated skirts (which have more mass & smaller holes than the WW2 wire mesh skirts used on late PzKpfW IV tanks) would perform worse is silly.
 

 
The brittleness of the tungsten-carbide cores of the DM43 round made it much worse against spaced armor - and it always had to penetrate spaced armor - either the sponsons, the side skirts or the drivetrain components. Given that the Leopard 2AV was specified to stop 20 mm DM43 at 100 m and had just the previously mentioned armor configuration, it is clear without a doubt that this was sufficient (as the Leopard 2AV was over-weight due to all of its armor), hence it silly to pretend that armor thickness was increased on the series production model (which wasn't increased in any area).
 
 
No, why should they? Equipment is still being used.
 
 
That's fired from ths HS 820 gun though, which has a L/85 barrel rather than the L/100 barrel of Rh 202 used on the Marder.
 
 
That is exaggerated. DM63 defeats less than 60 mm armor at 1,000 m distance.

5km is approx 16000 ft. At that altitude, good luck hitting anything without a fire director.
In WW2 manual aiming was used only for short range close in air defence, anything longer ranged than a Bofors 40mm was directed, and even those got mk 51 directors by 1944. The need to accurately calculate lead and drop on a moving target is essential, unless the target is within tracer range- typically less than 5k yd.

That is one of the ways how slat armor can defeat older RPGs - by crushing the shaped charge cone before the fuze is initiated. A big factor regarding the RPG-7 is however the fact that the fuze is connected via cable with the warhead, that runs along the cone-shaped tip and can be cut/torn by slat armor. Various types of slat armor claim a effectiveness of 60-80%, slat armor doesn't guarantee defeating even an old RPG-7 depending on impact angle & location.
 
Slat armor is designed to be lightweight, it can be easily deformed or broken. On ATGMs, the fuze construction is different and warhead is usually placed at a greater stand-off distance (either by moving it behind the guidance section, by adding a loner stand-off probe or by a combination of both solutions).
 
The RPG-7 has a very small fuze section at the top, which is very likely to slip inbetween the bars of slat armor without setting it off. That is not the case with older ATGMs - take a look at the original TOW variants: the whole aerodynamic tip acts as fuze; it cannot be defeated by slat armor before the warhead is fuzed.

 
That is a construction principle common with older ATGMs. The early variants of MILAN, HOT, Konkurs, etc. all follow the same design principle.And that is not the only problem. On many ATGMs parts of the guidance are placed in front of the warhead. There is much more mass between the shaped charge cone and the slat armor, which will result in it being deformed and falling to crush the cone.
 
 
No. The Leopard 2AV has the same requirements for side armor protection as the later Leopard 2 series production models. As a matter of fact a declassified 1977 report - which was posted in this topic some pages earlier - called for an investigation on reducing the side armor thickness (without compromising the protection level) during the transistion from the Leopard 2AV prototypes to the Leopard 2 series production model.
 
The requirement to stop the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 100 m distance was already set for the original Leopard 2 prototypes with MLC50 weight limit and spaced armor only - though back then it was limited to the crew compartment only. The early Leopard 2 prototypes has 10 mm thick side skirts and 29 mm thick base armor at the sides of the crew compartment. This was sufficient to meet the protection requirement.
 
The side armor of the Leopard 1A3's new welded turret was also required to defeat th 20 mm DM43 HK round at 100 m distance (the earliest Leopard 1 variants only managed to resist at 300 m distance). The Leopard 1A3's turret side is formed by a 12 mm exterior plate with higher hardness and a 35 mm plate of medium hardness steel. This is more than what is found on the Leopard 2's hull side (early prototyes, Leopard 2AV and series production model), but only due to the limited space.
 
The Leopard 2AV was designed to resist the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 100 m distance along the crew compartment in the area covered by the side skirts (12 mm + 30 mm base armor). The lower section was designed to resist the same round from the same distance, but counting the drivetrain elements (road wheels, suspension elements, shock-absorbers, road wheel bases/mounts) as part of the armor.
The engine compartment was designed to resist the 20 mm DM43 HK round from 500 m distance only (due to its thinner sponson and base armor), but the lower half still resisted the same round from 100 m distance when counting the drivetrain elements as part of the armor scheme.
 
The 20 mm DM43 round was a Hartkern (APCR) design with a brittle tungsten-carbide penetrator. Like all APCR rounds, it looses a lot of its penetration capabilities against spaced armor, as the tungsten-carbide core breaks apart and is deformed.
 
 
This tank was penetrated by the RPG, it just didn't hit the munition or fuel systems. The side armor of the M1 Abrams hull in that area is just 1.09 inches (27.7 mm) thick (+ 9-10 mm skirt).
The only place where protection against a RPG hitting the hull of the Abrams at a perpendicular angle was specified, is the right side at the hull ammo storage. To defeat the 81 mm shaped charge warhead that the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory used to simulate RPGs, 2.47 inch (62.73 mm) thick base armor is used in combination with a heavy ballistic skirt (65 mm thick composite/NERA sandwich).

The 1% is always the hardest. Have to make sure the vehicle can still fight even if it takes damage and the Koreans have a lot of conscripts.

both?

According to DOT&E, Trophy on Abrams weighs 3.9 tonnes. Maybe the panels on the front of the turret assist in maintaining the centre of balance on the turret Race? 
 
eta: while the turret front panels may add incidental protection, I think their primary rationale is as a counterweight. 
 
 

During testing it was found that Trophy imbalanced the turret enough that it effected traversing while inclined, which led to a 'ballast kit' being made.
 
This would explain why Trophy is so heavy in the DOT&E report.