Beer

Is this the first footage of S-500?

https://twitter.com/KomissarWhipla/status/1417376919474089998?s=20

One more video from Czech IFV trials. 
 

It makes no sense to compare MiG-23 with MiG-25. Those are planes of different category used for different tasks. MiG-23 replaced MiG-21 and it was much better than MiG-21 in everything with the exception of the initial MiG-23S batch with RP-22 radar and armamament from MiG-21 (and the cost) and the Arabic "monkey" export model MiG-23MS which had the RP-21 radar and armament from MiG-21. Also the other comparisons are strange... 
 
GSh-23L has muzzle velocity 715 m/s and it's much more interesting feature is its operating principle since it is one of the only two operationally used Gast-principle guns (where recoil of one barrel operates the other and gives the gun rather extreme rate of fire with a low gun weight). AFAIK only Soviet GSh-23L and GSh-30-2 work on this principle of all serially produced guns ever (although the idea comes back to WW1 Germany). When you write about cannon the MiG-27K (used by USSR and India only) with 6-barrel 30 mm is the most interesting variant IMHO because while its GSh-6-30 gun has somewhat lesser muzzle energy than GAU-8/a it weights half, has higher rate of fire and since it is gas-operated it is more efficient in short bursts. On the other hand the MiG-27 clearly wasn't the right airframe for the gun...  

R-35-300 diagrams


 
 
We had MiG-23 too (MF, ML, BN) and they were good although rather difficult to fly and maintain. They were also quite prone to bird strikes compared to other planes we had. We had a lot of accidents with them in early 90' but those were caused mainly by general lack of discipline and spares in the rather chaotic times after the fall of the iron courtain. 
 
Some points about ML from our ex-pilots
- they mostly liked it
- they said it was very difficult to fly straight and to land if automatic flight support systems failed but manageable
- automatic landing approach up to several meters upon the runway
- they trained to use in-flight parashute release to shorten the already short landing run
- two seater had shifted center of gravity and the old, weak and problematic R-27 engine and was a bitch to fly in dogfight (most of our two-seaters were destroyed in dogfight training)
- the radar was well liked, it had also look-down/shoot down capability 
- if I unerstood right they usually trained to attack the NATO planes from bellow and from the side using ground control for ideal approach (take it with a lot of salt from my side)
 
Fun fact one. They trained to approach SR-71 flying routinely like a clock at some 15 km from Czechoslovak border. The Blackbird was tracked by common DDR-Czechoslovak air control and MiG-23 started from České Budějovice, climbed to 10000 meters, accelerated to M1,8 and climbed on a parabolic curve to have the approaching Blackbird close to 12 o'lock at some 5-6000 meters higher with the approach speed of around M4,8. At this point there was a a few seconds window where it was possible to lock the radar and fire R-23, it was always only an excercise and there was never any intention to actually shoot it down but allegedly at least once the Blackbird was shortly locked by a trigger-happy pilot. The probabiliy of successful interception like that was very low and it was all about perfect timing from the ground control (allegedly the probability of successful interception was around 30% when trained with Soviet MiG-25, i.e. lower with SR-71). They say they used both automatic guidance via LASUR datalink and human ground controler command. In this scenario the armament was one R-23R and one R-23T. 
 
Fun fact two, the first Czechoslovak pilot to fly solo MiG-23 (BN ground attack variant in 1977) was pplk. Šrámek (lieutenant colonel), a pilot who in 1953 piloting a MiG-15 shot down US F-84E of Korean-veteran G. A. Brown in a two-on-two encounter which started near Pilsen, Czechoslovakia but ended over Western Germany. 
 
 
 

One more video from Czech IFV trials. 
 

One more video from Czech IFV trials. 
 

Interesting article on the Leopard 2's future published by the European Defence Review (EDR) magazine:
 
Source: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/krauss-maffei-wegmann-the-ever-lasting-leopard-2
(Underlined text = emphasis added by me)
 
 

I have been summoned.
Please keep it civil, guys.
We like high quality posters spreading their knowledge, and there's a difference between disagreeing and being an ass about it, so please everyone take a moment to read through your posts before pressing that button, k? We've had enough friction here over the years.

Composite picture
 
Picts make cockpit canopy  look small like in in the old 60s era fighters 
 

Well someone from the show crew leaked photos of the plane. It looks quite interesting imho.

It's not dumb. Having M1A2C offers full compatibility with 1st US ABCT stationed in Poland. The deal is probably more advantageous to US than to Poland because it gives US a support and supply chain paid by Polish tax payers but it has also a value for Poland. Buing more Leopards and becoming fully dependent on German policy makers in a situation when Polish and German governments are at odds would be trully dumb. The Leopard 2 is a great system but there is a lot more to take into account than only the vehicles alone. 

New plane will be showed at upcoming expo

 
 

It's not dumb. Having M1A2C offers full compatibility with 1st US ABCT stationed in Poland. The deal is probably more advantageous to US than to Poland because it gives US a support and supply chain paid by Polish tax payers but it has also a value for Poland. Buing more Leopards and becoming fully dependent on German policy makers in a situation when Polish and German governments are at odds would be trully dumb. The Leopard 2 is a great system but there is a lot more to take into account than only the vehicles alone. 

Based on what? Did South Korea somehow get access to better CPUs and circuit boards in 2008 than Germany did in 2014? Did they somehow produce better thermals years before Germany? How did they end up with a better BMS?
 
The Leopard 2 doesn't have one BMS, it has nearly a dozen. While the South Korean BMS might be better than 1990s IFIS and the old FüInfoSys Heer, there are many different types of BMS integrated into the Leopard 2. Greece uses Rheinmetall's INCHINOS on the Leopard 2A6 HEL, Sweden has the TCCS (Tank Command and Control System), Spain has LINCE integrated into the Leopardo 2E, the German-Dutch Panzerbataillon 414 has tanks capable of operating either with IFIS or with the Dutch ELIAS, Switzerland has a RUAG-made BMS integrated into the Panzer 87WE, Singapore has integrated an Elbit BMS into its Leopard 2SG... the list is long. For the VJTF 2023, Germany has purchased new software from SitaWare... AFAIK the same system is used on the Leopard 2A7DK.
 
 
In terms of technology, I don't see how KMW's offer should be inferior to what Hyundai-Rotem can offer. The Leopard 2A7 is fitted with a Centurion i7 and a KommServer by ATM Computer (a subsidiary of KMW)... that's already overkill for a BMS. Combined these two computers have basically 100 times (or more) the computational power found on M1A2 Abrams and Stridsvagn 122 (pre-upgrade), which already had working types of BMS.
 
Given that Norway was one of the backers of NGVA, they probably demand a solution compliant with STANAG 4754; this would mean that both hardware and software of the current Korean BMS would be incompatible with the Norwegian requirements, whereas KMW already has a fully compliant solution. Software-wise I am 90% sure, that Norway will demand the incorpation of its own Kongsberg ISC, that has already been fielded on the recently upgraded Norwegian CV9030s.
 
 
Two things would need to happen before that:
KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter production KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter service with the ROKA While KSTAM sounds cool, neither KSTAM I nor KSTAM II has evolved beyond the prototype stage. KSTAM II btw. was developed in cooperation with Diehl Defence of Germany, which would have offered the solution on the European market, if development had ever finished.
 
In terms of firepower, K2 is at a disadvantage. Four NATO countries have already committed to the improved L/55A1 smoothbore gun (with two having already taken delivery of tanks with it), the older L/55 gun of the K2 won't allow firing the same high pressure ammunition. The K2 also lacks an ammunition data link to fire programmable ammunition; currently the ROKA uses the K280 HEAT-MP-T round, a conceptual copy of the American M830A1 MPAT round. This cannot compete against the DM11 HE-ABM round.
 
 
That is true, but only if equate "future proofing" with "weight until the GVW is reached". In reality, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Who will pay for the development of upgrades for the K2NO, if it was selected by Norway? Thanks to the LEOBEN community and the shared IP, the Leopard 2 will see upgrade options even once phased out by Germany. Rheinmetall already has showcased a new turret design with 130 mm gun and autoloader, which Germany will not adopt. Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ATD and RUAG Leopard 2 MLU are great examples regarding how there will be upgrade options fo the Leopard 2, that haven't been paid by Germany or any other Leopard 2 user nation.
 
Growth potential will also be dependent on user base (a larger number of user is more likely to fund upgrades or to make the market attractive for third-party upgrade options like the Leopard 2 ATD and MLU) and on compability with the existing architecture. The NGVA is a big improvement for that.
 
In the end the weight will also depend on the configuration selected by Norway. Maybe they'll opt for a Swedish-style configuration with only a few tanks having mine protection kits (for use in peace-keeping missions) and the rest of them being 2-3 tonnes lighter.
 
 
A lot of claims, but many of them are hardly relevant. Radar/Laser warning systems are available for any tank as retro-fit option, most militaries however do not consider them cost-effective (I'd personally love to see them on every AFV). There are also RWS/LWS available for the Leopard 2.
 
Having a radar integrated into the turret has up- and downsides. A radar actively emitts radio waves that can be detected by the enemy from huge distances (depending on equipment) - that might be less relevant against North Korea, but against Russia Norway might be interested in a less emissive system.
 
The "better placement of the radar" is also a silly argument - then you are comparing a Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy APS to a K2 Black Panther - without any APS. KAPS is immature and unproven; it is still in the prototype stage. It also likely would fail to be fully compliant with NATO STANAG 4822 and STANG 4686.
 
Auto-tracking is being incorporated into the Leopard 2Ax's FCS (it is also already available on the Leopard 2 ATD), it will be available in time of the Norwegian tank procurement program. I doubt that the hydropneumatic suspension of the K2 offers better recoil dampening than the hydraulic shock-absorbers of the Leopard 2, specifically given that the latter tank has greater suspension travel.
 
The funny thing about the EuroPowerPack is that it might have "Euro" in its name, but it is not used in Europe. There are no spare parts for it in Europe, they would be build-to-order. The Merkava 4's EPP is built in the United States (so that it can be paid with the money of American tax payers), the UAE's Leclerc tanks (contract finished more than a decade ago) and the South Korean K2 tanks (contract handled by an Asian MTU subsidiary) do not warrant a production line of the EEP in Europe. The latest K2 batch still keeps a Renk transmission btw.
 
 
That is not true, electronic systems can have a massive impact on weight and system complexity, specifically given the usually small power budget available in AFVs. The K2 only has a - rather poor - softkill APS. KAPS development has never been finished, the system is not ready for production.
 
 
Because Trophy is mature and cheap.
 
 
You cannot simply look at total contract value and then assume that this is identical to vehicle price. Hungary pays a lot more money, because they also want training of their crews (something that would be cheaper when switching from Leopard 2A4 to 2A7+), spare parts (which in some regards already exist in Norway thanks to the Leopard 2A4, Wisent and Leguan Leopard 2), infrastructure (already existing in Norway), ammunition, technical documentation, used tanks for training, etc.
 
The real costs of a tank become apparent through its lifetime. Developing upgrades, ordering spare parts, training and exercies. The Leopard 2 is the king in this regard, specifically for a country like Norway, which is part of NATO and is located next to its closest - Leopard 2 operating - allies. It might not be common in Asia, but NATO countries have very deep cooperation. Spare parts, ammunition and even new vehicles are often ordered either through OCCAR (a NATO agency) or as part of bi-/multi-national procurement programs in order to drive down costs. Training together with foreign soldiers or even in different countries is common, just like exchanging knowledge and - if required - spare parts.
 
Buying the K2 would mean major disadvantages for Norway.
 
 
Aside of the fact that KSTAM II only exists as showcase models for old expositions, it would not be able to penetrate the roof armor of the T-14. The T-14 does not have "soft ERA" on the roof. SMArt 155 has a 155 mm diameter warhead and can only penetrate 120-150 mm of steel armor; many modern MBTs can be fitted with add-on armor to stop that (including the Leopard 2). KSTAM II with its even smaller warhead is easy to counter. Defeating TOW-2B is possible with light-weight add-on armor (Roof-PRO and AMAP-R).
 
The T-14 is probably the tank with the best roof armor available today.

Interesting discussion regarding K2/L2 but too much techical arguments.
 
You need to see it that way.
K2 is challenging L2 so it needs to be >way better< than L2 to win (not just a bit). Which is not the case
Whereas
- Leo 2A7V is available in numbers which has proven its capability.
- K2NO isn't existing in hardware right now which is a very high risk (now that Poland left) to go with for a "small" user nation.
- Topics like 130mm and APU are future music so far.
 
-> Big point - K2 is not NATO whereas all neighbours are using Leo 2A7 or 2A6.
 
-> Industry cooperation is the game winner in that acquisition (as Laser Shark already wrote -which KMW has already shown in Stridsvogn 122 project).
 
= So as long as Leo 2A7 fulfills the requested requirements there is 0% chance for the K2 to win except K2 offeres extraordinary industry cooperation.

Excalibur Kapa, amphibious transport for Indonesian competition to replace PTS-10 (54 to be bough): https://www.armadninoviny.cz/kapa-cesky-obojzivelny-transporter-pro-indonesii.html

Slovak MOD presented a plan to acquire 500 8x8 AFVs and 228 tracked AFVs till 2035. The acquisition shall happen in five stages with first deliveries already in next year. We'll see how much of this ambitious plan comes true. Anyway in the first phase they want to buy 76 8x8 vehicles (mostly IFV) and 156 tracked vehicles (again mostly IFV + some command vehicles, ARV and training ones). In the second phase they shall buy another 72 tracked vehicles but only 6 in IFV variant and the rest in a mix of heavy APC, mine clearing vehicles, mortar carriers or engineering vehicles. For the IFV they request 3+7 crew, 30-40 mm cannon. The wheeled vehicles shall be amphibious (i.e. no Boxer). ATM the talk is about Lynx, CV-90 or ASCOD as the tracked vehciles and Pandur II, AMV or Rosomak as the 8x8. All three tracked vehicles were already presented to Slovak army.  
 
Official document: https://www.mosr.sk/data/files/4410_zamer-projektu-pre-obstaranie-bov-8x8.pdf

Well, it is now official; https://www.gov.pl/web/obrona-narodowa/czolgi-abrams-dla-sil-zbrojnych-rp. Poland will acquire M1A2 Sepv3. Abrams tanks, more information is to be given by the Minister of National Defence, tomorrow morning. 
I wasn't sure if this info should be posted here or in the "United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines" thread.

Sources:
 

The VBCI Philoctete. 
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexters-vbci-philoctetes-unveiled-at-defea

Few more things were spotted on otvaga. First is new rollers on Armata vehicles (previously were saw in production facility, pics posted in this thread months ago).

 
   And new radar for Afghanit, or at least radars external box is a bit different shaped.
 

Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

Full episode of Military Acceptance from 38th NII. Armata-based vehicles are going through state trails there currently. Nothing really new was shown or told.
 
   Few things to note:

   Tank bottom section in the front and rear are different, looks like some sort of mine protection under crew compartment was mounted.
 
 

   This time they blured monitors. Previously they were showing what was on them. Maybe software was changed.
 
 

Closer look at Arena-M version, screengrabs from Military Acceptance episode. Note that module have 4 launchers now (8 total if we count on module on other side of the turret), 2 of which are for 2 countermeasures each, and 2 are for single countermeasure munition. Launchers for 2 munitions have them placed at an angle, while it looks for me that single ones are placed vertically/much less angled.
   So 4x2 + 4x1, giving Arena-M 12 countermeasures in total.