Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2017

MBT upgrade news

A number of countries has presented or ordered upgrades for main battle tanks (MBTs) in the past months. Unfortunately low activity on this blog has resulted on some of the more recent events not being properly covered. This article is trying to recapitulate a few new developments and news reports that couldn't make it into a full-sized article. While this approach will increase the coverage of "recent" events, the quality of the post might not be up to typical standards. In three countries low-cost upgrades of the T-72 were presented, while three other news a related to the Leopard 2 tank. The Argentine Army is also looking to improve more TAM tanks.

The T-72BME is fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA
The T-72BME is a new upgrade developed by the 140th repair plant of the Belarussian Army, which was first presented at the MILEX 2017 defence exposition. The upgrade is focused on improving the electronics mainly - in Soviet/Russian nomenclature, the original T-72 variants didn't even feature a proper fire control system (just a "ballistic calculator") - but it also includes a few improvments to armor protection and mobility. While called T-72BME, the MBT is apparently not based on the T-72B version, but is rather a T-72A as identifiable by it's turret. The main change in regards to protection is an altered layout for the Kontakt-1 explosive reactive armor (ERA) compared to the old Soviet layout. The T-72B1 originally feature a single ERA row mounted flat to the turret, whereas the T-72BME now uses multiple tiles arranged into a wedge shape - similar to the Kontakt-1 ERA layout on the T-80BV and the T-72AV. The rear section of the turret and the rear section of the hull sides are fitted with slat armor, which should provide protection against older types of RPGs. The slat armor on the turret rear section is used as mounting point for Kontakt-1 ERA.

The turret shape reveals this tank to be an upgraded T-72A
The T-72BME also features a more powerful engine, now providing up to 840 horsepowers output instead of only 780 hp. This is an increase of only 60 horsepower; it is not known if the Belarussian tank designers opted for uprating the existing engine or adopting a new one. There are quite a few different sub-versions of the V-84 that provide 840 horsepowers.
The upgraded MBT from Belarus is fitted with  new LED headlights and a Barret-2082 radio system from the Perth-based Australian manufacturer Barret Communications. The gunner's sight is replaced with the ESSA-72U from the Belarussian manufacturer Peleng. This sight is commonly including a French-designed Thales Catherine-FC thermal imager, providing three different magnification stages - x3, x12 and x24, although the latter is understood to be digital zoom only. The respective fields of view are 9° x 6.75°, 3° x 2.25° and 1.12° x 1.5° (in case of the electronic zoom stage). The original ESSA-72 had no independent dual-axis stabilization, however the improved ESSA-72U might feature it. The thermal imager works at a wavelength of 8 to 12 micrometres; overall the target detection range is claimed to be 8.6 to 11.7 kilometres, however this is not based on NATO-standardized testing.
Different versions of the ESSA sight have also been used on the Indian T-90S tank and the Russian T-90A. It is not known if the T-72BME will be introduced in the Belarussian Army, it seems rather unlikely given that a number of upgraded T-72B3 MBTs was recently handed over by Russia.

The M-84AS1 is a Serbian upgrade of the Yugoslavian M-84
In Serbia an upgraded version of the M-84 main battle tank was demonstrated to the public, although this supposedly won't be adopted by the Serbian Army in the near future. The M-84 is a Yugoslavian version of the T-72 tank that received several local improvments. The new model by Yugoimport has been described as the M-84AS1, a designation that is extremely similar to the M-84AS, an older M-84 upgrade including many Russian-made components of the T-90 tank, including the Shotra electro-optical protection system, Kontakt-5 ERA and a new fire control system. In many aspects the M-84AS is superior to the newer upgrade solution.

The side armor coverage is quite lackluster
While the previous model already had a digital fire control system, the upgrade to the M-84AS1 configuration introduces thermal imagers with the DNNS 2ATK sight and gives the tank commander the ability to override the gunner's input in case of emergency. The commander of the M-84AS1 is responsible for operating the new KIS M84 battlefield management system. A new radio from French manufacturer Thales is replacing the older Yugoslavian-made radios.
As common for most T-72 upgrades, the commander of the M-84AS1 is not provided with a proper turret-independent main optic, but has to rely on his fixed optics, cupola and the sights of the newly added remote weapon station (RWS). The RWS is armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (HMG) and contains three different optical devices, understood to be a thermal imaging system, a daysight camera and a laser rangefinder.

Like the T-72BME, the new tank upgrade makes use of Kontakt-1 ERA; however a locally improved type is used, which has been claimed to provide a very limited amount of additional protection against kinetic energy projectiles such as APFSDS ammunition. This new ERA covers the frontal aspect of the main battle tank. The rear section of the hull and turret are fitted with slat armor to resist older types of RPGs. Three large panels - probably containing six smaller ERA tiles each - are mounted at the frontal section of each hull flank. However the largest aspect of the hull sides is still only covered by rubber skirts, which are understood to be either a single or two approximately 25 mm thick rubber sheets with an internal steel wire mesh for increased rigidity. At most impact angles this won't be enough to reduce the armor penetration of even the oldest RPG-7 warheads in such a way, that the 80 mm steel plate forming of the M-84 hull sides would be able to stop the residual penetration. Therefore the decision to not extend the slat armor or ERA over the full hull sides appears to be questionable.
The tank is fitted with a radar and laser warning system connected to the smoke grenade launchers in order to work like a simple softkill system. Upon detection the smoke grenades can be used to disguise the tank's position with a multi-spectral smoke screen.

The T-72 Scarab uupgrade focuses on improving frontal protection by adding DYNA ERA
In the Czech Republic defence company Excalibur Army spol. s r.o. has presented a new upgrade solution for the T-72 tank, which has been nicknamed Scarab. The T-72 Scarab is mainly intended for export, although it was supposedly also offered to Czech Army according to Defence-Blog.com. The Scarab is focused on increasing the tank's protection level by adding a new ERA package to the turret and hull front. This is claimed to be a variant of the DYNA reactive armor, that is also used on the T-72M4Cz tank. It's installed in a new, sloped configuration and provides nearly seamless coverage in case of the turret. Some photos show the turret front with an additional layer bolted ontop of the ERA package, creating the illusion of a passive composite armor package being used instead. If the new armor is really based on the DYNA ERA, then it should not only protect against ATGMs and RPGs, but also affect the armor penetration of tandem shaped charge warheads and APFSDS ammunition.
The ERA covers the frontal arc and the some parts of the roof of the turret, aswell as the upper front plate (UFP) of the hull. The rear section of the turret is fitted with slat armor, the hull sides and rear however are not fitted with any type of applique or add-on armor.

The altered optics and the remotedly controlled machine gun
Aside of the new armor package, the T-72 Scarab provides only minor changes to the tank. A new RWS with a 12.7 mm NSVT machine gun is installed ontop of the turret roof, while the old V-46-6 engine is replaced with the 840 horsepower V-84 engine. The new powerpack has a maximum torque of 3,335 Nm when running at 1,350 rotations per minute (rpm). The engine can provide at most 2,100 rpm. The T-72 Scarab is claimed to reach a top-speed of up to 60 kilometres per hour on road and 45 kph in light terrain; this is (together with the unaltered T-72 suspension) not on par with other modern tanks. The fire control system received no major upgrade, but apparently the night vision sight was replaced by a passive system, leading to the removal of the Luna IR searchlight usually located at the side of the main gun. Overall this leads to a combat weight of 45 metric tons.

All these T-72 upgrades seem to have a rather small scope, being either limited by budget or avialable technology. Other tank upgrades developed in Europe and Asia seem to be much more capable. The T-72M4 Cz, currently in service with the Czech Army, might be the most capable T-72 upgrade operational within NATO, being fitted with anti-tandem HEAT ERA (the previously mentioned DYNA), the British Condor CV12 with 1,000 horsepowers output and the Italian TURMS-T fire control system with modern thermal imagers and turret independent optic for the tank commander. Despite some minor issues of the current model, the PT-91 of the Polish Army also seems to have a number of advantages over the T-72 Scarab, T-72BME and the M-84AS1. Both the T-72M4 Cz and the PT-91 are however much older tanks, which were accepted in general service more than a decade ago! A more modern T-72 upgrade like the PT-16 will enhance the tank's capabilities even further. There is not much wrong with the T-72 tank - at least when considering it's age - but poorly made, budget-oriented upgrades won't help much to boost its combat value or its reputation!
Even the Iranian Karrar tank seems to be superior to the three recent European upgrade solutions, despite Iran being a third world country based on various available definitions.

Leopard 2SG with COAPS sight (red arrow)
Singapore has decided to upgrade an unknown quantity of its Leopard 2SG tanks. The Leopard 2SG originally was a standard Leopard 2A4, formerly used by the German Army, fitted with parts of the Evolution armor package from the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering. This package consists of various types of AMAP (Advanced Modular Armor Protection) composite armor, covering the frontal section, sides, roof and bottom of the tank, while slat armor is protecting the rear part of hull and turret. Singapore is understood to have bought only some parts of the Evolution package, giving the Leopard 2SG a distinctive shape with a flat-walled turret compared to the partially rounded/sloped turret front of tanks like the Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2RI and Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ADT. At least one Leopard 2SG - maybe only a single prototype at the current point of time - was fitted with the Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight from Elbit Systems.



The COAPS is apparently marketed with a rather aggressive pricing, having being featured in tank upgrades with very limited budget such as the Arjun upgrade and the Argentinian TAM-2C modernization. It is dual-axis stabilized and includes a thermal imager operating at either a mid-wave infrared spectrum, an extended medium-wave spectrum or at a long-wave infrared spectrum - based on the size of the lens opening the Leopard 2SG apparently uses one of the former options - a HD daysight camera and an eyesafe laser rangefinder. The thermal imager is available with a detector resolution of either 640 by 512 or 1,024 by 768. This allows the tank commander to detect targets at ranges up to 10.5 kilometres, recognize them at a distance of up to 4.5 kilometres and identify the target at 2.2 kilometres range or closer. The daysight camera provides slightly better DRI (detect, recognize and identify) ranges of 11.5, 5.1 and 2.3 kilometres respectively. The laser ramgefinder has a range of 7,000 metres.

Leopard 2A5DK: To be upgraded in the near future
Other countries also have decided to upgrade their Leopard 2 tanks. Denmark has contracted Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) for a midlife update of 38 Leopard 2A5DK main battle tanks. Sixteen of the tanks will receive a full upgrade to a Leopard 2A7V-like configuration, including the new 120 mm L55A1 high-pressure smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall, aswell as a mine protection kit. The other 22 MBTs will receive a basic modification package with reduced scope. The midlife update is claimed to improve firepower, protection and mobility at the same time. It will likely include a better armor package (or interfaces require for mounting such) and a new Danish Army communication and battlefield management system. All tanks will be repaired and obsolete or worn components will be replaced. Denmark has chosen KMW as supplier due to the company having exclusive rights to several components used on the Leopard 2A5DK. A contract was made on the 21th December 2016, which had a value (excluding VAT) of €112.6 million.

Norwegian Leopard 2 upgrade plans
Norway is still waiting on a decision regarding the upgrade of the Leopard 2A4NO; the website of the Norwegian defence materiel agency (Forsvarsmateriell) claims that no contract has yet been made, although mentioning that a contract was planned for 2016. It appears that budget cuts have lead to a stalling of the Leopard 2 modernization. Norway also plans to acquire a number of bridge-laying vehicles based on an in-service Leopard 2 solution.
The upgrade is meant to improve the tank's protection while staying within the military loading (weight) class (MLC) 70, i.e. staying at a weight below 63.5 metric tons. This means the tank has to be lighter than the current Leopard 2A7 of  the German Army. The protection is increased using a modular approach and is planned to incorporate modules for enhanced ballistic protection at the frontal arc aswell as a thick applique belly plate for additional mine and IED protection. Foils from a Norwegian presentation include photographs of the Leopard 2A5/2A7 from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Rheinmetall's Advanced Technology Demonstrator (formerly known as Leopard 2 Revolution), aswell as the Leopard 2 Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) from the Swiss company RUAG. These choices are similar to the upgrade options for the Chilean Leopard 2A4 tanks. While the former two Leopard 2 variants have been quite successful - e.g. Rheinmetall is currently delivering upgraded Leopard 2 tanks to Indonesia and Poland - the RUAG-made upgrade has yet to win any contracts. The Leopard 2 MLU makes use of RUAG's armor portfolio featuring the armor types SidePRO-ATR and SidePRO-RPG (the latter on the rear section only) for ballistic protection, while MinePRO and RoofPRO armor enhances the MBT's survivability against artillery submunitions and mine blasts.

Protector Super Lite on a Leopard 2A4 turret
The Norwegian Leopard 2 tanks are meant to retain the shorter barreled 120 mm L/44 smoothbore gun, but firepower will still be enhanced by the use of a digital fire control system (FCS) for ranges up to 5,000 metres, including third generation thermal imagers for improved DRI ranges. Electric turret drives improve the turret's rotational speed, while being less dangerous than a flammable, hydraulic system. A new computer system with data link added to the gun's breech for firing programmable air-burst ammunition (such as the 120 mm DM11 HE-ABM ammunition) is also part of the planned upgrade.
After being upgraded, the Leopard 2 tanks are prepared for the adoption of a remote weapon station (RWS). Most likely a solution from the local manufacturer Kongsberg will be chosen in a future upgrade; a Kongsberg-made Protector Super Lite RWS has been tested on a Leopard 2A4 some time ago in Norway.

The TAM 2IP prototype is fitted with Iron Wall armor from Israel
According to Jane's IHS, the Argentinian Army has finally decided to purchase a larger number of tank and other combat vehicle upgrades. The vehicles scheduled to be upgraded include 400 TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano) tanks and derived variants (such as the VCTP infantry fighting vehicle and the VCA self-propelled howitzer) aswell as 400 US-made M113 armored personnel carriers (APCs). A further 100 M113 APCs might be purchased by the Argentine Army from the United States inventory; the US Army is replacing the M113 with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), essentially a turret-less Bradley with enhanced IED protection. The TAM is by modern definition a light tank, although being de facto used as a main battle tank by the Argentine Army. It was developed in the 1970s by the German company Thyssen-Henschel and makes use of a modified Marder infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) hull fitted with a 105 mm gun turret.

The TAM 2C features advanced optics and electronics
Argentina has contracted the three Israeli companies Elbit Systems, Israel Military Industries (IMI) and Tadiran to develop an upgrade for the TAM tank beginning in 2008. Originally it was announced in 2015, that only 74 TAM tanks were to be upgraded to the new standard, costing $111 million USD. Under this program two different prototypes were developed, the TAM 2C focusing on upgraded firepower by adding Elbit System's COAPS sight for the commander, the Thermal Imaging Fire Control System (TIFCS) sight for the gunner and a laser warning receiver on a mast on the turret. An APU and new internal electronics are also part of the TAM 2C.
The other prototype has been designated TAM 2IP and features IMI's Iron Wall composite armor to improve protection against kinetic threats and IEDs. The TAM 2IP upgrade however doesn't include any changes to electronics and optics compared to the original TAM. The weight of the TAM with armor kit is increased to 31 metric tons.

The applique armor gives the TAM turret a wedge-shape
The exact content of the TAM modernization to be purchased by Argentina is not directly known. The most capable solution would be to adopt both the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP upgrades into each vehicle, although this could be too much weight for the existing running gear. Confirmed by Jane's IHS is an upgrade of the tank's ammo suite and electronics, which will enable the TAM to fire Israeli-designed gun-launched anti-tank guided missiles (GLATGM) through it's 105 mm rifled main gun. The LAHAT missile from IMI has a tandem shaped charge warhead against targets protected by ERA and has an effective range of above 5,000 metres; however Jane's mentions an effective range of 3.5 kilometres with the new guided munition made under licence in Argentina. The LAHAT missile has currently been withdrawn from Israeli service, but might be issued to frontline units in case of war.
An interesting fact is the number of 400 TAMs: this suggests that the previously mentioned 74 TAM tanks contracted in 2015 are included in the figures - otherwise it would be hard to explain the number of vehicles. It is known that the production number of TAM tanks and IFVs wasn't very large (and only 20 artillery systems were made), and a they are not in very good condition due to maintenance and repair issues; as Argentinian forum users have discovered on Google Earth image data, at least 19 TAMs have been scrapped or cannibalized for spare parts.

Freitag, 2. Juni 2017

Austrian Pandur projects progression

The Austrian company GDELS Steyr, part of the General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS) division and formerly known as Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug GmbH (SSF), is responsible for developing a new vehicle of the Pandur family of wheeled vehicles (FoV). A few photos of an unspecified Pandur 6x6 variant, which apparently is a long wheelbase version of the Pandur II, were taken at a recent event in April. The fact that the vehicle was presented in a modern digital camouflage pattern has caused some funny commencts regarding the lack of style; however here these photos were the inspiration to take a very short look at the Pandur 1 projects in Austria and other countries. The fact that a Pandur II 6x6 is located at the Steyr plant might be a hint regarding the development of the Pandur EVO - it could be used as reference or as base model for the next iteration of the Pandur vehicle. The Pandur 1 is operated in different versions by the Austrian Army (the so called Bundesheer), the Belgian Army (as scout and ambulance vehicles), the Kuwaiti National Guard (some armed with 25 mm autocannons or 90 mm Cockerill medium calibre guns), the Slovenian Army (known as locally as "Valuk") and the US Army's Special Forces (fitted with applique armor, operated by the Delta Force and 75th Rangers in very small numbers).

The Pandur EVO has a long wheelbase and flat side walls. The rendering shows also a WS4 Panther RWS
The start of the Pandur EVO project was officially announced on the 21st of April 2017, after initial news reports appeared in December 2016 and January of 2017. It has been confirmed that 34 vehicles were ordered by the Bundesheer (Austrian Army) from GDELS Steyr and ESL Advanced Information Technology GmbH for a speculated price of €105 million. The Pandur EVO is a modernized version of the Pandur 1 armored personnel carrier (APC), but is a new development rather than an upgrade of the older vehicle version. Why the Pandur II, which is known to be superior to the existing Pandur 1 models and is available as a 6x6 and a 8x8 version, hasn't been chosen instead is currently not known, but the decision has been claimed to be related to logistics: the Pandur II is currently only operated by the Czech Army and the Protoguese Army - the Pandur EVO supposedly shares more components with the Pandur 1. It has been said that using the Pandur 1 as base of the EVO model will enable the Austria Army to reduce the costs for spare parts and maintenance. The delivery of the first prototype of the Pandur EVO is expected for 2018, so photos taken at a recent event at the GDELS Steyr factory might showcase the current state of development - although this is most definetly not the final Pandur EVO, due to lacking the rear ramp.

The two rear doors and the flat side walls with bolt-on armor can be used as reference for identifying the Pandur II
Another factor for choosing the Pandur EVO over the Pandur II might be the combat weight: the Pandur II 6x6 is only capable of supporting a maximum combat weight of 16.5 metric tons in case of the long wheelbase variant, while the short wheelbase model supports only 15.5 metric tons. The weight of the Pandur EVO, utilizing a new hull with a long wheelbase, has not been released yet. However the Pandur 1 chassis, in the process of being upgraded as part of the Pandur A2 improvment project, is meant to be boosted to support up to 16.8 metric tons - 3.3 tons more than the original Pandur 1. This requires modifications to the brakes, steering system and the suspension. The Pandur II 8x8 has a maximum combat weight of 24 metric tons in the standard configuration. 
The Pandur EVO is expected to be heavier than the upgraded Pandur A2. The additional weight is utilized for better protection - the demanded level of protection couldn't be achieved with modifying the original Pandur 1 design - and to increase transport capacity from 9 (crew of three + six dismounts) to eleven (crew of three + eight dismounts). This is why the Pandur EVO will feature a long wheelbase. In order to deal wtih the heavier vehicle, the engine has been replaced by a more powerful one, delivering about 27 hp per ton (implying at least a 450 hp engine) - rumors suggest a MTU engine (i.e. a version of the MTU 6V 199), although it might be fitted with a Cummins engine instead (as used on the Pandur 1 vehicles for Kuwait and the Pandur II production versions); the adoption of a new transmission (from Allison, Renk or ZF) is also expected. The Pandur EVO will feature a large rear ramp, rather than two separate rear doors. The seats will be mine-proof and thus not connected to the vehicle's floor plate. A NBC protection system and an anti-lock braking system will also be installed in the Pandur EVO.

 In US service the vehicle is known as Armored Ground Mobility System
There is also a politcal component to the decision to purchase the Pandur EVO: in the past the GDELS Steyr plant located in Vienna-Simmering had been manufacutring Pandur 1s for Kuwait;  apparently twenty out of seventy from the original order aswell as forty vehicles from the second order were manufactured in Austria, the others were assembled by AV Technology in the United States of America. The plant has finished its task, but no other follow-up order for Pandur 1s existed (the Pandur 2 is not being manufactured in Austria, it's only licence made in the Czech Republic and in Portugal), which meant that ordering the Pandur EVO is essentially for keeping 147 jobs working on the Pandur production - in fact the decision to order the Pandur EVO created jobs, because GDELS Steyr announced to increase it's workforce by about 10%. Previously the plant was downsized, at some time in the past it was even suggested to turn it into a pure repair and maintenance plant. Overall 179 Austrian companies take part in the development of the next evolution of the Austrian APC, leading to 70% of the contract value ending up in Austrian pockets.

Some of the Pandur 1 vehicles for the Kuwaiti National Guard are IFVs
The basic protection of the Pandur 1 is provided by it's all-welded steel hull, which features no proper provisions made for mine protection. The well-sloped frontal aspect is protected against 12.7 mm ammunition from distances greater than 100 metres and against 14.5 mm rounds fired from distances greater than a 1,000 metres. All-round protection is provided against 5.56 mm ammunition only. An initial upgrade to the Pandur A1 included new seats, that together with the relatively high ground clearance common in wheeled vehicles lead to a STANAG 4569 level 1 mine resistance (hand grenade or anti-personnel mine detonating below the vehicle).
The Pandur EVO's higher protection level is a result of bolt-on applique armor and a new mine protection kit; the relatively high level of required mine protection made it necessary to modify the hull. The exact supplier for the armor has not been disclosed, but the EVO variant might feature an armor kit consisting of RUAG's SidePRO-KE/IED armor for ballistic protection and a MinePRO system for the hull belly in order to resist mines. Both armor types, enabling the vehicle to survive different types of IEDs aswell, have been integrated in the next Pandur A2 upgrade. RUAG has been ordered by Austria and Belgium to develop an applique armor package based on it's existing protection technology in 2015. The total costs for this contract on the side of Austria were €13.57 million. The upgrade unfortunately requires completely stripping down the vehicle, integrating the armor and then adding all previously removed components again - this is the reason why only one prototype of the improved Pandur A2 has yet been finished, two further vehicles are scheduled for 2017. At the time of making the contract, the final delivery of the last uparmored Pandur A2 was expected in 2020; in the same timeframe the Pandur EVO production should be introduced in Austrian service.
In theory Austria might have chosen another contractor for the armor systems of the Pandur EVO - the Ulan for example is protected by MEXAS armor from RUAG's German competitor IBD Deisenroth, this however would nullify some of the logistic advantages gained by choosing the Pandur EVO rather than the Pandur II. The Pandur II of the Czech Army is fitted with ceramic armor from the Israeli manfacturer Rafael in order to reach STANAG 4569 level 4 ballistic protection (all round protection agianst 14.5 mm AP ammo). The mine protection plating of the EVO version is scheduled for testing in this month, i.e. June 2017.
If the weight of the Pandur EVO is somewhat close to the Pandur A2 after RUAG's armor upgrade, it shouldn't be able to reach a very high level of protection. Other 6x6 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) such as the German Fuchs 1A8 reach a combat weight of up to 27 metric tons, which allows a high level of ballistic and mine protection, meeting the full NATO STANAG 4569 level 4 - this includes aside of all-around resistance to 14.5 mm AP rounds, also blast protection against 10 kilograms of TNT and roof armor to withstand artillery fragments from a distance of 30 metres. 

Pandur A2 firring it's M2 Browning heavy machine gun
The Pandur EVO is to be armed with a remotely controlled weapon station (RWS) of unknown type. The current Pandur A2 APCs are armed with a WS4 Panther weapon station from ESL Advanced Information Technology GmbH, a subsidairy of the Israeli manufacturer Elbit Systems. This RWS can be fitted with either a single 7.62 mm machine gun (MG), a single 12.7 mm heavy MG or a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher (AGL); due to not having an AGL in the inventory, the Austrian Army utilizes only the M2 Browning MG. Alternatively the WS4 Panther Duo, capable of holding a 7.62 mm machine gun and a 40 mm grenade launcher at the same time, might be fitted to the Pandur EVO, if an AGL is purchased at the same time. Both types of the Panther RWS feature an advanced set of optronics with a thermal imager, a laser rangefinder and a daylight camera.

This camouflage pattern might be useful for aval infantry, but it is not suited for Austria
The Austrian Army also bought seven used Pandurs (six APCs and a medical treatment vehicle) for an extremely low price of only half a million Euros from Belgium in 2016. Steyr GDELS is currently also working on an upgrade of the Ulan infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), which is focused around the adoption of an air-conditioning unit. This would enable the Ulan - internationally known as ASCOD (Austro-Spanish co-development) to be used for peace-keeping missions in the hot regions of Asia and Africa.

Donnerstag, 1. Juni 2017

IDF Carmel details emerge

A number of  3D graphics showing the Carmel next generation combat vehicle of the Israeli Defence Force, which sometimes is also called an advanced technology demonstrator, have been posted on the internet. The images come from a presentation held by the retired Brigadier General Didi Ben-Yoash, who formerly was the Chief Armored Corps Officer of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). The presentation was part of the Second International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference, held on 16th and 17th of May 2017 in the Latrun Armed Corps Memorial. Based on the fact that Didi Ben-Yoash is retied and IsraeliDefense.co.il describes this as a simulation of the Carmel, it appears extremely likely that the final vehicle might appear to be very different.

The simulated Carmel fighting vehicle
The Carmel is said to have a combat weight of 30 to 35 metric tons, which is about as much as the new wheeled 8x8 Eitan armored personell carrier (APC), currently being developed by MANTAK for the IDF. This weight level is considerably less than the weight of current heavy infantry fighting vehicles such as the German Puma at 43 metric tons and the Russian T-15 Armata at 48 metric tons. The Carmel is not an IFV, but what might be it's closest Western counterpart - the British Scout-SV Ajax (based on the ASCOD 2 chassis) - also is a few metric tons heavier than the expected weight of the Carmel. The closest Russian counterpart to the Carmel might be the BMPT/BMPT-72 Terminator fire support vehicle designed by the Russian company UVZ. The Carmel is claimed to be rather inexpensive compared to heavier vehicles like the Merkava 4 and Namer.

The potentially smaller internal volume of the Carmel's hull might be able to negate the lower weight, but this is not confirmed - the opposite might just as well be possible: the larger turret and main armament of the Carmel (compared to vehicles like the Puma and the T-15 Armata) could result in a lower level of ballistic protection. The frontal aspect of the vehicle is most likely protected against 25 mm or 30 mm APFSDS ammunition. Depending on the internal volume and protection level of the turret - an unmanned turret can be designed with an intentionally lower level of armor protection, if a mission kill is considered acceptable -  the vehicle's hull might be a bit better protected; however the sense behind such a decision would be questionable, given that no country in the region currently operates an infantry fighting vehicle or scout vehicle armed with a 35 mm or 40 mm gun - i.e. a higher level of ballistic protection would lead to no gain in actual protection.

The shape of the Carmel simulation might be result of reducing the AFV's thermal and radar signature
The side armor in the 3D renderings appears to be rather thin, probably being designed to resist smaller threats than the frontal armor. A common design choice for current APCs and IFVs is side protection against 14.5 mm AP(I) ammunition aswell as smaller EFPs (explosively formed penetrators), which are launched by certain types of anti-vehicle mines and EFP-IEDs.
Unlike other Israeli armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), the Carmel doesn't make use of explosive reactive armor (ERA) according to the simulation from Didi Ben-Yoash. Past Israeli combat vehicles such as the much heavier Namer APC, versions of the Sho't and Magach main battle tanks (MBTs) aswell as the Pereh anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) launcher vehicle were fitted with ERA. The latest version(s) of the Merkava 4 tank supposedly make use of hybrid armor, incorporating ERA layers inside it's relatively thick composite armor array.

The Namer APC (pictured) and the Merkava 4M tank are protected by the Trophy APS
Instead of using ERA, the Carmel will be relying only on active protection systems (APS) for protection against guided and unguided anti-tank weapons. Other than the Carmel utilizing both softkill and hardkill systems, no further details on the exact type of APS have yet been disclosed; there are however multiple local options. The Trophy APS from Rafael, adopted on the upgraded Merkava 4M MBT and the Namer APC, could be used on the Carmel; this would reduce costs and allow all three vehicles to utilize the same countermeasures, easing the logistic processes. A version of this systems suited for medium weight vehicles already exists in form of Trophy-MV, incorporating hardkill and softkill measures. However the Trophy APS should be considered a relatively "bad" APS, having several unique drawbacks in comparison with other active protections ystems.
Iron Fist, the active protection system developed by the company Israeli Military Industries (IMI), is a more capable option for the Carmel. Currently the Netherlands and the United States are testing this system for possible adoption on some of their AFVs. Iron First already integrates a limited amount of softkill measures (i.e. infrared jammers) and provides a higher short-time multi-hit capability (having usually four countermeasures ready compared to only one per flank in case of Trophy) with lower collateral damage (thanks to using HE blast grenades). A third option would be a combined development from Rafael and IMI, which supposedly is being worked on by the two companies on behalf of the IDF. Such a system might be able to combine the advantages of both APS types without including their drawbacks.

Even with APS, the Carmel will only be protected against small/medium calibre ammunition and shaped charge weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and anti-tank guided missiles. Currently no APS is capable of dealing with large calibre kinetic energy penetrators (KEPs) such as APFSDS ammunition fired by main battle tanks and EFPs in such a way, that the relatively low amount of passive base armor of the Carmel would be capable of absoring the residual penetration of the KEP fragments.

A high level of protection against mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is required to minimize casualties in the operational environment of the IDF. Heavier Israeli vehicles like the Merkava 4 tank and the Namer APC are fitted with thick add-on armor at the belly plate of the hull. Together with the v-shape of the hull bottom, these vehicles are believed to have a very high level of mine protection. It seems likely that the Carmel will also adopt a similar design; theoretically the anti-mine plating could be reduced to cover only the bottom of the crew compartment, a design used on some MRAPs (mine-resistant ambush protected) vehicles. This however would also increase the likelihood of a mission or mobility kill.
The Carmel has a front-mounted engine, which in some cases can improve the crew survivability against mines and IEDs. In particular when the detonation of the explosive charge is triggered by pressure or a trip wire, having the crew seated at the rear of the vehicle reduces lethality rates. However when the mines/IEDs are connected to a fuze triggered with a delay or by a thermal signature, the front-mounted engine might result in a higher probability of the explosive charge detonating below the crew compartment, increasing the probability of wounded crew members.

Iron Vision allows the crew to see through the armor by displaying images from externally mounted cameras
The vehicle is to be manned by a crew of two, but supposedly provides enough space for up to three men. The small crew size is possible, because the vehicle makes use of several new technologies in order to assist the operators; in some ways the crew only needs to monitor the vehicle. During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, several countries inlcuding Germany, the United States and (Soviet-)Russia investigated two-men crews in their main battle tank (MBT) development programs. In general the conclusion was made that tanks (or tank-like combat vehicles) with a crew of only two men are possible, when using advanced optics, properly integrated C4ISR systems and components that allow automatic target recognition, target identification and aiming. Automated driving (potentially based on pre-designed routes using check points) is claimed to be a feature of the Carmel. The Iron Vision system from Elbit, often described as "see-through armor" based on an augmented/virtual reality head mounted display is expected to be fielded on the new vehicle.
A problem with reducing the crew size from four to two (or three) is that a lot of tasks aside of  operating the vehicle usually require additional workforce. Primarily having two soldiers for working on the tank is a problem when trying to repair the vehicle in combat conditions and when doing certain maintenance tasks. When having more crew members it is also possible (though not necessarily common) to specialize each soldier in a secondary skill: i.e. one man could receive an additional training in mechanics, one other soldier could be taught on fixing the electronics, while another crew member could learn how to properly threat some of the less common medical issues; reducing the crew also reduces the possibility of having the same amount of secondary skills.
It is possible to negate the impact of crew reductions by assigning more soldiers to one vehicle, increasing the support staff for the Carmel or by letting the vehicles operate in pairs, that are meant to help each other. How suitable these solutions are is a question that can only be answered after proper combat experience.

The unmanned turret used in the Carmel AFV simulation seems to be rather large
In the renderings from Ben-Yaosh's simulation, a relatively large unmanned turret is located ontop of the rear-most section of the Carmel's hull. This happens to be an unspecified type of turret; in reality a modified off-the-shelf design from IMI or Elbit Systems could be used on the Carmel in order to reduce costs. This however would most likely reduce the turret protection to STANAG 4569 level 4 at most, giving enemy IFVs the options to cause a mission kill or firepower kill.
The Carmel is said to be armed with a medium calibre autocannon with high elevation, and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The exact calibre of the gun has yet to be revealed, but it is expected to be within the range of 30 to 76 millimetres, speculations often speak of either a 40 mm or a 60 mm gun. The latter calibre was developed by Israeli Military Industries (IMI) together with the Italian company Oto-Melara. The cooperation of both companies lead to the Hyper-Velocity Medium Support Weapon (HVMS) gun, a 60 mm high-pressure gun capable of penetrating 120 mm steel armor at 60° at a distance of 2,000 metres when firing APFSDS ammunition. This is achieved by a rather high pressure of 427 MPa, compared to 350-370 MPa for 30 x 173 mm APFSDS rounds, 420 MPa for 35 x 228 mm AP(FSDS) rounds and ~400 MPa for ammunition fired by the 40 mm Bofors L70 gun. A problem of the HVMS gun is that it has lost it's biggest selling point - the ability to destroy main battle tanks (MBTs) with the introduction of heavier armored tanks. The high pressue is created by using a larger propellant charge, which negatively affects weight and size: the weight of 60 mm ammunition is between 6 to 7.2 kilograms, depending on ammo type; this compares to 750-860 grams for a single 30 x 173 mm round and ~2.5 kilograms for a 40 mm Bofors L70 HE round.

Having a larger calibre can lead to less stowed rounds, which will depending on scenario lead to less stowed kills. When engaging large groups of soldiers, a larger round is capable of injuring or killing more soldiers at the same time. When engaging lightly armored vehicles or smaller groups of soldiers outside the range of the coaxial armament (such as a two-men ATGM team), then a smaller calibre can provide the same lethaliy per round, while providing greater ammo stowage.
The Carmel is said to be specifically optimized for urban combat, which creates another set of operational requirements. If the main gun is not powerful enough to penetrate even thicker walls, then it is rather useless in urban combat; however if the ammunition has too much penetration power or too much explosive/fragmentation payload, then it increases the possibility of collateral damage by a large factor. Finding the right balance and the right ammunition mix seems to be extremely important; here programmable ammunition (requires at least 30 mm calibre for a decent payload) and ammunition with enhanced after-armor effects (provided by ammunition such as FAPDS, FAP, PELE-Pen) seem to be desirable.

The Swedish SEP featured a diesel electric drive system, partially housed on the sponsons
The Carmel is powered by a front-mounted engine; according to Israeli sources, this could potentially be a diesel electric drive system. Diesel-electric drives for armored fighting vehicles have been a topic of research and development since the 1980s, although the earliest proposals such as the Holt Gas-Electric Tank from 1918 "date all the way back". Diesel-electric drive systems are expected to provide a number of advantages such as greater flexibility when arranging the powerpack components inside the vehicle, higher reliability, reduced wear and purely electrical silent running ("sneaking") capability for a short period of time.
A problem of diesel-electric drives is the increased weight and volume compared to currently existing diesel engines; increasing the weight and volume relative to it's power output doesn't make much sense, when trying to make the AFVs like the Carmel lighter compared to existing vehicles. A slightly more conventional hybrid system - as used on the infamous civillian Toyota Prius or using a electric-mechanical drive system seems to be more benifical based on the current state of technology, although a conventional diesel engine might still provide most performance per weight and volume. However the Carmel still might be fitted with a diesel-electrical drive system for another reason: technology development. It's not very uncommon in the military to adopt new technology, that offers little to no advantages over existing solutions, just to fund the development of future, improved variants of the technology. A diesel-electric drive doesn't need to be better than existing diesel engines, if the military is convinced that it has the potential to become better in the future - something that is generally accepted. The M1 Abrams' AGT-1500C gas turbine is a prime example for such a choice; it wasn't better than other diesel offerings of it's time, but the Army (apparently falsely) believed that gas turbines were the future of ground combat vehicles. The German Puma IFV was designed specifically with the idea in mind to reuse new technologies in future AFVs.
The Carmel is expected to utilize rubber band tracks, potentially segmented ones, which would allow easier repairs and maintenance compared to the currently more common continous rubber band tracks.

The computer generated renderings from retired General Didi Ben-Yaosh show a vehicle with a rather bad shape of the frontal hull - the hull front is extruding more than a feet over the tracks. This would result in the vehicle having extremely poor off-road mobility: When driving down a hill, the overlapping hull front could touch the flat ground before the tracks (at the drive wheels in particular) reach it; the vehicle would get stuck in such a case. Likewise when trying to climb up a steep slope, the overlapping hull could touch the slope before the track section reaches the sloped ground.

Different Carmel variants
The renderings from the Carmel simulation also show a number of further vehicle variants, which have not been officially confirmed yet. If the exact type of other variants is speculation on the side of Mr. Ben-Yaosh or result of sources not available to the public (or atleast not available in English) is not known yet. In 2016 the European Security and Defence magazine mentioned only four overall Carmel versions (including the autocannon-armed fire support variant), which appear to be different from the ones shown in the renderings. The four other simulated Carmel variants are apparently a command and control vehicle (mobile command post), a mine-clearing vehicle similar to the US-American Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) fitted with rockets and a dozer blade, a scout and/or electronic warfare vehicle, and a further variant, which houses a large searchlight or laser effector, which might be used for CRAM (counter rocket, artillery and missiles) purposes.

More than two years ago, the author of this article suggest a somewhat similar vehicle, designed for urban combat and operated by a unit specialized in urban combat - there are specialized mountain infantry and coastal rangers in some militaries, so the latter suggestion seems reasonable. The idea was discussed in another forum, a blog post later meant to go online on this blog was (like so many other posts) started, but was never finished. Main battle tanks are not capable of dealing with all issues of modern combat, being too heavy for many cities and thus being incapable of crossing older bridges or driving in areas with tunnels/subways. All current tanks are also lacking the gun elevation, some also the roof armor, to fight in cities with larger buildings, which would allow enemies to target the vehicles from above. The lack of scalability of tank ammunition in urban combat seems to be a further issue, just like the huge physicial size of a proper MBT. While the Carmel seems to be a step forward, it appears still to be less than ideal based on the available news reports and the simulation from former Brigadier General Ben-Yoash.
This might mean that the Russian BMPT - being operated by Kazakhstan only - might still be the best urban combat fire support vehicle, even after the Carmel entered service.

Samstag, 13. Mai 2017

Austria won the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017

Two days ago the Strong Europe Tank Challenge (SETC) 2017 ended. The winning platoon comes from Austria, one of the first time participants. The soldiers of the Austrian Bundesheer deployed the 1980s' Leopard 2A4 main battle tank (MBT), beating last year's winner Germany. In the challenge held from 8th to 11th of May, teams from Austria, France, Germany, Poland, the Ukraine and the United States tried to show their skill in a number of different disciplines. These included offensive actions, defensive actions, target recognition/identification of thirty allied and enemy targets, estimating the range to a target without using the laser rangefinder, accurately reporting targets in a simulated urban area and firing crew weapons (pistols or submachine guns). Also part of the SETC was to recover a tank with simulated damage from an NBC attack, evacuating and treating wounded, calling for fire support by artillery/aircraft and precision driving along a pre-defined track. Crews also had to endure a physical fitness test. In comparison to last year the scoring was changed.

The confirmed rankings are:
  1. Austria (Leopard 2A4)
  2. Germany (Leopard 2A6)
  3. United States (M1A2 SEP v2)
As expected, the top ranks were occupied by the Leopard 2 tanks; last year the three top-scoring teams were all operating the Leopard 2 tank. That the older Leopard 2A4 managed to beat the sixteen years newer Leopard 2A6 gives a lot of reasons to speculate. It shows that the Leopard 2A6 tank (just like the Leclerc and M1A2 MBTs) probably could not make full use of their more advanced optics, as no night operations were tested. The Leopard 2A4 - fitted with only a single, older thermal imager - should perform a lot worse than these tanks. The limited range during firing trials also makes it impossible for the German and French crews to make full use of their longer barreled main guns.

The crews of the four Austrian Leopard 2 tanks with their trophy
However there is also another major factor for the Austrian victory: crew training. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is not meant to be an evaluation of the technical characteristics of a main battle tank, but instead tries to measure how well a platoon from a country can perform with it's own equipment. The Austrian crew won, because they were the best trained crew (or rather: they could make the most use of their training).
Based on a photo from a score sheet, that was taken during the competition, the Austrians managed to perform best in calling for fire, the highest scored part of the competition. The Austrian crew got 696 of 700 possible points, while other teams such as the Germans and the Poles got only 500 and 450 points respectively. The Leopard 2s managed to get the best results in offensive operations, which might be related to the high quality and performance of the Leopard 2's fire control system (FCS) and optics. The platoons manning the Leopard 2A4 and the Leclerc tanks both managed to get the fastest time in the precision driving challenge; both these tanks happen to have the highest power-to-weight ratio of the competing models. This should give some of the tank designers a reason to think, if upgrading the engines shouldn't be a priority for the future, specifically after armor upgrades lead to an increase in combat weight of tanks like the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 by more than seven metric tons.

The score sheet during the competition
According to the US Army's own news report, there were different 12 events/challenges in the SETC 2017, which allowed for a total score of 1,500 possible points. However official data from the Austrian Army (scores during the competition, not all teams have finished the same amount of tasks) and the photo from a score sheet during the competition suggest that there were more than 1,500 possible points.
Unconfirmed rumors from an Ukranian websites suggest that the French team with the Leclerc MBT managed to get the fourth place, while the Ukranian platoon - operating an upgraded version of the T-64BV tank (sometimes described as T-64BM) - got the fifth place. These tanks were fitted with new radios, GPS systems and night vision optics before being send to SETC 2017. Apparently the crews managed to beat other Ukranain soldiers with T-64BM Bulats and T-80BVs in a national competition before being send to Germany. Supposedly the Polish team with the Leopard 2A5 was on the last place, something that has been blamed on poor training; last year the Poles managed to outperform all but the Danish and German crews. Based on the score sheet from during the competition the Polish crews apparently underperformed in the recovery of a damaged vehicle in a CBRN scenario, in precision driving, in calling for fire, in identifying vehicles and in determining the range. Other claims to justify the poor performance of the Polish platoon say that the fire control system of a single Leopard 2A5 broke in such a way, that the crew couldn't repair it. However the Polish press claims, that they managed to get the fourth place, beating the French and the Ukranian squads - it might be possible, that after the challenge a modifier was added to compensate the lack of a single tank.
According to claims from the US website Stripes.com, all scores are rather close to each other.

The trophy and the awards for first, second and third place
In 2017 the US Army had only one single platoon competing in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge; previously two US platoons tried their best to win the trophy. Back then the M1A2 SEP v2 tanks managed to only secure the fifth and sixth place, beating out only the M-84s of the Slovenian platoon. For the second time in a row, the US Army used the most modern of all tanks (the M1A2 SEP v2, which first entered service in 2011), but again failed to beat at least some of the Leopard 2 users with much older hardware. This means that the either the training of the US tank crews is lackluster, or that the M1A2 SEP v2 still requires some work in order to reach the same level of performance as the older German designs. Based on the very few known scores, the US tank platoon did perform slightly worse in offensive actions (gunnery, target spotting) than either German-speaking team, while also being a lot worse in precision driving. Specifically the offensive actions should be among the events, that are most affected by equipment.

The runner-up of the SETC 2016, Denmark, couldn't afford to participate. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is rather expensive, it not only requires sending four tank crews, but also four tanks, to Southern Germany. Denmark instead decided to compete at the Worthington Challenge in Canada and the Nordic Tank Challenge in Scandinavia; both these competitons require only two crews, while tanks can be leased.
Next year Sweden will compete in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, probably with an upgraded version of the Strv 122; there are hopes that the United Kingdom with the Challenger 2 and Canada with the Leopard 2 (2A6 or 2A4M) will also be part of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018.  

New Turkish combat vehicles presented at IDEF 2017

The thirteenth International Defence Industry Fair (IDEF 2017) has been held in Turkey. While not extremely popular with foreign companies - despite having "international" in the name, not many international AFV manufacturers were present - this exposition serves as an opportunity for all Turkish defence companies to present their latest and greatest developments.
The company FNSS Defence Systems, a joint-venture of the Nurol Holding and BAE Systems, has presented a number of vehicles from the wheeled PARS family of vehicles (FoV) and the tracked Kaplan-20 and Kaplan-30 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs).

The Kaplan family of tracked vehicles
There are three main variants of the PARS: a light-weight 4x4 vehicle suited only for scouting, a slightly larger 6x6 variant and a large 8x8 version. The PARS design was originally developed by the the US company General Purpose Vehicles Inc. (GPV Inc., previously GPV LLC.), but failed to gain any orders by the US Army and USMC. In terms of weight and protection level, the PARS 6x6 and PARS 8x8 are more comparable to the previous generation of wheeled vehicles including AFVs such as the German Fuchs, the Swiss Piranha III, the French VAB and the US Army's Stryker interim armored vehicle (IAV). This is probably one of the main reasons for it's lack of sales, being not able to compete in performance (payload, protection, mobility and features) with more modern European designs such as the GTK Boxer, the Patria AMV and General Dynamic's Piranha 5.
The PARS vehicles have however been successfully exported to Malaysia, where a local version is known as AV-81 Gempita and manufactured by the local company DefTech.

The PARS 6x6 Scout features a new driver's cabin
At IDEF 2017, three new versions of the PARS were presented. The PARS Scout is also known as Special Purpose Tactical Wheeled Armoured Vehicle (SPTWAV) and is competing in the Turkish tender for a special purpose vehicle (SPV) against an offering from Otokar (probably a version of the Arma vehicle). The biggest change compared to other variants of the PARS 6x6 is the two-seat cabin at the vehicle front, which now features large windscreens made of ballistic glass, that allow a 230° horizontal viewing angle. A SARP remote weapon station ontop of the roof of the vehicle serves as main armament. The combat weight of the PARS Scout has yet to be made public, however it has a power-to-weight ratio of 22 horsepowers per ton and can reach a road speed of up to 100 kilometres per hour. The weight has not been announced, but if it's power by a 500-600 horsepower engine (like other PARS variants), the PARS 6x6 Scout would weigh around 22-27 metric tons. The hull belly is designed to withstand blasts from mines and IEDs, the seats are blast-proof. The amphibious vehicle is powered by two water blades located at the rear, reaching a swimming speed of 8 kilometres per hour (4.3 knots). On roads, the vehicle has a maximum operation rangee of 600 kilometres. It can cross 1.2 metres wide trenches and climb over vertical obstacles up to 600 mm high. It's maximum fording depth is one metre.

The PARS III is a further evolution of the old GPV design
Aside of the PARS Scout, the third generation of the baseline vehicles were presented. The PARS III 8x8 now has a maximum combat weight of 30 metric tons and can carry 12 soldiers (in the configuration presented at IDEF 2017, which included the Saber-25 one-man turret): Three crew members (commander, driver and gunner), aswell as up to 9 dismounts. The PARS III 6x6 has a lower combat weight of only 25 metric tons, and can carry only six dismounts in the configuration presented at IDEF 2017. Both vehicles have an operation range of more than 700 kilometres.
The main focus of the third generation PARS vehicle was apparently protection against current threats in assymetric warfare, FNSS claims that the resistance against mines is comparable to a MRAP, without stating anything more specific (some vehicles with relatively low level of protection are also called MRAPs...). The fuel tanks of the PARS III vehicles are designed to not detonate upon penetration and also to not leak fuel after being hit.

FNSS' Teber turret system
The company also presented it's TEBER-30/35 turret, which exists either as a manned turret for a crew of two or as an unmanned version, which does not penetrate the hull roof. The unmanned version - designated the TEBER-30/35 Remote Controlled Turret (RCT) can be fitted with either a 30 mm autocannon, such as the Bushmaster II Mk 44 chaingun from Aliant Techsystems, or a larger 35 mm autocannon such as the more powerful Bushmaster III gun. There is also the option of using the Bushmaster II Mk 44 with the 40 mm SuperShot (40 x 180 mm) calibre, which provides more payload, but lower penetration than the 35 x 228 calibre. The gun has dual-axis stabilization.

Depending on gun, ammunition storage varies. Up to 250 rounds of 30 x 173 mm ammunition fit into the turret, the amount of 35 x 228 mm ammo is limited to only 100. A 7.62 mm machine gun with 750 ready rounds serves as coaxial secondary armament. The maximum gun depression is -10°, the maximum elevation is +45°. The TEBER turret has two seperate sets of optics for gunner and commander, allowing hunter-killer operations. The type of optics has not been disclosed. The TEBER-30 unmanned turret is a welded aluminium construction with add-on steel or composite armor modules in order to reach what is believed to be STANAG 4569 level 4 protection all-around at most. Eight smoke grenade dischargers enhance the self-protection of the vehicle.

CGI showing the two-men Teber-30 turret
The manned TEBER-30 turret is operated by a crew of two. It's largely identical to the TEBER-30/35 RT, but provides storage options for up to 300 ready-to-fire rounds of 30/40 mm ammo and up to 1,000 rounds of 7.62 mm machine gun ammunition. Unlike the unmanned version, the TEBER-30 cannot be fitted with the more powerful 35 mm autocannon, due to the gun's greater size and recoild path. The turret has a weight of 3.85 metric tons when fitted with an unknown armor package. Like the unmanned version, it is consisting of aluminium with applique steel and composite armor options. The maximum possible ballistic protection level is STANAG 4569 level 5 (protection against 25 mm ammunition along the frontal arc).

Kaplan-20 armored personnel carrier
Like the PARS, multiple different versions of the Kaplan tracked combat vehicle were presented at IDEF 2017. The Kaplan-20 amphibious infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) has already been presented in 2015. It is meant to replace the ACV series of vehicles, which are essentially upgraded M113s, sometimes fitted with one-man turrets. FNSS calls the Kaplan vehicles also NG-AFV (next generation armored fighting vehicle).
The weight is depending on turret configuration, but it leads to a power to weight ratio between 22 and 25 horsepower per ton; 23 hp/ton in case of the exact vehicle displayed at IDEF 2017. Six roadwheels per side, which are connected to a torsion bar suspension, spread the weight of the vehicle along the lightweight rubber band tracks.
The IFV variant is fitted with the Teber-30/35 RT turret, usually armed with a 30 mm gun. It can carry up to 9 passengers, of which three are crew members (commander, driver and gunner). This year at IDEF, the armored personnel carrier (APC) configuration was showcased, which is armed with a remote weapon station (RWS) that is fitted with a machine gun. Modular composite armor provides protection against ballistic threats and mines of a yet to be officially announced level.

The Kaplan-30 is an enlarged Kaplan with betterr protection
First presented at IDEF 2017 is an enlarged version of the vehicle, known as the Kaplan-30 NG-AFV. Like the Kaplan-20, it is fitted with an automatic transmission coupled to a diesel engine. It was demonstrated with the latest version of the Teber-30/35 RT remotely controlled turret system, newer as the version used on the Kaplan-20 in 2015. The increased size of the vehicle offers greater payload. The Kaplan-30 has lost the amphibious capabilities of it's smaller cousin, while the power-to-weight ratio is reduced to only 20 hp/ton. These drawbacks were accepted in order to obtain a higher level of protection and to transport a a crew of three (commander, driver and gunner) plus eight dismounts instead of only six.
The Kaplan-30 might be a reaction to Otokar's Tuplar IFV. The Turkish Army is expected to open a tender for replacing the outdated ACV-15s; while FNSS developed the rather light Kaplan-20, the Tuplar is much heavier, providing a higher level of protection and room for twelve soliders (9 dismounts plus the crew of three).

The Kaplan Medium Tank is designed for the Indonesian Modern Medium Weight Tank (MMWT) program, competing with Rheinmetalls offer - a modified Marder 1A3 fitted with a Leonardo's Hitfact II turret. It is being developed by FNSS in cooperation with PT Pindad. The vehicle is based on a modified Kaplan chassis with rear-engine instead of the front-mounted concept used on the IFVs. With an estimated weight of 30 to 35 metric tons, the medium tank might be the development link between the Kaplan-20 and the Kaplan-30. The Cockerill 3105 turret from CMI Defence is fitted ontop of the modified hull. It is armed with a with 105 mm high-pressure Cockerill gun, capable of firing ammunition exceeding the official pressure limit of the 105 mm clabire according to NATO standards. The turret provides the commander and the gunner with two separate sets of optics (including thermal imagers and laser rangefinders), allowing the crew to carry out hunter/killer operations.
Previously the Kaplan medium tank for the MMWT project was only presented in form of computer-generated images, while Rheinmetall already had a working Marder medium tank by last year. The Kaplan Medium Tank was presented at IDEF 2017 to the public for the first time, it is expected to be ready for service by 2018.

Aselsan's Korhan features an advanced 35 mm gun-turret
Another armored fighting vehicle has been made by Aselsan, the largest defence company of Turkey; however Aselsan is usually focused on providing electronics and sub-components for combat vehicles. The new vehicle is known as Korhan and might be also meant to compete against Kaplan-20/30 and Tulpar for a potential contract with the Turkish Army. Unfortunately at the time of writing this passage, no reliable source provides enough adequate information about the vehicle.

It is fitted with an Aselsan-developed unmanned turret featuring advanced optics. Thanks to two separate sight units, the system is enabled for hunter/killer operations. The optronic units include laser rangefinders, daysight cameras aswell as thermal imaging systems. A further number of smaller optics is fixed to the turret; some of them are part of a 360° close-range surveillance system, while others optics located at the turret sides are part of a laser warning system.
The remotely controlled turret is armed with a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun as secondary armament. The main armament consists of a 35 mm autocannon, which is capable of firing locally developed KETF (kinetic energy time fuzed) airburst ammunition - essentially a direct copy of the AHEAD (advanced hit efficiency and destruction) concept for KETF rounds developed by Rheinmetall Oerlikon. AHEAD-based systems include various 35 mm anti-air guns such as the Rheinmetall Oerlikon GDF series, the Skyshield gun and the MANTIS C-RAM (counter rockets, artillery and mortar) system. It is also used on the CV9035 and on the German Puma IFV. The Turkish copy is also used in the new Korkut self-propelled anti-air gun (SPAAG), which is based on an upgraded M113 hull.
The Korhan's gun has a maximum elevation of +45°, the maximum gun depression is only -10°. A remote weapon station can be added ontop of the turret, if desired by the costumer. Alternatively the Akkor active protection system (APS) with two twin-launchers or a hatch for a mini-UAV (controlled
from inside the vehicle) can be added.

The Korhan's hull can be used for a mortar carrier
The Korhan's turret system is fitted with a modular armor system, utilizing bolt-on panels of composite armor atop the metal structure. The hull however apparently lacks any sort of modular armor in the demonstrated version. A sniper detection system and two banks of four smoke grenade dischargers each provide improved protection for the vehicle and nearby infantry. Like most IFVs, the Korhan has a front-mounted engine in order to allow the designers to incorporate a rear hatch for the dismounts. Up to eight dismounts can be tansported inside the rear compartment. Three crew members (commander, driver and gunner) are located in front of them. The vehicle utilizes steel tracks with rubber padding, the hull has six roadwheels per side, which are connected to an unknwon type of suspension (most likely a torsion-bar system or a hydropneumatic suspension). Aselsan also proposed a mortar vehicle based on a modified variant of the same hull.

Upgraded M60T Sabra
Other vehicles presented by Aselsan at IDEF 2017 include the Korkut SPAAG, and upgraded versions of the M60T Sabra and Leopard 2 NG. The M60T Sabra, a Israeli-developed upgrade for the Turkish M60A1 main battle tanks, now has been fitted with a SARP remote weapon station (RWS), a 360° camera system, laser warners and a new commander's cupola with increased situational awareness. The SARP RWS accepts either a 7.62 mm general purpose MG, a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (HMG) or a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher.
The Leopard 2NG is an upgrade for the Leopard 2A4, which has been developed by Aselsan. It is based on the Leopard 2 Evolution armor package from the German company IBD Deisenroth, while Aselsan has developed new optics and electronics. On the enhanced Leopard 2NG, Aselsan has added a laser warning system and a SARP RWS.
The company Otokar presented it's range of wheeled vehicles, including four different variants (two 6x6 and 8x8 vehicles) of the Arma wheeled AFV fitted with the Mizrak and Mizrak-S unmanned turrets - the latter being a new development first presented at IDEF 2017. The up to 24 metric tons heavy Arma failed to gain contracts by the Turkish Army, but has been successfully exported to other countries in the Middle East.

The Altay has been fitted with the SAAB Barracuda MCS
Otokar demonstrated two variants of the new Turkish Altay main battle tank (MBT), which is expected to enter production within the next year. However the project mightr be delayed after severe issues with the local engine development: while all original prototypes were build using the EuroPowerPack made by the German companies MTU (engine) and Renk (transmission), the Turkish government was interested in using an indigenous engine for the tank - in the end the only reason for the development of the Altay was to have an own Turkish tank, rather than buying the licence to locally manufacture the M1A2 Abrams, the Leopard 2A6 or the Leclerc MBT. When South Korea offered a transfer of technology (ToT), the Altay project was born. The MTU powerpack might still be used for the very initial batch of Altay tanks, but makes exporting the Altay quite complicated - Germany could block possible export contracts to countries with poor human rights record. The Turkish industry however failed to develop a proper replacement engine on it's own, which is why the Austrian company AVL List was chosen to deliver technology and components to TUMOSAN, the Turkish engine manufacturer.

The Ukrainian 6TD-3 six-cylinder engine might be fitted to some Altay batches
Due to political issues between Turkey and Austria, the Altay engine project the was delayed. The Austrian government decided to forbid AVL List to export know-how to Turkey, after the Turkish president insulted and threatend Austria and other European countries. Thus the Turkish government searched for another source of engine technology and ended up finding Ukraine's State Enterprise Malyshev Plant. About a year ago in May 2016, this state-owned company presented the 6TD-3, a six-cylinder two-stroke enigne with an output of 1,500 horsepower, which is supercharged and liquid-cooled. It is a further development of the 6TD-2E used on the Oplot MBT from KMBD, which can be traced back to the times of the Soviet Union. It's very questionable that this six-cylinder engine can achieve the same performance in all aspects (including size, fuel consumption, operational range, etc.) as the current offerings from the market-leading German and US enterprises. Pakistan supposedly is interested in using the same engine for the upgraded Al-Khalid 2 tank variant.

The Altay AHT
Also presented at IDEF 2017 for the first time was the Altay-AHT, new Altay variant optimized for assymetrical warfare and urban combat - why a modern tank, designed after the bad experiences of the US military in Iraq, lacks the armor for urban combat shows that something went wrong within the development process. The tank should have been designed with either a proper applique armor package or enough armor to be used in urban combat from the get go.
When upgraded to the AHT configuration, the tank's sides are protected by an unknown type of explosive reactive armor (ERA); given that Otokar is not known for making it's own armor solutions, this might be a type of new ERA designed by Roketsan. ERA from Roketsan will be fitted to a large number of Turkish M60 and Leopard 2 tanks. The turret front now has a sloped shape rather than flat walls, due to addition of passive applique armor. This might imply that the original frontal armor was not meant to resist all possible threats encountered in Syria. At the rear section of the hull and turret, slat armor is adopted to protect against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

The flanks of the Altay AHT are covered by ERA and slat armor
The tank is fitted with a new suite of optics in order to detect enemies approaching from all sides. The commander's independent periscope was dropped out of the AHT's design, instead a remote weapon station (RWS) fitted with a 12.7 mm heavy M2 machine gun, aswell as telescopic elevated observation system (EOS) have been added to the turret roof. The EOS is mounted on a retractable mast, it can be raised in order to enable the tank's crew to observe and spot targets, while the vehicle completely remains behind cover. It is apparently fitted with a thermal imager, but probably also includes a laser rangefinder and a daysight CCD camera - there are at least three openings for optics at the EOS' top module.

At the corner of the turret, the YAMGÖZ system and laser warners are mounted
The YAMGÖZ close-range surveillance system provides 360° degree coverage using cameras and thermal imager with a rather limited resolution. It consists of eight modules, each being a tandem of a camera and a night vision optic. Two modules are mounted at each corner of the turret, with a laser warning system located inbetween them. Each detector of the thermal imaging sensors has a resolution of 640 by 480 pixels, they operate at a spectral band of 8 to 12 µm. The daysight camera's have a slightly better resolution at 976 by 582 pixels. The field of view of both optics is limited to 40° horizontally and 30° in elevation. In terms of design this arrangement is similar to Rheinmetall's situational awareness system (SAS), but due the worse sensor unit layout, more optics are required - potentially leading to a higher price than Rheinmetall's offering.

Unlike the current Altay prototypes, the Altay-AHT's hull makes use of  a torsion-bar suspension; it can however be fitted with the original hydropneuamtic suspension if desired. Otokar cites easier maintenance for this decision. Indirectly the move to a torsion bar suspension might imply, that the Altay's hydropneuamtic suspension is not capable of dealing with the higher weight of the Altay-AHT, that it might offer lower reliability than the torsion-bar design or that replacing damaged components is a pain in the arse for the maintentance crews. A dozer blade is fitted to the hull front, which can be used for self-entrenching and clearing obstacles.

Like most modern tanks designed for urban combat, the upgraded Altay is also fitted with an electronical jammer to counter radio-fuzed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by jamming the frequencies used to fuze them. Furthermore the Altay-AHT has an acoustic location system to track the position of enemy snipers and soldiers. The laser warning system allows to launch the smoke grenade dischargers, acting like a simple soft-kill active protection system. Depending on setting, either the RWS, the EOS or the turret can be turned to face into the direction of a laser, from which the turret-mounted warners were triggered.