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.

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.