Merkava with ears? It's ALWACS!

In the past months a number of photographs has been posted online, which shows some of the older, upgraded Merkava main battle tanks (MBTs) featuring so called "ears". In different forums people have speculated about the purpose of the oddly shaped turret add-ons, suggesting that these might be part of a 360° close proximity surveillance system or radars for detecting the launch of rocket propelled grenades or anti-tank missiles.

Operational Merkava tanks with "ears"

In fact the upgraded Merkava II and Merkava III tanks are fitted with the advanced laser warning and countermeasure system (ALWACS), which is made by the local manufacturer Elbit Systems. The ALWACS is a softkill active protection system (APS) capable of defeating anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and other sorts of laser-guided ammunition, by distracting them or by hiding the tank using a multi-spectral smoke screen. ALWACS has also been proposed for adoption on the troubled Arjun Mk. 2 tank upgrade for the Indian Army; however it was not adopted into the upgrade package in favor of other components such as heavy explosive reactive armor (ERA).

The ALWACS softkill system has been proposed for adoption on the Arjun tank

Incoming threats are indirecly detected by the Elbit-made E-LAWS laser warning sensors. In case of the Merkava III tanks, these are usually mounted atop a mast on the turret; however there are also some cases where the E-LAWS modules are bolted to the turret sides. These laser warning sensors are also used on other vehicles inlcuding the TAM 2C upgrade for the Argentine Army and the British Ajax recon vehicle. If a laser source triggers the warning system, the direction of the source is calculated and the countermeasures are being engaged. The ALWACS softkill system includes two different types of defensive measures: the VIRCMs (vehicle infrared counter-measures) and multi-spectral smoke grenades.

Each VIRCM module consists of four smaller infrared (IR) jammers, which are set at different angles and cover more than 90° of azimuth; the coverage in elevation is probably limited to about 45°, maybe even less. The IR jammers can confuse missiles that are utilizing IR signales for semi-automatic guidance along the line of sight (SACLOS). The upgraded Merkava tanks feature two VIRCMs (one on the left and on of the right side of the turret rear bustle), covering a large portion of the sides and rear.  However the Merkava tanks fitted with the ALWACS softkill APS don't feature any additional smoke grenade launchers; it is not known if the smoke grenades used by the Merkava tanks are capable of blocking the most common IR and laser wavelengths.

The ports of the VIRCMs are open; also note the mast with E-LAWS on the center of the turret roof

The advanced laser warning and countermeasure system is essentially a more modern equivalent to the Soviet-made Shtora electro-optical countermeasure system and other simple softkill systems like the Ukranian Varta, which utilize laser warners to activate IR jammers and/or to launch smoke grenades. Similiar systems also include the LEDS-50 laser warning and the LEDS-100 softkill system from SAAB Electronics, the US AN/VLQ 6 missile countermeasure device (MCD), which is an infrared jammer not connected to a laser warning system, and Rheinmetall's ROSY_L. ROSY_L consists of multiple smoke grenade launchers in a 40 mm calibre, which are controlled by a manual control unit or by a computer control unit. The computer can be connected to sensor systems such as laser warners and accoustic sensors belonging to the company's SAS product suite in order to create a softkill system known as ROSY_L ISS (integrated sensor suite).

MUSS features optical sensors aswell as rotatable launchers and jammers.

The ALWACS is however not as advanced as the multifunctional self-protection system (MUSS) from German manufacturer Hensoldt, which has been fielded on the Puma infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and is being tested by QinetiQ for a possible adoption on the British Challenger 2 main battle tank and other armored vehicles as part of the Medusa program. 

Aside of laser warners, the MUSS softkill system features optical UV sensors for threat detection and tracking, it therefore can detect and engage missiles that are not fired from a launcher with laser-rangefinder. Furthermore the IR jammer and multi-spectral smoke grenade launchers from MUSS are rotatable, allowing the system to protect a vehicle along the full 360° azimuth - systems like Shtora, Varta, the MCD and ALWACS are usually not capable to do so.

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.

LAND 400 updates and thoughts

Early in August, Australia announced that the DoD had chosen to shortlist the Boxer CRV and the AMV 35 CRV for the LAND 400 Phase 2 project to replace the outdated ASLAV wheeled fighting vehicle as "Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle" (CRV) of the Australian Army. This effectively eliminated the LAV (CRV) and Sentinel II (Terrex 3 with Elbit MT-30 turret) from the tender. 225 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles are expected to be purchased by Australia.

The Boxer CRV from Rheinmetall/ARTEC is the high-end solution. It supports the largest gross vehicle weight and is the only vehicle meeting the higher protection level demanded by the Australian Army (STANAG 4569 level 6/6+). It was one of only two candidates offered with an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) launcher and an active protection system (APS). Compared to the Sentinel II, it's missile launcher is dampened, so that a long-term storage of the missile inside the launcher is possible. It is also the only vehicle that has been fitted with an remote weapon station (RWS) ontop of the turret. The Boxer's Lance turret can be equipped with either a 30 mm or 35 mm autocannon, offering a greater versatility than all other offerings.

The US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for integrating their C4ISR equipment into the Boxer CRV. C4ISR stands for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The British Supacat will assure that the Boxer CRV meets the AIC requirements and will help Rheinmetall set up the corresponding facilities in Australia. The Australian industry capability (AIC) requirements for LAND 400 demand local facilities for development, manufacturing and support of the vehicles with a long-term impact on the capabilities of Australia's industry.

The Patria AMV 35 CRV is offered by Patria in cooperation with BAE System. It mounts the E35 turret (from the CV9035) ontop of a Patria AMV chassis. Compared to all offerings it is the most proven solution, combining a combat proven chassis with a combat proven turret. On the downside however the currently known prototypes of the AMV 35 CRV happen to have the least amount of advanced features compared to all other original contenders for LAND 400 Phase 2. It currently has no APS, albeit Rheinmetall's ADS has been fitted to some AMVs for international defence exhibitions. The Ukranian Zaslon APS was proposed in a special lightweight version for the Polish Rosomak (a version of the Patria AMV with the HITFIST turret from Oto Melara). Currently there is not a single type of ATGM launcher available for the E35 turret, the development of such a launcher has to be funded by the Australian Army. The current prototypes seem to lack an remote weapon station. Bofors Lemur RWS was offered on the CV9035 for the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) project, but this combination has not been adopted by another country. While different versions of the Combat Vehicle 90 have been fitted with Kongsberg's Protector RWS, this has not been installed on a CV9035 with E35 turret yet.

The biggest benefit of the Patria AMV is that it is supposedly a lot cheaper than the Boxer. Polish-made AMVs have been sold for as low as $1.1 million per vehicle to Slovakia. Meanwhile the Lithuanian Boxer IFVs costs more than €4.4 milion per piece (although the contract probably includes development and support costs).

The Patria AMV 35 CRVshould be considered a cheap, but less capable option compared to the Boxer. The Boxer CRV is the "we put everything possible in the vehicle" solution, while the AMV 35 CRV seems to be based on a more reasonable cost-to-benefit ratio. However, aside of lower armor and lack of advanced features, there are a few more aspects about the proposal from Patria and BAE that are not so ideal. Not offering the latest configuration of the AMV^XP, but an older chassis with only 30 metric tons of payload (still three more than the original 8x8 AMV could handle) is sub-optimal for a vehicle meant to stay in service for several decades to come. The commander's indepent optronics are integrated into the cupola, making hunter-killer options possible, but more cumbersome than utilizing a proper panoramic sight like the Boxer CRV or the Sentinel II. 

Some people are wondering why General Dynamics didn't offer the newer Piranha 5 vehicle instead of the LAV (CRV), which is based on the LAV 6.0 upgrade for the Canadian Army. The LAV 6.0 is based on the old LAV-III fitted with current upgrades including a new suspension.

However supposedly one of the main points of criticism of General Dynamics LAV (CRV) was the unmanned turret: the LAV (CRV) was fitted with the Kongsberg's Protector Medium Calibre Turret 30 (MCT-30), the only pure unmanned turret offered for the LAND 400 Phase 2. An unmanned turret offers reduced situational awareness and lower ergonomics compared to a manned two-men turret. This is very important, because the Protector MCT-30 is the same turret used on most Piranha 5 infantry fighting/scout vehicle prototypes to this day.

In so far there is reason to assume that a hypothetical Piranha 5 CRV also would have been fitted with the MCT-30, when offered to Australia for the LAND 400 Phase 2. So it would have been disliked by the Australian Army aswell. The MCT-30 turret can only be armored up to STANAG 4569 level 4, thus this most likely Piranha 5 CRV configuration still fails to meet the protection level required for the LAND 400 Phase 2.

In general the MCT-30 turret also provides less features than the options offered by Rheinmetall and Elbit/ST Kinetics. While the unmanned turret has been presented on a number of different defence expositions fitted with a single Javelin ATGM without dedicated launcher unit, this is understood to be a mere mock-up and no ready-for-production feature. Furthermore the SAAB LEDS hardkill active protection system has been fitted on soome Piranha 5 prototypes with MCT-30 turret. This APS provides some advantages over the Iron Fist LC system fitted to the Sentinel II (in particular it has three times as much countermeasures in the launchers ready-to-fire), but also comes with it's own unique disadvantages. The launchers are very tall which impacts the ability to travel under bridges and in tunnels, while they also reduce situational awareness by blocking parts of the field of view of turret-mounted sights.

The only manned turret that has been fitted to the Piranha 5 is Rheinmetall's LANCE modular turret system on a prototype for the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle program. This program penultimately resulted in the creation of the LAV 6.0, after the budget for purchasing new vehicles was cut. While there is no actual proof for this, it seems possible to assume that Rheinmetall won't be interested in cooperating with General Dynamics and won't let GD use the Lance turret.

The Steyr SP-30 turret

General Dynamics itself is not producing many turrets suited for the Piranha. While there is the old Delco turret (developed by GM Defence, a company acquired by General Dynamics) used on existing vehicles of the LAV family, this turret is outdated, undergunned and barely protected compared to the Australian requirements. Hence this turret is not suited for LAND 400. Aside of the Declo turret, GM Defence developed a number of other turrets before being acquired by General Dynamics, but none of them ended up being used on a series vehicle.

The only medium calibre manned turret that General Dynamics currently has on offer is the Steyr SP-30 turret of the ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). This turret is armed with a 30 mm autocannon (just like the Kongsberg MCT-30 turret) and can be fitted with ceramic armor for protection against 30 mm AP(FS)DS from 1,000 metres (essentially STANAG 4569 level 6 protection, however this standard didn't exist at the time of the SP-30's development). The base turret offers only protection against 14.5 mm API ammunition. However there is a major problem within GD's decision making that rendered this option pretty much impossible: by favoring marketing the existing Piranha family - even the older models - instead of also pushing the slightly more modern Pandur II family of vehicles, together with General Dynamics strategy to encourage local licence-production of the Pandur II (probably done in order to evade the higher wages and taxes in Austria), General Dynamics started the downfall of the Vienna-based Steyr-Daimler-Puch company. With little to no design and manufacturing capabilities for Steyr turrets left (the adoption of the Lance turret for the Scout-SV Ajax says a lot), General Dynamics seems to have pretty much lost capabilities to produce an IFV or CRV based on military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) components on it's own. 

Even if a version of SP-30 was an option for LAND 400, General Dynamics still would suffer from a prominent lack of certain key technologies: the turret has only been fitted with Rheinmetall's MK 30-2 autocannon, which is a gas-powered weapon system - unlike the electrical-driven Mk. 44 Bushmaster II chain gun from Aliant Techsystems. Thus if Rheinmetall decided to not cooperate with General Dynamics, there would be issues as the externally-powered Bushmaster II will require more internal volume. Also the fire control system of the Ulan (the Austrian ASCOD version) relied on thermal imagers supplied by the Israeli company Elbit, which teamed up with ST Kinetics to offer the Sentinel II to Australia. Another blocking options for the competition.

Depending on source the Piranha 5 has a maximum gross vehicle weight of 32 or 33 metric tons, although the original press release from the reveal of this vehicle speaks only of a maximum 30 metric tons. It seems that the higher maximum weight is the result of further improvments to drivetrain and suspension. Back when the Piranha 5 was chosen as the winning bid for the wheeled plattform of the British Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) project, the Piranha 5 version with the IOC (inital operational capability) demanded by the British Army was expected to have a combat weight of 26 metric tons. As the protection requirements of the British Army were less strict and their Piranha 5 version was expected to have a machine-gun-armed RWS instead of a medium calibre turret, it seems overall unlikely that the Piranha 5 chassis can accept STANAG 4569 level 6 armor with a manned turret. The heavier (and newer) Sentinel II wasn't able to meet the demanded STANAG 4569 level 6 protection at a gross vehicle weight of 35 metric tons.

In so far, even if General Dynamics had offered the Piranha 5 chassis and this was considered to be compatible with the MOTS requirements of the Australian Army, it most likely still wouldn't have been chosen. It offers less than the Boxer CRV (protection, firepower, payload, features), but is more expensive and less proven than the AMV 35 CRV. The main difference between a Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (emphasis on the combat) and a normal scout vehicle is being able to combat enemy units and arm or. Thisrequires protection and a turret armed with a gun capable of punching through opposing forces' armor. If the turret doesn't work as intended or does it's job badly - which apparently was the result of the Australian evaluation of the LAV (CRV)'s MCT-30 turret - the CRV concept will fail.

If a CRV is a concept of sense and reason is another topic, that won't be discussed here yet.

The Sentinel II was also rejected, despite being the second heaviest option after the Boxer CRV. It consisted of a MT30 turret mounted ontop of a Terrex 3, which itself is a Terrex 2 with increased payload. The Terrex 3 chassis  from ST Kinetics and the MT30 turret from Elbit Systems have revealed a number of unique and common shortcomings. Most importantly they are completely unproven at the time of the Australian down-selection, but it also suffers from relatively low protection (not being better armored than the five tonnes lighter Patria AMV with 35 mm gun turret). While the hull's armor can be improved by converting the turret into an unmanned configuration (with reduced protection), it still fails to meet the original LAND 400 Phase 2 requirements for protection. The supposedly poor reception of the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret also might imply a general dislike of unmanned turrets. This would mean that the Sentinel II was restricted to STANAG 4569 level 4 protection at best. The huge physical size of the Sentinel II, a result of it's Terrex-2 ancesty, meant that more surface needs to be armored, hence the gained protection per added is a bit smaller than on some of the other contenders.

The Sentinel II was meant to be an high-end offering, just like the Boxer CRV. The LAV (CRV) and AMV 35 CRV appear to be more budget oriented offerings, lacking some of the more advanced components for a lower price. Australia's choice of the AMV and Boxer seems to combine the better high-end vehicle with the better budget oriented vehicle, so that the changes to the budget still while deliver a good vehicle; if only the two bidders with the more expensive vehicles had been shortlisted, budget cuts could result in the end of the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. This way however, the most capable vehicle options remain open.

Aside of the aforementioned protection, the Sentinel II suffers from a number of minor and major drawbacks compared to the Boxer CRV, which is why it shouldn't be considerred the better high-end offer. The Sentinel II has no RWS options integrated into the vehicle. It also has only a non-dampened launcher for the Spike ATGMs. A non-dampened launcher does not stop the vibrations of the vehicle from being transported onto the missiles. Such vibrations can damage the the internal guidance electronics and thus prevent longer storage of the missiles in the launcher. Instead the missiles can only be loaden before a mission or during a mission. 

A further issue might be the Iron Fist LC's launcher configuration. The Iron Fist Light Configuration (LC) active protection system is located ontop of the turret and hence increases overall vehicle height, reducing the ability to travel through tunnels and under bridges. This apparently has been a concern for the LAND 400 program, at least Rheinmetall made sure that the commander's sight could be retracted and the RWS folded down, so that the vehicle height when traveling is barely affected by these components. A bigger drawback of Iron Fist LC is however the amount of ready-to-fire countermeasures and launchers. The system has only two launchers, each having two barrels for countermeasures. This means the APS can engage at most two threats at the same time (a simple solution for insurgents and soldiers would be to overpower the APS by attacking with three RPGs or ATGMs at the same time) and has to be reloaden after four engaged RPGs/ATGMs. While at least some versions of Rheinmetall's ADS can defeat EFPs, Iron Fist LC is incapable of doing so.

As reported by Jane's IHS, the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) is giving the two remaining bidders the flexibility to modify their proposals and utilize technology from further companies. The marketing manager of Rafael's land systems division, Yiftach Kleinman, claimed that the DoD might select sub-systems not chosen by any bidder and is confident about Rafael's products having a good chance of being accepted: in particular the Samson Mk. 2 remotely operated turret, the Trophy active protection system and the Spike ATGM would be of Australia's interest.

The Spike ATGM is understood to be favoured by the Australian Army and has already been integrated on both of the CRV prototypes fitted with ATGMs. However it seems extremely unlikely that the other systems from Rafael will be adopted. Trophy does not offer any performance advantages over Rheinmetall's ADS, SAAB's LEDS or the Iron Fist LC system from IMI - in fact the nature of Trophy's countermeasures (using multi-EFP warheads) and the launcher design (one single-countermeasure launcher per vehicle side; a launcher can only rotate by ~200° in the horizontal plane) make it appear considerable worse than all other menionted active protection systems.

The Samson Mark 2 RWS has been chosen by the Lithuanian Army for integration into their future Boxers. With Samson Mk 2 RWS the vehicle is called "Vilkas", Lithuanian for "wolf". However aside of having the same "unmanned" issues as found by the Australians on the LAV (CRV) with the Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 turret, the Samson Mark 2 RWS also suffers from poor armor protection and lower features compared to pretty much all other mentioned products. It is understood that the Lithuanian choice of the Samson Mk.2 RWS was the result of reducing the price of the vehicle, as they previously had tested the more expensive (and more capable) Boxer IFV with Puma turret. The Samson Mk. 2 turret can be at most armored up to STANAG 4569 level 4 and thus fails to meet the Australian requirements. It has the same type of non-dampened launcher as installed in Elbit's MT30 turret, but lacks it's laser warning system. There are no smoke grenade dischargers and there is no option for a MG armed RWS ontop of the turret. No APS has been integrated on the Samson Mark 2 turret.

Challenger 2 upgrade proposals have been submitted

As reported by Jane's IHS, MilTechMag and DefenseNews.com, the offers for the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme (LEP) have been submitted by the industry to the British Army. The Challenger 2 LEP aims at upgrading the Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) to a more modern standard, so that it is competitive in the year 2025 and beyond (currently the CR2 is expected to remain in service until at least 2035). The official name for this project is "Armour (MBT) 2025". Meanwhile Germany and France are developing a next generation tank with a 130 mm tank gun and keep upgrading their existing Leopard 2 and Leclerc MBTs.

Originally a total of seven major American and European defence companies have answered the British request for upgrade proposals for the CR2. However the US-based General Dynamics (the manufacturer of the current M1 Abrams MBT) has decided to join the Team Challenger 2 lead by BAE Systems. BAE Systems acquired Vickers Defence Systems, the manufacturer of the Challenger 2 tank. The British MoD is planning to shortlist two bidders in 2016. On request of one unnamed bidder, the deadline for submitting the proposal has been moved by one month and the program was thus delayed. With the delay, the tender response date was moved the 11th August, after this the two most promising bids will be selected in the next weeks. Two contracts of £19 million (€22 million) are expected to be signed with the favoured bidders by end of October. In total the contract for upgrading of up to 227 CR2 tanks is expected to have a worth of up to £624 million (currently €722 million).

In a different contract the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has decided to let QinetiQ evaluate the German MUSS softkill active protection system (APS) for integration into the Challenger 2 tank and other British fighting vehicles. A decision to adopt a softkill APS on the Challenger 2 is scheduled for April 2018.

The German company Rheinmetall has made a few aspects of their initial upgrade proposal known in a press release. The company suggest not only replacing outdated components, but also enhance the tank's capabilities further. Upgrades to mobility and protection are further options. Rheinmetall has partnered with the British companies Supacat, Thales UK and BMT.

Seoss sight of the MBT Advanced Technology Demonstrator

The press release included a rendering of an upgraded Challenger 2 tank. The commander's main sight has been replaced by the Seoss stabilized electro-optical sighting system from Rheinmetall. This stabilized optronics include a dual-axis stabilized sensor head with a third generation SAPHIR thermal imager, a laser-rangefinder and a high resolution CCD camera. It is also fitted with an integrated fire control system. The Seoss sight enables a high accuracy even when the tank is moving against static and moving targets. The same sight system has been used on the MBT Revolution/Advanced Technology Demonstrator and on the Boxer CRV. It can be fitted with the Main Sensor Slaved Armament (MSSA) remote weapon station.

It is not clear if the gunner's primary sight has also been replaced with a version of the Seoss sight or the original Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) from Pilkington Optronics (nowadays part of Thales UK) has been kept. The rendering still shows a distinctive box ontop of the gun mantlet, which used to house the Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight 2 (TOGS-2) on the original Challenger 2. This might imply that the TOGS-2 thermal sight was kept or upgraded, instead of being replaced by a single sight unit with integrated thermal imager. The rendering however does not show a flap in the armored box; it is not known wether this is result of the 3D model being poor or the TOGS-2 was actually replaced. 

A SAS module below a ROSY smoke grenade discharger

One single unit of Rheinmetall's Situational Awareness System (SAS) can be seen ontop of the turret. Most likely there are two or more SAS units, enough to provide a full 360° sensor coverage. Each unit contains three high definition sights (either day sight CCD cameras or uncooled thermal imagers), each set at 45° angle apart of eachother. Two SAS modules are required to provide a full 360° coverage of the surroundings either at day or night, four for a 360° sensor coverage with cameras and thermal imagers at the same time. The system is designed for easy integration in existing system thanks to an open architecture. It also features an automated warning system, which can be triggered by moving objects when enabled. Optional features of the SAS include automated mission recording, tracking and tracing, a sniper warning system (not installed in the rendering), laser warners (apparently installed) and the integration of SAS into existing fire control and battlefield management systems.  

Rheinmetall also offers the replacement of the outdated rifled Royal Ordnance L30 gun with it's current L/55 smoothbore gun with enhanced armor penetration. This gun would also enable the tank to fire programmable ammunition. 

Elbit Systems' COAPS commander's sight

Lockheed Martin UK has partnered with the Israeli company Elbit Systems for the Challenger 2 LEP. According to DefenseNews, this partnership was established just 24 hours before the deadline for the industry proposals. This is probably the result of Lockheed Martin's partner for upgrading the Warrior MICV, Thales UK, partnering with Rheinmetall. Given that Lockheed Martin's own technological portfolio, as previously noted, is the smallest of all bidding companies, they were forced to find a new partner.

Most likely the proposal from LM and Elbit will include the replacement of the sights with new models made by Elbit Systems. Most likely the commander's sight will be replaced by the Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight (COAPS) sight used on the Sentinel II and the TAM upgrade. This dual-axis stabilized sight includes a day sight CCD camera, a laser rangefinder and a latest generation thermal imager. The Pilkington Optronics Gunner's Primary Sight might be replaced with a similar device from Elbit Systems, possibly incorporating a thermal imager and thus allowing the removal of the gun-mounted TOGS-2 sight. Possible upgrade options include the Knight FCS (Elbit's FCS developed for the Merkava tanks) aswell as the Thermal Imaging Fire Control System (TIFCS), which Elbit developed as an upgrade option for existing vehicles.

Laser warning system from Elbit

Given that the last two international land vehicle projects from Elbit Systems included the adoption of a laser warning system, the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from Lockheed Martin UK and Elbit might aswell include the adoption of this system.

Earlier already CMI Defence announced their cooperation with the British company Ricardo UK. While CMI has experience with the manufacturing and upgrading of turret systems, Ricardo is one of the leading British companies in automotive and systems engineering. It is understood that this results in a separation of tasks: CMI Defence is responsible for upgrading the turret, while the hull is being upgraded by Ricardo UK. The latter company has been working with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) of the British Ministry of Defence on optimizing the drive- and powertrain of the Challenger 2 as part of obsolecence management studies. Ricardo has developed a tool set for accessing the effectiveness and costs of upgrades.

Not much details about CMI Defence's and Ricardo's proposal are known. It might include the adoption of the RUAG-designed Compact Tank Gun (CTG), for which CMI Defence has acquired a licence; however exact details on this licence are unkown and RUAG may be the only company offering said gun for the CR2 upgrade. CMI press releases for earlier products speak of a 120 mm smoothbore Cockerill high-pressure gun; if this is the name for the licence-made CTG or refering to another product has to be clarified.

Most likely the two companies will suggest replacing the sights and electronics, while also adding a new APU or upgrading the powerpack or drivetrain of the tank. CMI Defence has used optronics from different companies for their medium and large calibre turrets, but some of their latest products utilize sights from French manufacturer Safran. However Safran is cooperating with BAE Systems.

General Dynamics and BAE Systems have formed Team Challenger 2, while RUAG announced to cooperate with a group of UK-based industrial partners. The German company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), the Leopard 2 manufacturer, has released no details of their upgrade proposal to the public yet, but it appears likely that KMW will rely on optronics supplied by Airbus Defence and Space (formerly Cassidian), which were also used on the current iterations of the Leopard 2 MBT and the Puma infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).

Pound Sterling loosing worth, image by Stratfor

Given the BREXIT, there still should be a big question mark wether the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme will be futile. The negative impact on the UK economy is currently undeniable, despite the actual BREXIT still being a problem for the future. The British Army is already running other expensive modernization programs such as the procurement of the Scout SV (including the turreted AJAX variant), which is heavily relying on technology and components supplied by EU-based companies, and is also looking to acquire an 8x8 wheeled mechanized infantry vehicle (MIV). Pretty much all candidates rumored for the MIV are European products, which will be more likely affected by the BREXIT than other military procurements.

LAND 400 Phase 2 and 3 contenders update

The Australian Army is currently looking for replacements of the ASLAV and M113AS4 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs).

Phase 2 of the LAND 400 program seeks a replacment for the 13.2 tonnes ASLAV. The ASLAV is used by the Australian Army as scout vehicle, armored personnel carrier (APC), command vehicle, armored ambulance and also as support vehicle. It is either armed with a 25 mm Bushmaster chain gun (in case of the ASLAV-25 scout vehicle) or with a heavy machine gun on a pintle mount or on a Kongsberg remote weapon station (RWS). It transports up to either six or seven soldiers depending on version. Unlike current American and Canadian LAV versions, the ASLAV is only protected by thin steel armor providing protection according to STANAG standard 4569 level two or three.

Currently there are four contenders to replace the ASLAV: The AMV 35 CRV from Patria and BAE Systems, the LAV (CRV) from General Dynamics, the Sentinel II from Elbit and ST Kinetics and the Boxer CRV from Artec (a joint-venture between Rheinmetall and KMW). Originally more contenders including Raytheon and Nexter (offering the VBCI with French T40 turret) were looking for a LAND 400 Phase 2 contract; after considering their chances of meeting the Australian requirements - in particalur the military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) requirements - they withdrew.

While the offer from Patria and BAE Systems - consisting of a Patria AMV fitted with the E35 turret of the CV9035 - was known very well for the past weeks, a lot of new details have emerged on the other contenders. Supposedly Patria isn't offering the latest AMV^XP with increased payload and performance, but the a version of the original AMV hull with higher compliance with the MOTS requirements.

As far as the other contenders are concerned, first and foremost of there is the LAV (CRV), a version of the Canadian LAV 6.0 upgrade modified to meet the Australian requirements. The LAV 6.0 itself is a modified and upgraded version of the old LAV III infantry fighting and scout vehicle.

The LAV (CRV) has the lowest gross vehicle weight of all contenders, sitting at just 28,600 kg. It is fitted with the unmanned MCT-30 turret from the Norwegian company Kongsberg. It features 8 smoke grenade dischargers (in 4 banks of 2 each), the Mk 44 Bushmaster II gun chambered in the 30 x 173 mm caliber from Aliant Techsystems (ATK), a low-profile version of the CROWS RWS and a laser warning system. An interesting side note is that the MCT-30 turret is fitted with the WAO sight from Airbus Defence, which is also used on the German Puma IFV. The US Army prefered to use a different - supposedly cheaper - sight unit for their Stryker upgrade with the MCT-30 turret. The fully stabilized WAO includes a daylight camera, a thermal imager and an eyesafe laser rangefinder.

The LAV (CRV) is also fitted with a 360° surveillance system consisting of three cameras. One is mounted on a mast above the rear ramp, while the other two are located on the frontal hull section. It uses a double-V hull desgin (like the late generation Stryker ICVs of the US Army) for advanced protection against mines and IEDs. For ballsitic protection the LAV (CRV) is fitted with ceramic composite armor on top of it's steel hull. However the ballistic protection of the LAV (CRV) is not able to keep up with the competition, offering only protection according to STANAG 4569 level 4 (all-round protection against 14.5 mm armor-piercing ammunition from 200 metres distance) on the hull. The turret is even less armored, not able to meet the level 4 requirements. According to General Dynamics the vehicle can be fitted with special deployment kits for increased ballistic protections, but this is expected to negatively affect mobility and payload, thus taking away the plattforms growth potential.

The Sentinel II has been a mysterium for quite a while, but ST Kinetics and Israeli company Elbit Systems have showcased their vehicle solution to the public for the first time. It is based on the current Terrex 3 vehiclee from ST Kinetics, but numerous technologies and components from Elbit and it's partners have been utilized. Frankly, due to the Terrex 3 being originally designed for high performance on water during amphibious operation, which are not possible with the heavier Sentinel II. The Sentinel II is fitted with the MT 30 (Manned Turret 30) from Elbit. This turret can be used in either manned or unmanned configuration and is equipped with a 30 mm Bushmaster II chain gun, a co-axial machine gun and a pop-out dual-launcher for Spike ATGMs. Like all other candidates, the vehicle is fitted with a digitial fire control system and stabilized gun to enable accurate firing on the move. The commander is provided with Elbit's COAPS (Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight), which includes a thermal imager, a CCD camera and a laser rangefinder. The gunner is provided with a similar set of optronics.Two banks of four smoke grenade dischargers are mounted on either side of the main gun.

Ontop of the turret two launchers of the new Iron Fist LC (Light Configuration) from IMI. This active protection system (APS) was first presented at Eurosatory 2016 and is a scaled down version of IMI's already existing Iron Fist APS. It launches a high explosive (HE) grenade onto an incoming threat that has been spotted by the radar. While the original version of Iron Fist has some anti-APFSDS capability (when the HE warhead fuzes at the right time, it can cause the APFSDS to tilt), the light configuration uses smaller warheads that are most likely inable to affect APFSDS. With only four interceptors ready for defeating RPGs and ATGMs, the Iron Fist LC is not suited for longer engagements, but is a useful asset in assymetrical warfare.

At the front and the rear of the turret a total of four laser warners are installed. These can detect when the vehicle is lazed by a rangefinder or beam-riding missile and may be connected to the APS or the smoke grenade dischargers.

A camera system located at the hull provides 360° close-range vision of the near terrain. The implementation is quite reminiscent of Rheinmetall's SAS 360° system, which has been installed on the Boxer CRV and other vehicles such as the Advanced Technology Demonstrator tank. It consists of three sets of each three cameras, that are set at different angles. On the rear there are only two cameras, while a further camera is located at the frontal hull - these cameras are possibly meant for the driver only.

Like the LAV(CRV) the Sentinel II fails to meet the original Australian requirements for ballistic protection. It only reaches STANAG 4569 level 4, depsite being the second-heaviest candidate for the phase 2 of the LAND 400 program. This is the result of the huge overall dimensions of the Terrex 3 hull, on which the Sentinel II is based. In fact the Sentinel II is the widest and tallest

While it is possible to boost the protection level to the levels protect against 25 mm and 30 mm ammunitions, this is only possible at certain, limited areas and not along the whole frontal arc like required by STANAG 4569. Furthermore this requires to reconfigure the turret into an unmanned configurations and reduce it's armor protection to STANAG 4569 level 2 only - which means being vulnerable to 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP ammunition or equivalent and larger calibers. A designated marksman rifle or battle rifle would be enought to penetrate the armor and potentially knocking out the Sentinel II's weapon systems by damaging the fire control system, ammunition feed system or turret drives. Due to being designed as a manned turret, the MT 30 is not optimized for unmanned operations and wastes a lot of space and thus valuable weight, that could have been used for increasing the protection.

Overall the Sentinel II has three major drawbacks. The lackluster armor protection does not manage to meet the Australian requirements. Also the missile launcher is not decoupled, so that vibrations will be passed onto the missiles. On the long term this will cause issues as the missile can be damaged or rendered completely used in a not decoupled launcher, so the Spike ATGMs in Eblit's MT 30 turret would need to be stored at other places and only be fitted into the launcher before going to battle/on a mission.

The biggest problem of the Sentinel II is that it seem to completely fail the military off the shelf of the Australian Army. It seems to be an agglomeration of unproven and new parts: the hull is taken from the new Terrex 3, which is still unproven and not in service with any nation. The turret is a new design that has yet to be used on a series produced vehicle. Even the large version of the Iron Fist APS has yet to be fielded on a tank or any other type of vehicle - the brand new Iron Fist LC version is even more of a risk. Arguably the only proven systems are the laser warners, the COAPS sights (which have been chosen for the Argentinian TAM upgrade), the smoke grenade launchers and the Bushmaster chain gun.

Previously some basic infromations on the Boxer CRV have been written here aswell, thus only the newest developments seem to be worth mentioning. Photographs of a Boxer CRV with new features have been published on the internet. The Boxer has been fitted with a version of the ADS (Active Defence System), formerly known as AMAP-ADS. In the configuration as used on the Boxer CRV it includes at least 26 sensor units (maybe even more if the rear is also protected by ADS). Unfortunately this version of ADS appears to be incorporated into the additional armor modules on the side of the vehicle, which doesn't allow accurate counting of the exact number of ADS countermeasures; usually there is at least one countermeasure per sensor unit, in some cases even two.
ADS is capable of intercepting RPGs and ATGMs in all known versions, while the heavier versions are also capable of defeating explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and large caliber APFSDS ammunition. With an estimated 26 countermeasures, the ADS on the Boxer CRV is much better suited for longer combat operations than the Sentinel II with it's Iron Fist LC APS, however restocking the ADS might take longer.

The Boxer CRV also has been fitted with a dual launcher for Spike ATGMs, which is in contrast to the Sentinel II's launcher decoupled and allows long-time storage of the missiles directly in the launcher.

A new RWS fitted with a 12.7 mm M2 Browning heavy machine gun is located on top of the turret. Unlike most other types of RWS, this specific one does not have an own set of optics, but is rather slaved to the commander's periscope located on top of the turret. Such a weapon station design design was used on some other vehicles already, most noticable the Russian T-90MS main battle tank. Rheinmetall calls this a "killer-killer" functionality (in contrast to the hunter-killer functionality) and claims that this an unique feature of the Lance MTS among medium calibre turret thanks to the so called "Main Sensor Slaved Armament" (MSSA) technology. Most likely the RWS can be folded down, otherwise putting it on the Boxer CRV turret wouldn't make much sense, as the commander's sight was specifically modified to be retractable in order to reduce the overall height of the vehicle.

A rather curios move was made by Rheinmetall for the Phase 3 offering. The vehicle purchased under the phase 3 of the LAND 400 project is meant to be the replacement for the M113 variants in service with the Australian Army, most notably the  While it already is part of the PSM joint-venture offering the German Puma IFV for LAND 400 Phase 3, the German company has decided to make another offer with the Lynx. While Rheinmetall representatives and websites have tried their best to describe the vehicle as a new development and kept their lips sealed on the true nature of the Lynx, it is understood that this vehicle is just a heavily upgraded Marder IFV. A company now owned by Rheinmetall originally build the Marder, several hundred Marders were bought back by the industry and saved from scrapping.

The suggested APC version of the Lynx is fitted with a RWS and the ROSY smoke protection system

The Lynx is fitted with the same Lance MTS (modular turret system) turret as the Boxer CRV, however with slightly different armament. While it also includes a decoupled twin-launcher for Spike ATGMs, it was presented with a larger 35 mm autocannon as main gun and Rheinmetall's three-barreled RMG 7.62 machine gun. Unlike a gatling gun the latter weapon is fitted with three barrels to reduce barrel wear and it is possible to switch to another barrel within less than 5 seconds. Rheinmetall claims that this enables the user to switch to a cold barrel in the middle of combat, which leads to a higher accuracy and sustained rate of fire. The Lynx is fitted with Liebherr engine (depending on versio delivering either 750 hp or 1,050 hp), segmented rubber tracks from DST and a NBC protection. Iversionst's armor seems to be largely identical to the late version Marder IFV (1A3 and follow-up ), which utilized spaced steel armor for ballistic protection against up to 30 mm rounds. The side armor of the Lynx appears to be different, the spaced armor and storage boxes of the original Marder 1A3 were replaced by plates of steel or composite armor. The ADS has not been fitted, but according to Rheinmetall it is an option.

The armored recovery version of the Lynx vehicle is fitted with a crane

An interesting suggestion is creating two versions of the Lynx, one of them utilizing a stretched chassis. While as previously noted all existing offers for the Phase 3 have only a 3 + 7 configuration (assuming realistic amounts of internal storage space), the Lynx is offered as KF 31 and KF 41; the latter has a sligthly strechted hull (but the same number of roadwheels) to provide seating for a crew of three and up to eight dismounts, while the shorteer KF 31 has is designed for only six dismounts. Aside of the lower price compared to more expensive offerings such as the Puma IFV, this might be the main selling point of the Lynx IFV.

In general Rheinmetall claims that the Lynx armored vehicle family is making use of a modular approach - how modular this is exactly is not known yet. While the description from Rheinmetall - speaking of separate Base Vehicles and Mission Kits- is suggesting a concept similar to the Boxer, the Lynx doesn't appear to be compatible with Boxer mission modules. It also remains questionable if it is possible to change the mission kit of a Lynx during it's lifetime without major factory-based (re)work. The Lynx will be offered as turreted and non-turreted version for the different roles of the vehicles replaced under LAND 400 Phase 3.