South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

[kaiserbill]

Great stuff Sealord!

 

[Rickshaw]

Must be, well, "interesting" I think would be the best term, as far as manoeuvrability goes. Its turning circle would be enormous!

 

[JFC Fuller]

Must be, well, "interesting" I think would be the best term, as far as manoeuvrability goes. Its turning circle would be enormous!

http://paramountgroup.biz/uploads/assets/files/Products/Mbombe%20Vers3%20Landscape%20Sep10.pdf

Less than 20m.

 

[Rickshaw]

Must be, well, "interesting" I think would be the best term, as far as manoeuvrability goes. Its turning circle would be enormous!

http://paramountgroup.biz/uploads/assets/files/Products/Mbombe%20Vers3%20Landscape%20Sep10.pdf

Less than 20m.

As against a Piranha III which has one of 8.25m and a BTR-90 which has one of 6m.

 

[kaiserbill]

Must be, well, "interesting" I think would be the best term, as far as manoeuvrability goes. Its turning circle would be enormous!

http://paramountgroup.biz/uploads/assets/files/Products/Mbombe%20Vers3%20Landscape%20Sep10.pdf

Less than 20m.

As against a Piranha III which has one of 8.25m and a BTR-90 which has one of 6m.

How are you measuring this turning circle?

South Africa generally measures it as "curb-to-curb". The BTR-80 for example has a turning circle when measured thus of between 14 and 20 meters. The BTR-90 has steering on all wheels, so will better that naturaly. But at what cost does this come at? I do know that it isn't nearly as well protected overall.

Manoeuverability isn't just about turning circles though.

They have also obviously gone for 6x6 for a reason, one of which may be due to attempting to balance costs and capabilities. There are other South African companies offering 8x8 vehicles.

Having another look at the vehicle as compared to the Krokodil on page 1, this Mbombe is front engined, wheras the Krokodil appears to have a mid mounted engine.

 

[kaiserbill]

Talking of South African 8X8's, I came across a video of the RG-41 at the Gerotek vehicle test centre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYDhVCdWMps

 

[Rickshaw]

Must be, well, "interesting" I think would be the best term, as far as manoeuvrability goes. Its turning circle would be enormous!

http://paramountgroup.biz/uploads/assets/files/Products/Mbombe%20Vers3%20Landscape%20Sep10.pdf

Less than 20m.

As against a Piranha III which has one of 8.25m and a BTR-90 which has one of 6m.

How are you measuring this turning circle?

No idea. I'm merely quoting the publicly available, off the web specifications which I assume the manufacturer has published at some point. The advantage of most 8x8 AFVs is as you point out is they have steering on all wheels or at least some "toeing in" on the rear four. Turning circles are usually dependent on wheel track and in this vehicle you have an exceptionally long vehicle with the wheels at the extremities, so therefore you're going to have a very wide turning circle. Thats OK if you're never intending to do MOUT. From its design, I suspect that the centre set of wheels are almost there only to stop it from bottoming on sharp ridges and to improve ride.

 

[kaiserbill]

I would agree with you.

I gather the manufacturers of the various vehicles, like most products, would put their "best foot forward", and so sometimes quote different criteria as one upmanship.

So a turning circle is not always a turning circle if you get my drift.

I would agree that the Mbombe would not have the smallest turning circle, but then again, under 20 meters as has been quoted is certainly not the worst I've seen.

 

[Apophenia]

A vehicle that was prototyped for the SADF to be used on rails in front of trains. I don't know much else unfortunately...

Going waaay back, this vehicle is a Namibian one-off. It appears to have been created from two forward sections of WMF Wolfs jointed back-to-back (presumably to drive in either direction) and then plonked on top of a switching engine.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Turning this thread back to "secret projects" rather than current new projects (which should be in the Bar) is this interesting webpage. The SA Armour Museum - Lesakeng collection list which includes some good information and pictures.

http://saarmourmuseum.co.za/lesakeng.html

Including the Class 3 ~40 tonne armoured car with 105mm L7 tank gun, the Rooikat was Class 2B. Also lots ofh info on the project concept behind many of the other armoured cars and APCs in this thread.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Turning this thread back to "secret projects" rather than current new projects (which should be in the Bar) is this interesting webpage.

Given that the RG41 and Mbombe are both prototype vehicles with no known launch customers (like most of the vehicles in this section of the forum) and what appears to be a clear design lineage back to earlier South african designs which have already appeared in this thread this seems like the perfect place to discuss them.

 

[kaiserbill]

That class "3" 40 ton vehicle with the 105mm gun. I included it in the Rooikat thread in this forum, where it has been labelled the Bismark. The turret is interesting. Is it similar to the TTD turret?

I have also had these pictures for a while. It has been described as a Ratel Radar Concept.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Given that the RG41 and Mbombe are both prototype vehicles with no known launch customers (like most of the vehicles in this section of the forum) and what appears to be a clear design lineage back to earlier South african designs which have already appeared in this thread this seems like the perfect place to discuss them.

An all too typical fundamental misunderstanding on your behalf. From the forum rules:

• The primary purpose of the "Secret Projects" sections of this forum is to document real, but unbuilt, projects. Prototypes that didn't enter series production may also be appropriate at the descretion of the moderators. Aircraft built in series production should generally be discussed in the "Aerospace" section, warships, tanks and other military vehicles in the Military section.

Now a recently unveiled prototype for a project that has potential to enter service is clearly NOT within these guidelines. A series of test beds used to support the development of a range of possible types and classes of vehicles that never entered production is clearly WITHIN these guidelines.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That class "3" 40 ton vehicle with the 107mm gun. I included it in the Rooikat thread in this forum, where it has been labelled the Bismark. The turret is interesting. Is it similar to the TTD turret?

I see that now in the link in the Rooikat thread. It looks like the Class 3 armoured car was for a wheeled tank in the >40 tonne class with heavy armour and main gun. The Class 2 was the midweight armoured car with 76mm gun in the >20 tonne class (Rooikat). Class 1 was probably something in the class of Eland being ~10 tonnes with lightweight 90mm gun.

The Bismarck looks like the test bed and the photo of the vehicle with the TTD type turret was probably more of the production standard. It wouldn't surprise me if that turret is one of the actual TTD turrets. Apart from looking the same it would explain why this vehicle doesn't exsist. The actual turret was removed from the Class 3 testbed and placed onto the TTD.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Given that the RG41 and Mbombe are both prototype vehicles with no known launch customers (like most of the vehicles in this section of the forum) and what appears to be a clear design lineage back to earlier South african designs which have already appeared in this thread this seems like the perfect place to discuss them.

An all too typical fundamental misunderstanding on your behalf. From the forum rules:

• The primary purpose of the "Secret Projects" sections of this forum is to document real, but unbuilt, projects. Prototypes that didn't enter series production may also be appropriate at the descretion of the moderators. Aircraft built in series production should generally be discussed in the "Aerospace" section, warships, tanks and other military vehicles in the Military section.

Now a recently unveiled prototype for a project that has potential to enter service is clearly NOT within these guidelines. A series of test beds used to support the development of a range of possible types and classes of vehicles that never entered production is clearly WITHIN these guidelines.

No, fundamental on your part, both Mbombe and RG41 are prototypes that have not entered production and there is no immediate prospect of them doing so, furthermore you are not a moderator and therefore it is not to your discretion. As if that were not enough both vehicles are of interest given what appears to be a relationship to earlier abandoned designs.

 

[JFC Fuller]

That class "3" 40 ton vehicle with the 107mm gun. I included it in the Rooikat thread in this forum, where it has been labelled the Bismark. The turret is interesting. Is it similar to the TTD turret?

I have also had these pictures for a while. It has been described as a Ratel Radar Concept.

I have not seen that vehicle before but is is a fascinating development for me. I would imagine that the radar is one of the early Reutech designed 2D radars, they are usually mounted on 8x8 trucks (Samil or MAN IIRC). Depending on the timeline it may have been considered as part of the system that supported the AA Rooikat designs (serving as an early warning vehicle. Thank you for posting, very interesting indeed!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No, fundamental on your part, both Mbombe and RG41 are prototypes that have not entered production and there is no immediate prospect of them doing so, furthermore you are not a moderator and therefore it is not to your discretion. As if that were not enough both vehicles are of interest given what appears to be a relationship to earlier abandoned designs.

It is well established that new unveiled vehicles do NOT go into Secret Forums they go into the Bar. Also the issue of moderator discretion has to do with historical one off prototypes vs paper designs and is unrelated to this issue. Your disrespect for the rules of this forum are well established along with you disingenuous debating nature.

 

[JFC Fuller]

No, fundamental on your part, both Mbombe and RG41 are prototypes that have not entered production and there is no immediate prospect of them doing so, furthermore you are not a moderator and therefore it is not to your discretion. As if that were not enough both vehicles are of interest given what appears to be a relationship to earlier abandoned designs.

It is well established that new unveiled vehicles do NOT go into Secret Forums they go into the Bar. Also the issue of moderator discretion has to do with historical one off prototypes vs paper designs and is unrelated to this issue. Your disrespect for the rules of this forum are well established along with you disingenuous debating nature.

I will ignore your attempts at insults there. The moderator issue is simple, moderator discretion, and you are not a moderator. If you have an issue with posts in the thread report them, however the clear link back to earlier abandoned designs makes this a very useful place to have them.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Abraham is correct, however I am inclined to leave these posts in the topic for now as a slight digression from topic. If you want to discuss these new designs any more then a new topic in Military would seem to be in order.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I never had a problem with these vehicles being here. I simply pointed out in referring to some historical specs and protoypes from SADF that I was bringing this thread back on topic. Sealord's rant in defence of whatever is just an unfortunate by product.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Abraham is correct, however I am inclined to leave these posts in the topic for now as a slight digression from topic. If you want to discuss these new designs any more then a new topic in Military would seem to be in order.

Overscan,

Thankyou, the presence of the RG-41 and Mbombe in this thread is extremely useful as it seems that they are heavily based on vehicles previously discussed in the thread and may therefore be demonstrative of design lineage. There was never any intention of discussing those vehicles beyond that notion in this thread.

Thank you again for your input.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Kaiser,

After checking some notes I have about the ongoing GBADS programme I found that the intention for Phase III was for the system to be mounted on armoured vehicles such as the Ratel. Phase III was, at least at one point, planned for 2006-07 but the project has been repeately delayed and there has only been limited movement on Phase II. As with most South African programmes its roots probably lie in the Apartheid era (We have seen the AA Rooikat designs already) so this could be part of the earlier system.

I suspect that the radar used on that Ratel was the ESR-220 that is currently in service and will form part of the Phase II GBADS. Given that the EDR-110 used with the ZA-35/ZA-HVM is from roughly the same timeframe as the ESR-220 (late 80s to early 90s) I would imagine that they are associated programatically. That would tie with GBADS Phase III being a repeat of the original 80s/90s requirement for armoured mobile air defence. The latter being based on ZA-35/ZA-HVM with this radar Ratel providing local air warning, there may well have been an associated command post vehicle.

 

[kaiserbill]

Interesting Sealord.

I recall from a couple of references written by the defence writer Helmoed Romer Heitman in some of his late 80's/early 90's books, that there were 3 platforms that were looked at as combat Anti-air vehicles. These were the Ratel, Rooikat, and G6. I suspect the Rooikat was chosen as the definitive in the end.

Heitman was a reserve officer in the South african Army, and was pretty accurate in his future systems analysis, which was probably as a result of him being well connected in the industry/army. I remember him writing that a new ATGW, new armoured car, new tank, new anti-armour helicopter, new jet fighter, Frigates, subs, amongst others were all actively in the pipeline. All this before the ZT-3, Rooikat, TTD/Loggim, Rooivalk, Carver etc were unveiled or actively acknowledged.
I would love to have a conversation with him.....

I have no idea what sort of turret was looked at as the Ratel Anti-air vehicle, although I suspect the Rooikat and G6 anti-air proposals would have had the same twin-35mm and missile turrets as fitted to the Rooikat.

The missile version of the Rooikat Anti-air was apparently built in prototype, or mock-up form. I would be interested in seeing photos, although none have come to light as far as I know.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I have a strange recollection of seeing the ZA-35 on a G6 chassis, I can not remember where (may have been this forum) or whether it was a model or actual prototype. I agree that the Rooikat chassis was the one selected, there are images of both the ZA-35 and ZA-HVM on that chassis floating around.

However the Rooikat may not have been the best platform for a radar vehicle which is likely to have included operator consoles and other equipment. The large armoured box of the Ratel may have provided for a more appropriate vehicle, especially after the termination of the Class 2C Armoured Weapon Platform.

Helmoed Romer Heitman certainly sounds like a fascinating character, did he ever write any books? I would love to get my hands on a copy of "Those who had the power" but I have never even seen one for sale!

 

[kaiserbill]

Heitman wrote quite a few books during the 1980's and 1990's, mainly dealing with the South African Defence Force. He also wrote an excellent book on the final, conventional warfare phase of the Angolan war when FAPLA/Cuban/Soviet forces clashed with the SADF in the late 1980's.

The only variant of the G-6 Anti-air vehicle I've seen is with the Marksman turret in model form in what is obviously a post Apartheid study. The link was in the 35mm eGlas thread below. I'd imagine the earlier original study would be similar, albeit with the Rooikat turret.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8696.0.html

I would be most interested in seeing the SPAAM Rooikat with ZA-HVM.


I have a copy of Those Who Had The Power by Pierre Lowe Victor.

 

[kaiserbill]

Was looking at that Radar Ratel again, and thought perhaps it may actually be the Ratel AEOS, which was an artillery observation and control variant. It had a mast which had various sensors in the top including laser, optic and TV sensors capable of operating at night and by day.

But this mast looks different and is quite a bit more substantial than the mast on the Ratel AEOS, so perhaps it shares only the concept of the mast on the Ratel vehicle.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Kaiser,

As I understand it the EAOS was/is associated with the AS2000 Artillery Fire Control system, I assume that is the variant you are referring to? I have posted a picture of it below. It is certainly possible that this 'Radar Ratel' is a prototype or development of that system. Unfortunately I can not make out what is at the top of that mast due to the angle of those photos. However the mast looks very different though the built up forward superstructure looks similar. Another option might be that rather than it being an air defence radar it is a battlefield surveillance radar?

Here is a picture of the ZA-HVM on a Rooikat chassis, the more I look at the picture the more it looks like the turret is actually a mock-up rather than the actual system, the sensor turret at the front does not look 'real'.

So you are on of the lucky hundred with a copy of that book! I would love to add a copy to my library.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The Army Technology site carries the following photo: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/olifant1.html listing it as an Oilfant 1b, however I think what it is carrying is a 'Denel Land Systems Olifant 2 Combat turret' otherwise known as the 'Optimised Olifant Turret' which can carry either a 105mm or a 120mm (though probably not the latter on the centurion chassis) apparently the turret was designed with both the Centurion and Chieftain chassis in mind.

 

[kaiserbill]

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful Sealord!

i've been looking for the ZA-HVM for quite a while now. Thank you very much.

I agree with you about the Ratel EAOS and the Radar Ratel ..... the two masts look different, with the Radar Ratels mast looking much beefier. On reflection, the idea that it may be a battlefield radar is a very sensible one, if it is a radar version at all as is labelled. The EAOS as far as I know is a component of a system.

Regarding the book, it is currently in storage as I have moved house (over a great distance!), so, along with 90% of my reference library, it will stay that way for the next few months.

If you remind me in a few months time, I will very happily go through the book when I get my goods if you have any queries pertaining to it.

 

[kaiserbill]

The Army Technology site carries the following photo: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/olifant1.html listing it as an Oilfant 1b, however I think what it is carrying is a 'Denel Land Systems Olifant 2 Combat turret' otherwise known as the 'Optimised Olifant Turret' which can carry either a 105mm or a 120mm (though probably not the latter on the centurion chassis) apparently the turret was designed with both the Centurion and Chieftain chassis in mind.

The turret looks to be the one as fitted to the Optimal. The Optimal version I think came about when the Olifant Mk1b was improved as the original Olifant Mk2. Certainly, I think it was the original Olifant Mk2, and I have seen it labelled as thus more than once. Certainly the turret sensor head looks to be the one fitted to the current Olifant Mk2.

The Optimal was I suspect, as the name seems to imply, a particularly well armoured, armed, and advanced version of the Mk1b. This probably in case of delays to the advanced new tank, the TTD/Loggim that was then being tested. I have chatted to a tanker who says the Olifant Mk1b is capable of mounting a 120mm gun with this turret. I suspect this Optimal to weigh in over 60 tons, seeing as the Mk1B was almost 59tons. I also suspect a more powerful engine was tested as the engine deck looks a little different from comparison photos I've seen.

It is quite amazing to see what the Centurion ended up like as the various Olifant models, albeit much of the original Centurion components have been replaced, rebuilt, redesigned. A lasting testament to this British tank and its designers.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Kaiser,

Thank you for posting those pictures, I have never seen that vehicle that close up!! That is a very handsome turret. The tank overall looks very 'solid' as if it has a lot of extra armour mounted on it, I see what you mean about the engine decking. I think this turret is later than the TTD, had that project continued this turret may well have ended up on it. I get the impression that this turret was intended to be multi-platform.

An interesting side not, looking at the South African Armour museum website it states that the Class 3 8 x8 (with the 105mm gun) has the same engine and transmission as the Class 2C weapons carrier (750hp+ engine), however the weight of the latter is said to be half of the former (granted it has no weapon / other loadings at this time) and it also looks shorter...

 

[kaiserbill]

That Optimal(?) certainly is a beast, although that turret certainly has an elegance about it.



An interesting feature of the South African tank developments I've noticed is the sheer robustness of the vehicles, noticeable in the small details like the front headlight guards etc. Far more so than even on Russian vehicles, which are noticeable for their ruggedness. The South African vehicles are designed on another scale. Some of the photos I've seen of the operating conditions in Angola in 1987-1989 explain this though.

I'm particularly interested in SA vehicle development as they seem to have been very innovative and practical, and not as hidebound as other western developers sometimes were. They also seem to have been quite willing to weld ideas from both cold war blocs to their own ideas, and backed it up with money if it was good .... quite refreshing and innovative.

I can post more close ups of the Optimal vehicle if you are interested. The differences seem not be limited only to the turret. The entire hull lines/storage compartments, at a glance, are different.
The vehicle is in the Armour Museum at Bloemfontein. I certainly intend visiting this museum on my next trip there.

I also think the TTD/Loggim would fit nicely and neatly into this thread, as would some of the more limited run South African tank modifications/developments in fact.

I wonder if that Rooikat SPAAM SA-HVM mock-up is on the same extended chassis as the twin 35mm?

 

[JFC Fuller]

I agree, South African armoured vehicles show a purposefulness that is sometimes missing in their less-used Western and Eastern contemporaries. I am also constantly amazed at how much progress the South African arms industry made and how quickly they made it.

I think the ZA-HVM was based on the extended chassis for two reasons, firstly the turret looks almost identical to the ZA-35 except the guns are replaced with missile launchers, therefore the turret is likely have similar if not identical mounting requirements. Secondly, there appears to be a larger gap between the two missile wheels than there is between the front and rear two (though the angle is not great) which suggests that it probably is the extended chassis.

Here are some pictures I have of the TTD, I cant remember where I got them from as they have been sat on various computers of mine for years! If you have any more of the 'Optimal turret' that would be great.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A few things from some of these recent vehicle issues.

The “Ratel Radar” is clearly a prototype for the artillery observation vehicle (Ratel EAOS: Enhanced Artillery Observation System). The difference in the production EAOS being in the lighter mast, more advanced optics and subsequent larger observation turret (a standard Ratel turret rather than a small hot box). I very much doubt there is even a small GSR on the “Ratel Radar” as the top of mast ball structure appears to be too small for even such a small antenna. The source for these pictures refers to it specifically as a "local warning radar" which doesn't seen possible for the total lack of antenna space. AS2000 is just a computer system for calculating fire missions.

The ZA-35 and ZA-HVM was unveiled to the rest of the world by HRR in articles in MILTECH and Janes 20 years ago. Both vehicles used the same stretched Rooikat hull as was later used on the Rooikat 105mm tank hunter. Though only the ZA-35 was a working trials vehicle the missile version was a mock up. HVM later became the Umkohoto missile.

“Optimised Olifant Turret” is still a Centurion turret underneath. It just included extra armour and target acquisition equipment. The South African 120mm tank gun was designed to replace the 105mm tank gun on existing mountings and was developed in case the Soviets introduced T-72s into combat in Angola. The TTD is a far more advanced turret on the inside that presumably could have been fitted with a similar ‘wedge’ shaped armour array as the Olifant 1B if produced. The engine deck of the optimised prototype looks identical to a standard Olifant except it has nicely sculptured storage bins and the like smoothing out the edges. But hull rear plate and roof are identical.

South African and Rhodesian combat vehicle design had the twin advantages of limited input by bureaucracy and high input by combat users. Who knows what amazing vehicles the US Army would be rolling in if they were so lucky.

Thanks Kaiser for more excellent, new photos.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here is a much better picture of the production standard Ratel EAOS (reduced resolution from its original).

 

[kaiserbill]

Found another picture of that Ratel variant prototype. I have it labelled MAOS which perhaps stands for mobile artillery observation system at a guess???? Either way, a different angle here shows the tower to be much bigger as you have mentioned with perhaps a higher elevation than the pic you posted above, Abraham?

 

[kaiserbill]

Regarding the Optimal, I had a quick glance at some pics I have and did notice that there are two protruding "vents" on its engine deck that are not on the vanilla Mk1B. I'm not sure what they are in aid of though, and what they may denote? See 1st pic below.
Apart from that, I agree that AG is correct in that the rest of the engine-cover planform seems the same for both variants, although for some reason I don't have a very good picture of the Mk1B engine covers.

Abraham, on the turret, you would most likely be correct, if we remember that the Olifant is a Centurion derivitive, and that these were meant to operate until the Loggim Project new MBT was manufactured nd fielded in numbers. So the Centurion turret base would make perfect sense.

Although I must say though that I have been told that the turret is completely new, and not like the Mk1B turret which has a Centurion turret as it's core. The person who told me this has close connections to knowledgable people in the industry, although he is not in it himself. He has given me a wealth of accurate details on other defence matters before, and explained to me how the Rooikat programme developed.

But I would not know for myself, having not really seen the Optimal with my own eyes. Note the extra armour on the roof of the hull above the drivers position. This vehicle is in the Armour Museum at Bloemfontein, along with a TTD.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Found another picture of that Ratel variant prototype. I have it labelled MAOS which perhaps stands for mobile artillery observation system at a guess???? Either way, a different angle here shows the tower to be much bigger as you have mentioned with perhaps a higher elevation than the pic you posted above, Abraham?

You can clearly see how the mast is elevated in that picture and there is almost certainly no radar array there, any sensors would be carried in the dome at the top, almost certainly optical. MOAS would work, it would explain the E in EAOS which stands for Enhanced, that suggesting there was an earlier version which the EAOS improved on.

You are not the only one who has been told that the optimal is an all new turret, my notes state that it is an all new turret intended for the centurion and chieftain series dependent on the turret ring bearing being made to match. My notes go on to say that it has a bustle mounted carousel capable of taking KE ammunition. The turret was apparently fitted with DLS turret management system, had a combat weight of 17.5 tonnes and a ring-bearing diametre of 2m.

I have AS2000 as covering the complete artillery engagement system, not just a ballistic kernel, the associated sub-systems, including EAOS constituted target acquisition, communications and navigation as a complete divisional level command and control system.

Edit: I have my source for the 'Optimal Turret' listed as Helmoed-Römer Heitman though the date is 2000.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Found another picture of that Ratel variant prototype. I have it labelled MAOS which perhaps stands for mobile artillery observation system at a guess???? Either way, a different angle here shows the tower to be much bigger as you have mentioned with perhaps a higher elevation than the pic you posted above, Abraham?

That picture clearly shows that the mast head can't fit a radar. With the space in the middle occupied by the pivot there is only room for a camera and laser on either side of the pod. Interesting that it is such a rounded shape. Might be a casting of high hardness steel for protection against small arms.

This mast is much higher than the EAOS (about twice as high) but requires extensive stabilizer spades to be lowered. The EAOS appears to not require these spades. So the trade off was reduced mast height for far faster into and out of action times. Which seems more than reasonable to me.

Regarding the Optimal, I had a quick glance at some pics I have and did notice that there are two protruding "vents" on its engine deck that are not on the vanilla Mk1B. I'm not sure what they are in aid of though, and what they may denote? See 1st pic below.

These don’t seem very well attached. I think this is possibly more to do with exhaust re-routing because of the new storage bins of the Mk 1b upgrade rather than a new engine.

Abraham, on the turret, you would most likely be correct, if we remember that the Olifant is a Centurion derivitive, and that these were meant to operate until the Loggim Project new MBT was manufactured nd fielded in numbers. So the Centurion turret base would make perfect sense.

The turret is heavily modified but all the cardinal points remain the same: the hatches, gun, etc. It is extremely unlikely that a new build turret would remain the same. I seem to recall from a Janes article in the mid 90s that the ‘optimal’ was the first prototype for the Mk 1b configuration but a simpler turret and armour upgrade was chosen for the production standard. I can’t see why this turret would have anything to do with a Chieftan tank because the height of the turret basket between it and a Centurion is hugely different and what would be the market?

 

[JFC Fuller]

I found the Jane's article from 2000 about the optimal turret, it is dated September 2000 and was written by Helmoed-Römer Heitman. The details about the turret, including the bustle carousel ammunition storage and turret ring data suggest that it is a completely new turret. The article mentions not only the Centurion and Chieftain but also 'other tanks' assuming the turret ring can be adapted. It seems to be suggested that this was a private initiative by LIW with the SA Army preferring the FCS upgrade of the Olifant 1b followed by a new MBT over a new Olifant turret.

The market beyond South Africa would be obvious, Jordan which is a major Ratel user and where South African companies have had a strong presence, notably IST Dynamics prior to their acquisition by BAE and Kuwait, both have previously procured Chieftain.