Merkava 3 Spotted With New Armor

Starting late April, older variants of Merkava 3 appeared with new, possibly somewhat improvized side armor.

Merkava 3 tanks in their early form have flat sides. Later, based on lessons from operations in the South Lebanon Security Belt (1985-2000), a new armor package was developed and installed, giving the Merkava 3 a rounder shape, closer to the Merkava 4.

Early Merkava 3 with flat side armor

Late Merkava 3 with applique side armor giving it a round shape

However, as with other upgrades (including a major FCS upgrade), the applique was not retrofitted to all tanks, and to this day some are still rolling with the same old configuration.

As far as I am aware, only the 14th reserve armor brigade of the 252nd division (Sinai Division) still operates those tanks.

The Merkava 3 was also planned to receive Trophy at some point, by the way, but the program does not seem to have progressed anywhere, and these make sense as the IDF was in the process of down-sizing its armored corps.

Hundreds of tanks were planned to be sold abroad, and certain general purpose vehicles acquired by the IDF are conversions of old withdrawn Merkava 3 tanks, like the Pereg recovery and maintenance vehicle, and Ofek C2 vehicle.

I also remind that reserve units are, for many reasons, usually kept back while active units deal with the more intense and dangerous threats, and reservists act as reinforcing elements to handle lower priority tasks.

From that we can conclude the IDF shouldn't have high motivation to invest in a sophisticated solution to the early Merkava 3s increasingly inadequate protection.

It is certainly possible the IDF has little to no capacity to produce new dedicated armor kits for the Merkava 3 anyway. 

The Israeli industries are however making all sorts of armor solutions, and these the IDF can buy quickly, package in a locally made case, and fit however many and wherever needed.

We have already seen numerous, seemingly random configurations involving multiple box sizes, mounting points, and number of mounted boxes.

I believe it is highly likely that maintenance units were instructed to weld mounting points on the field, thus field conditions. And multiple sizes were created to cope with overall inaccuracies in installing said mounting points, so that every tank could be fitted with armor boxes as needed.

 

Israeli AFVs To Get Loitering Munitions and Drones

As a natural step in the Carmel future AFV family program, the IDF is looking to integrate drones or LMs (Loitering Munitions) into its combat vehicles. On the surface, this adds integrated verticality to the maneuvering element. But it offers more than that.

In February 2021, Rafael presented at IAV Online about its solutions for the next-generation of combat vehicles. 
For the US that would be the NGCV family of which the core were ambitious replacement projects for the M2 Bradley IFV and M1 Abrams MBT, along with less ambitious modernization projects like the AMPV and the seemingly cancelled M10 Booker.
For Israel that would be the long term Carmel project who IAI was chosen to lead, and the more short term projects like Merkava MBT, and Namer and Eitan APCs.

Without doubt the biggest evolution in AFV design and operation today is the informational revolution. With such powerful cannons and missiles, there's no longer an issue of how hard you can hit, but how quickly and efficiently you can find the next target to actually utilize this tremendous firepower.

If we look at current warfare in Europe and the Middle East, we see that in one theater tanks are very niche and in the other they're the central component of ground combat. 

Early iterations of SA (Situational Awareness) improvements involved all-around cameras and sensors to detect targets in the immediate vicinity of the tank or within its LoS (Line of Sight). 
Today it's important to evolve on that and add a vertical element to look behind and around an obstacle.
No matter if we're in Europe or the Middle East, we still need to look behind or into a treeline, or around the corner of a building. 

Do you see the tank in this image? No? Then neither will an onboard camera. But a drone looking directly from above, coupled with a thermal camera - will.
In this particular incident a Hamas combatant exited a covered tunnel shaft, placed a HEAT charge with a timer on the hull of a Merkava tank, between the hull and turret, ran back to cover, and while concealed by dust he fired a second shot.
This could have been avoided through technology that's readily available in 2025. 

A few stills from Rafael's presentation at IAV 2021.

A standard Merkava 4M with what appears to be a large 4 cell launcher. Interestingly, while Rafael presented its vertically launched FireFly with the Carmel demonstrator, these appear to be angled.

Such arrangement is unlikely to be final as it exposes fairly expensive kit to all sorts of even non-combat damage.

As we can see, Rafael's Carmel demonstrator uses a FireFly LM, which has since entered service with IDF infantry.

Also footage from its Carmel demonstration in 2020, showing the LM's deep integration with the AFV's systems and BMS (Battle Management System).

Enabling this integration is Rafael's Storm Breaker architecture. 

While Rafael focused on the effort from a prime contractor's perspective, other smaller companies provided the innovation on its specific components.

Enter SpearUAV.

SpearUAV seek to turn existing kit used by individual soldiers and vehicles, into drone launchers, thus reducing carried equipment. And it also cooperates a lot with Rafael as we'll observe soon.

One of its solutions is to launch these from the Merkava's 73mm smoke grenade launchers. You can see it here. Called the Ninox 66, its fate is not currently known. For some reason it is not listed on SpearUAV's website. 

Ninox 66 in green canister

According to Defense-Update, the IDF is currently examining multiple designs from multiple vendors. One of these potential solutions is the SpearUAV Viper 300.

Viper 300 (left) inside an MCL (Multi Canister Launcher), and Viper-I interceptor (right)

MCL of the Viper 300 on a Plasan SandCat APC

It remains to be seen what the IDF even seeks from this LM. Is it mostly observation for a single instance and then discard? Do they want recovery? 

Basic war economy tells me that the IDF will seek to deploy these only in combat, and for these to be persistent so as to not spend the money multiple times. A larger solution indeed makes more sense in that context. 

Another realistic solution is to discard their use as an LM, maximize their endurance via installing extra batteries as payload, and utilize in-service FireFly LMs as a strike weapon. If FireFlys are treated solely as a strike weapon, these can be more easily justified from a training efficiency standpoint, while capitalizing on existing production.

Viper-I popping out from an MCL on a Rafael C-UAS vehicle demonstrator

The MCL for Viper 300 also permits launching the Viper-I, a same form-factor interceptor variant that can augment the vehicle's APS by extending its range and improving its verticality.

Although I've focused a lot on the Viper 300 here, Defense-Update are listing other candidates of course. 

Some UAS the IDF is considering as part of its C-UAS effort, and their success could translate to AFVs as well.

Sources:

https://defense-update.com/20250504_loitering-weapons-on-merkava.html

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/iav-2025-spearuav-proposes-its-multirole-loitering-munition-and-c-uas-systems

Eitan PowerPack Buy

According to an April 2025 DSCA press release, an FMS (Foreign Military Sale) item has been approved:

• Unspecified Num of 8V199TE21-D engines.
• Estimated cost up to $180 million.
• This supplements existing $85 million contract.

MTU 8V199 TE23 800kW / 1,100hp engine, a higher power version of the TE21 variant used on Eitan and Boxer

A PowerPack, generally speaking, is the combination of an engine, transmission, and cooling system along with other peripherals, designed for optimized fitting in a package that supports minimal volume demands and easy maintainability and replaceability.

You can read more about that in this incredible piece by Jon Hawkes:

Jon Hawkes Primer on PowerPacks

The Eitan saw its first operational use in October 7th 2023 where it was used to quickly reinforce the IDF Gaza Division and its AOR (Area of Responsibility). 

On that day, Tanks, APCs and other AFVs drove on asphalt roads as it was a time-critical situation.

As the sole medium to high weight wheeled AFV in IDF service, it was exceptionally quick to arrive at the scene. 

Its combination of high mobility and protection allowed the Eitan to star in multiple hostage rescue operations in Gaza.

There is no publicly available information on damage done to Eitans. There is also no evidence of Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon successfully engaging Eitan APCs through their own propaganda videos. This is likely due to the supposed scarcity of these vehicles still. 

This in turn means the expanded contract is likely to indicate accelerated production.

Eitan in Gaza

The 8V199 series is in particularly wide employment and the IDF is likely to benefit from the higher scale of logistics involved, and R&D roadmap for the series, as it is also being expanded for higher outputs. 

As of April 2025, the Eitan is still not equipped with a 30mm turret. Although it has been recently announced the IDF has issued a tender for 30mm cannons likely for the Eitan.

The envisioned turret will store 350 30mm munitions and either Matador or Spike missiles.

Sources:

https://www.dsca.mil/Congressional-Notification-Archive/Article/4154118/israel-eitan-powerpack-engines

https://jonhawkes.wixsite.com/tanknologyinstitute/post/primer-powerpacks

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/node/64921

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/64929

https://www.mtu-solutions.com/eu/en/pressreleases/2023/Rolls-Royce-introduces-first-UK-assembled-mtu-8V-199-engine.html

https://news.walla.co.il/item/3582022

RAFAEL's Suite for Future Armored Vehicles (IAV 2019)

On 11/02/2019 Jane's posted a video from IAV (International Armored Vehicles), showing an interview given by Shmulik Olanski, Head of Innovation Programs Center, Land and Naval division.

In the interview, Olanski talks a lot about Rafael's evolving future armored vehicle suite intended to provide mission support to the two crewmembers, also known in Israel as the Carmel.
In the Carmel project, three teams, or three companies, were pitted against each other in a $100m competition between Rafael, IAI, and Elbit, to design a cockpit for the next generation AFV of the IDF.

One of the key aspects of the cockpit are the ability of the crew to observe their surroundings almost seamlessly and thus prevent casualties from small arms fire when crewmembers stick their heads out of the vehicle.

I remind that the concepts are as following:

Elbit - IronVision helmet mounted system.
Rafael - Panoramic wide screen setup.
IAI - Combination of wide screens and a helmet.

IAI has still not presented its concept in a visual way, nor has publicly revealed any details about it, other than it being a combination of Elbit's and Rafael's concepts.

Elbit's concept was also revealed a while ago:

Elbit has also presented a prototype at roughly when Rafael only began working on their solution, but that won't seem to be an issue, except for one thing:
Elbit's solution has already been picked for the Merkava 4 Barack MBT, Eitan IFV, and presumably also the Namer AFV.

This may create some bias within the IDF for Elbit's system for the Carmel, however the Carmel is supposed to be a clean sheet design, and the competition is only supposed to examine various concepts, not the end product's performance.

It is also in my belief that Elbit's control of the BMS market will not affect the competition.

The purpose of this post is to provide a brief summary of the pros and cons of each of the presented solutions.

Rafael

Pros

• Crewmen can point to the other crewman on the screen, and be sure they are observing the same thing. Especially useful in ambush scenarios, or in recon duties when the BMS is not yet fed with the target data or cannot pick up the target.
• Easy data input via touching the screens.
• More intuitive for a larger crew - a 3rd human crewman may be added for special missions.
• More rugged.
• Can possibly display other critical mission data when external cameras are offline.
• May be used to interface with other systems in the tank during the mission, when cameras are online.
• Stimulates team-work.

Cons

• Coverage is limited to the location of the screens, requires movement of the independent panoramic sights to observe high elevation targets, which may take up some of the visual space for the other crewman.
• Either analog and thus inferior movement of the independent sights or complex eye tracking technology.

Elbit

Pros

• More intuitive for the single crewman, seeing everything right in front of his eyes.
• Easier to operate the independent (TC or gunner's) sights.
• Possibly less complex technology to move the independent sights (inertial navigation vs eye tracking).
• May interface with different sights without interfering with the work of the other crewman.
• Higher coverage.

Cons

• Harder to communicate with the other crewmen over shared objectives.
• Stimulates solo operation.
• Less rugged.
• If external cameras go offline, the vehicle's backup interface and systems may be more difficult to operate.
• Difficult data input, may require separate computer or only allow commander to do so via less intuitive methods.

Those were just the pros and cons I could think of in the total span of maybe 5 minutes. 

Are Formerly Fantasy Coaxial Autocannons Set To Become A Common Reality?

I'm sure everyone reading this are already aware of the funky Stridsvagn 2000 and its 40mm cannon mounted alongside the widely tested (at the time - prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union) 140mm gun, or the two T-72M2 Moderna prototypes fitted with either two 20mm guns (one on either side) or a single 30mm gun on one side.
None of these has actually made it into operational service, and so the largest coaxial secondary armament on MBTs remained the 12.7mm.

T-72M2 Moderna prototype with 2 mounts of 20mm cannons.

It made a lot of sense to stick to only MMGs or HMGs at best. These were possible to pack with a large quantity of ammunition, and were often more than enough for the anti-infantry or anti-material role they took.

Additionally, since the only two schools of tank design were roughly:

• Soviet approach - Use every inch of space to make the tank as small as possible.
• Western approach - Use a human loader (with the exception of Leclerc and K2) and assign certain free space for crew comfort only.

Neither could really allocate the space necessary to mount an autocannon that would be both far larger in itself and would take several times the space that ammunition took. 

In some cases, even 12.7mm machine guns were deemed too space-hungry.

But now there are a few factors that could both necessitate the use of an autocannon, and alleviate some of the issues around its implementation:

1. By 2021 at least 2 serially produced MBTs should become operational with an APS capable of defeating large caliber KE munitions - The Merkava 4 Barak and T-14.
2. The T-14 is the reference threat for NATO countries in MBT development.
3. Kill on first round is still the go-to approach in weapon design.
4. No APS, operational or conceptual, is able to defeat medium caliber munitions fired in bursts.
5. 2-man crews will substantially increase the amount of total usable space.
6. Unmanned turrets will similarly increase the amount of turret-specific usable space.
7. With a decrease in weight of tanks and increase in their physical protection, as well as the approach to a boundary to which conventional 120mm guns and munition can be upgraded, increased gun diameters such as the Rheinmetall 130mm may have a real chance at becoming operational. Such guns will inevitably have a lower ammo capacity. An autocannon will both deal with softer, less important targets, and will serve as an APS neutralizer.

Strv 2000 had only 29 main gun shells, and so the use of an autocannon to deal with some soft targets became a necessity.

As you may have guessed, my opinion that autocannons for MBTs should be re-evaluated, arises from the advancements in APS technologies and the need of a certain weapon to be an APS-neutralizer.

Damage caused by two 35mm KETF projectiles, visible all over the turret.

Right now is an amazing opportunity to start thinking about adding autocannons to MBTs.

The new generation of MBTs should start materializing around 2027 to mid 2030's. By that time, there could be well over 1,000 MBTs or AFVs globally with an anti-KE APS in service (300 Merkava tanks plus several hundred Namer and Eitan if they also get a new APS, plus an unknown number of T-14 and T-15 vehicles) even if we don't take into account western developments that are likely to move to anti-KE APS at some point during that time.

Future Israeli Howitzer Likely To Be Based On Oshkosh HEMTT

Through 20.9.18 til 3.10.18, the IDF will be throwing an exhibition for domestic purposes that will be open to the wide crowd, not to be confused with international defense exhibitions with orientation on striking defense deals.

In one of the videos the IDF prepared for the exhibition, it has showcased a mobile distributed mission control center. At some point in the video, it also showed artillery units. Except this time instead of the good ol' M109 'Doher' howitzers, those are Elbit's new howitzers, which consist of a turret that was showcased, and a HEMTT truck.

It is already known that the first batch of 100 howitzers will be wheeled (and that the next one may be tracked), and it is also known that the howitzer will utilize a common combat module in the form of an enclosed turret, that is platform-agnostic.
What we did not know yet is what platform it will utilize.

Of course, last year there was some glimpse into an Elbit presentation that included what seemed to be a turret mounted on a HEMTT, but the general notion was that it was just some idea they toyed around with.

At the time of announcement of Elbit's victory.

Apparently now it's much closer to being a hard fact.
The turret itself was shown to the public a while back as well, so we should know now how the whole system will look like.

The source for the image comes from here:

IMI Tests Iron Fist MBT APS on Namer APC.

IMI has released a marketing video of their Iron Fist APS, just as it is gaining some traction abroad, especially in the US and Australia, and as the IDF is progressing in its Barack MBT project.

Iron Fist has been made in numerous derivatives. One is the Iron Fist MBT, previously known simply as Iron Fist when it had no derivatives, which features a full spectrum defeat capability.
It is capable of defeating not only ATGMs and rockets but also kinetic energy penetrators.

Derivatives include the Bright Arrow which combined a remote controlled machine gun station with the launchers, which wasn't very successful, and the Iron Fist Light Configuration which is the only variant that garners serious interest so far outside Israel. It offers lighter interceptors incapable of intercepting kinetic energy projectiles that in return are safer to use, and requires lower power consumption, and takes less weight and volume.

It seems the Iron Fist MBT test was on a Namer APC (APS was mounted on the hull, not turret), from what appears to be a much larger launcher than typical.

The original video here:

IMI do have Namers to test various weapons and technologies they're developing, but they have already used the Sabra in the past for the Iron Fist, in the MBT version.

We should also keep in mind that IMI lost the IDF's competition to supply APS to the Merkava and later the Namer and subsequent vehicles like the Eitan or others' derivatives.

My take on this, is that this is a prototype of what the next generation of Trophy. It was said back in 2014 that IMI and Rafael are cooperating on an APS, and then things didn't work out and the project was cancelled. But now that the Merkava 4 Barack is in development, the project was revived, perhaps with a new concept, and according to press releases it should utilize the Iron Fist's interceptor's and Trophy's architecture.

A limiting factor of the Iron Fist that lost the competition in 2006 was its lack of munitions. Coming in with 4 interceptors per vehicle, versus Trophy's 6, it failed to meet a key IDF requirement for 6 munitions, as it had to sacrifice 2 interceptors for the sake of slewing rate that was necessary to engage very fast APFSDS rounds.

With a bulkier system, but one featuring an autoloading system, the Iron Fist could become more competitive.