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.
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:
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.
The T-14 is the reference threat for NATO countries in MBT development.
Kill on first round is still the go-to approach in weapon design.
No APS, operational or conceptual, is able to defeat medium caliber munitions fired in bursts.
2-man crews will substantially increase the amount of total usable space.
Unmanned turrets will similarly increase the amount of turret-specific usable space.
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.
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.
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.
Recently the IDF explained its plans for the creation of BCTs (Brigade Combat Teams) more thoroughly, and specified the ORBAT (Order of Battle) plus new tasks for each component of the brigade.
One of the main changes of tasks was to the recon battalion, so I want to touch on that this time. I will quote the relevant part here:
Other than the new brigade structure, the battalions themselves have also undergone quite a few changes. The recon battalion, that up until now was made of one light recon company, one engineering company, and one AT company, will now transform to receive two primary capabilities:
1. Attacking and seizing complex areas deep within enemy territory with powerful and independent raiding companies.
2. Special purpose companies that will acquire quality intel through reconnaissance, and destroy hostile targets through advanced weaponry.
From the current structure of one light recon company, one engineering, and one AT, we can understand that overall these guys are traveling light.
This means a lot of dismounted action with high powered optics and camouflage, some EOD capability along with tunnel warfare capability or demolition via the combat engineers, and ATGMs carried either by dismounts or on light jeeps, by the AT unit which also does target designation and calls artillery strikes.
To attack and seize complicated areas you need armor and you need firepower. So dismounted combat or riding on light open vehicles is not an option. At least not if they want a very quick and decisive action with minimal casualties and maximum flexibility and mobility between sectors.
To destroy hostile targets independently, well the Spike ATGM will, in theory, do. But with only one company per battalion using it, and even then in limited quantity with a lot of careful planning to set up the system stealthily, it's hard to provide an intensive enough volume of fire that would be required to secure a grid, especially in semi-urban areas, or in ambushes where the defending side would have to use overwhelming firepower to ensure suppression, maneuver, and retaliation.
An ambushed recon battalion, cut away from the rest of the troops and on its way to capture territory, will not fare well against the quasi-army threats posed by any regional enemy.
And therefore we arrive at the obvious question: Does the IDF need armored reconnaissance, Australia-style?
I haven't written about it on this blog, but I have been for the most part a staunch critic of the Australian LAND 400 program as a whole, in all its phases. I still am, but I know their concept of operation is sound.
The Boxer CRV in its A2 drive module configuration, with AMAP-ADS Active Protection System.
My main criticism towards the Australian LAND 400 is about:
Cost per unit and program budget.
Problematic and almost outdated conception about vehicle and troop protection.
Lack of certain specialized variants.
These are all major issues, but points 2 and 3 can be fixed rather easily, and these are the only ones relating to technical issues, so again, the concept is sound.
The IDF is currently in a very good position to field its own CRV. I may or may not have told, that the IDF's plan to replace the M113 includes no less than 3 weight categories - Namer at 60 tons, Eitan at 35 tons, and an unselected sub-8-ton vehicle.
Eitan could be a perfect candidate for the job. It's brand new so addition of parts is a non-issue due to untapped growth potential, it is cheap and easy to produce in large numbers, and it will soon enter service.
The Eitan sports a 30mm autocannon with 2 Spike LR2 ATGMs, heavy hybrid armor, and an APS that doubles as a situational awareness tool.
In 2014 the Trophy system, destined to be mounted on the Eitan, has been used on a wide scale in Gaza. It was on the brigade level. Today it covers more than a division with 1,000 units on order.
It was an amazing situational awareness tool. Once an ATGM or ATR was fired on the tank, the crew would be alerted of the direction from which it was fired, and would quickly lay their guns on target and close the firing loop.
With such powerful tool, as well as with possible additions of acoustic or optical identification of small arms firing sources, it is only logical to equip the recon battalion's units with them.
Colonel Saar Tzur briefly explains here the impression the 401st armored brigade got from using the Trophy system live, in action.
However to set them aside from Australia's CRVs, the IDF may need to utilize special variants, preferably for the command vehicle of each platoon, or each company, some capability to observe "over the hill". Either a mast with an optical payload, or a tethered UAS.
Additionally, the IDF has special needs that may not necessarily require, but favor the acquisition of an Eitan variant with a high caliber gun.
IMI Systems currently offers the RG120 gun. It is a 120mm low recoil and low weight gun. IMI's info on it:
Optimized for light tracked and wheeled Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) with unmanned turret and autoloader
Provides MBT firepower to AFVs
Consists of a soft recoil system and muzzle brake, significantly reducing weight constraints and enabling easy installation on AFVs
Reduces recoil force by 20%
Fires all standard NATO 120mm tank cartridges (incl. APFSDS-T)
Complies with STANAG 4385 requirements
Low weight: ~ 1700 kg
This means the IDF can acquire a vehicle using components that are entirely locally made and with high TRL (Technological Readiness Level), with insignificant development efforts required.
Now, who will use this high powered but specialized Eitan version? Most likely the Mesaya'at - support company.
It may be a valid question whether MANTAK should be investing in, and producing, a vehicle that would be used only by a total of 10 companies, which could be less than a brigade, but the option exists, the solution is ripe, and it's only a matter of how they prioritize the recon battalion's capabilities.
For the first time the IDF is revealing so comprehensively the structure of its BCT's (Brigade Combat Team). This is coming ahead of a Ground Warfare Exhibition and Conference in 15-16.8.18, where the IDF is due to showcase new capabilities and various Israeli defense companies such as Elbit, RAFAEL, IAI, UVision, and subsidiaries, are due to show what they've built to provide these capabilities as well as their own concepts that drive their development efforts.
The following is a direct translation from the IDF's website. Link for reading in Hebrew.
=====================================================================
How the IDF's brigades will decide the next war, and what weaponry will affect the results of the future battle? 36th Division and Ground Arm Command are unveiling the "Gideon BCT" - The new combat conception of the IDF, and provide a rare glimpse at the first experimentation of the combined arms.
In the framework of the wide military exercise conducted throughout the course of this week in the Golan Heights, 36th Division forces tried for the first time the new combat conception "Gideon BCT" - the future fighting form of the IDF's maneuvering brigades.
For a long time the GAC (Ground Arm Command) are working hard on developing the new conception that will provide a powerful solution to the enemy the IDF will meet in its next war. It's a "hidden and concealing" enemy, that operates covertly, fights from within urban areas, and utilizes multiple dimensions of combat, such as sub-terranean and cyber warfare.
The Gideon BCT, as explained by the GAC, offers a new structure to the maneuvering brigades of the IDF throughout the course of fighting. Until this day, every combat brigade operated with its own uniqueness and association of arm. For example, the 7th brigade was an armor brigade, and the Golani was an infantry brigade. However now, within the framework of the BCT, in times of war, the brigades will be assembled from infantry, armor, combat engineers, and artillery, that will work side by side.
The new structure should help the IDF in its efforts to conquer new territory and be decisive against the formations of the ever-changing enemy, via fast mechanized maneuver, combination of vast and various firing capabilities, and all that while maintaining common discourse and multi-arm coordination that will reinforce the survivability and lethality of the forces on the field.
So how will the brigades fight the next war?
The new brigades will consist of no less than 6 battalions, among them 3 infantry and armor battalions, an engineering battalion, a recon battalion, and an HQ unit. All these will be specialized battalions.
To them, will join a Fire Battalion Combat Team (BatCT). The Fire BatCT is an artillery battalion that has evolved to acquire independent combat capabilities such as recon, target acquisition, target destruction, and independent maneuver.
It will do a dual work - Acquire and destroy its own targets, and receive targets to destroy from other maneuvering elements of the BCT.
During the exercise that was conducted last week, the 77th and 82nd battalions of the 7th Armor Brigade, along with the 13th battalion of the Golani Infantry Brigade and the 603rd Combat Engineers battalion, joined forces to test their cooperation and effectiveness of the new structure.
Other than the new brigade structure, the battalions themselves have also undergone quite a few changes. The recon battalion, that up until now was made of one light recon company, one engineering company, and one AT company, will now transform to receive two primary capabilities:
1. Attacking and seizing complex areas deep within enemy territory with powerful and independent raiding companies.
2. Special purpose companies that will acquire quality intel through reconnaissance, and destroy hostile targets through advanced weaponry.
We are building better acquisition and destruction capabilities from our understanding that we're operating against a sneaky enemy, one that operates in ways that allow him to avoid meeting us in face to face combat.
We are thus more capable to destroy the enemy more quickly and more precisely.
The HQ unit is also a unique addition on the brigade level. Its purpose is to ease the control and operation of the brigade, and ensure the independence of the BCT from the division level or GAC level.
Ground-breaking weaponry
Additionally, during the BCT exercise numerous new systems were tried for the first time.
Those are advanced electronic systems whose purpose are to either locate the enemy and neutralize it, or to defend the forces.
However during the exercise the forces also used brand new and very accurate means of fire activation that will physically aid in capturing territory.
First and foremost, we tried the "Gideon's Shield", capable of defending the combat units from various threats like mortars, rockets, and it can even attack aerial vehicles, thus providing the forces with great advantage over the enemy.
It's a mobile battery that moves together with the forces, and provides a sort of an "Iron Dome" for the maneuvering forces through combined capabilities of firing missiles, lasers, and even EW for interception.
The commander in charge of the battery is the BatCT commander or BCT commander, and he can decide whom he wants to protect and what assets to utilize.
Another element is "Gideon's Grid". It's a sensor system capable of detecting all sorts of targets by laying an entire blanket on a certain grid, that can detect enemy signals.
(Other sources say the plan is to use 24 aerial vehicles per brigade with various sensors).
Once a target it sighted, or a source of emissions is detected, the system quickly translates the source to accurate coordinates and sends them through the Fire Weaver system.
Additionally, Rafael's Fire Weaver was used. It's a system that can direct all the different firing sources at a certain target, after which it can select what firing source is best suited for the task, and finally give the order to fire.
This system tremendously contributes to the multi-arm cooperation of the BCT's units.
Also, new vehicles were used for the first time as well, such as robotic convoys, i.e unmanned vehicles capable of autonomously provide them with a logistical solution without endangering the drivers.
Namer IFVs with cannons were also used with armor piercing munitions. Installation of the cannon on the Namer turns him from a well protected vehicle capable of safely maneuvering with the forces - to an especially lethal fighting vehicle.
Other sources have also added some valuable information. Walla and Ynet.
In points, what they add:
BCT tried a new guided mortar round in the 120mm caliber.
Guided artillery shells will enter service soon.
Up to 50% of the arsenal will be guided munitions.
Every BCT will have its own aerial fleet and small airstrip.
The fleet will consist of at least 24 reconnaissance aircraft that will be able to pick up signals.
Every BCT will get a far-reaching broadband internet, dubbed the "3 100's". 100Mhz, 100MB, and 100km.
Every BCT will have its own air defense battery.
Below 300m the BCT's aerial wing will operate freely. Between 1km and 300m the BCT will cooperate with the air force. And above 1km only the air force works.
The drones will be operated by an air control unit belonging to each brigade.
Reconnaissance gets new objectives involving more direct combat, departure from light recon.
There's quite a lot going on here. Both a very serious restructuring, and new capabilities that are also independent of the BCT effort but greatly enhanced by it.
Under the program, a total of 10 BCT's will be formed eventually, if not more. Both active and reserve.
They're not really even brigade-sized anymore, but are closer to being twice the size of a typical brigade, or 50% larger for already large brigades. The largest brigade in the IDF is Kfir with "only" 5 battalions, which still falls short of the 6-battalion BCT.
But let's talk weaponry, shall we?
1) Fire Weaver from RAFAEL. This video explains better than anyone could, what this system does:
My take on it? It's the next generation of BMS and the only thing left to do, to get a very streamlined process of sensor-to-shooter is to give the MBTs the ability to designate targets through the IronVision helmet they'll get with the Barak.
2) Mobile Iron Dome. From my understanding it's multiple systems, one is probably the Iron Dome, and the other is a shorter range laser system suitable for downing drones. None was selected yet as far as the public knows.
RAFAEL have showcased their mobile Iron Dome in 3D models, but nothing real yet.
The model shows a missile launcher with 10 tubes on the back of a MAN truck, and a radar dome above the cabin. This gives half the static Iron Dome's missile capacity (original 20). However a typical Iron Dome battery should have a launching capacity of 40 missiles prior to reloading.
The mobile Iron Dome is dubbed iDome or I-Dome.
It's a good solution, but leaves much to be desired. First, there is still an urgent need for a 100kW laser system, dubbed Iron Beam, which has been stuck in limbo for the past decade, and this could be the only hint for its future existence (note: 100kW combat lasers were demonstrated recently).
Second, such a setup, of missiles on a truck, although cheap and flexible, require preparation time prior to firing, and are less maneuverable. The coverage issue could be fixed by moving one unit at a time out of 4, but perhaps a more suitable solution would be its placement on an Eitan vehicle.
3) 24 drones with various payloads including SIGINT, flying below 1km, or sometimes below 300 meters, per brigade, is quite a task.
A very good candidate for this could be Elbit's Hermes 90, although they are talking about having small runways for each brigade, while the Hermes 90 is runway-free. So it could be a new development.
It took a long while for a turreted Namer of any kind to pop up. A decade too long to be precise, but now it's here and it seems the IDF is very eager to test it out.
As of the last couple of days, the IDF is conducting a large exercise in the Golan region, with tanks and infantry belonging, presumably, to the 7th Armored Brigade, and Golani Infantry Brigade, both part of the 36th Division.
The 36th is one of two elite armored divisions, the other is the 162nd. Both are being equipped with the most top notch weaponry in the IDF's possession. By early 2020's they should both be fully equipped with Active Protection Systems.
The turreted Namer could have been placed there for the Minister of Defense Avigdor Liberman, but it's far more likely that it participated in early operational testing in a mechanized operation training.
The turret is to be used on the Eitan in the future as well, so its testing on the Namer could shave off a lot of development time for the Eitan, which could explain why the Eitan was built in such a relatively short time frame (decision made in 2014, prototype built since 2015, mobility tests completed in 2018, pre-series prototype in 2018, and in service in 2020).
It is yet unknown whether the first to get the turreted Namer are the Golani or Givati, however if I am correct to assume it's a 36th division exercise, then the Golani will get it first.
It could also be argued that the Givati brigade were supposed to be the first to receive the Namer, however later it was decided to first arm the Golani, and give the Golani's Achzarit APCs to Givati.
No schedule was yet given on the turret either, but it can be assumed to enter service no later than 2020, as that is when the Eitan should enter service.
