Abrams To Get Drone Operating Capability Tested

DefenseNews reports that starting in 2017 it will test a new operational concept as preparation for a program set to begin in 2023 and materialize in 2035. 

The program will include installation of an autoloader system in the M1A2 Abrams tank, relieving the loader from this mission and reassigning him to a new role - operate drones. More precisely, Unmanned Ground Vehicles operating in groups.

Since the inception of the Abrams tank, there have been numerous attempts to install an autoloading system similar to the Leclerc or rival Soviet tanks. These attempts did not bear fruit and have all failed. Not because of inability to design an efficient system, but because of conflicting doctrinal requirements.

The US Army argues that a human loader is able to perform other tasks to aid the other crewmen and potentially replace one of them in case of injury or death, as well as reduces the complexity of the tank as a whole system. 

Designed by Meggitt, the concept are varied and can be tailored to different needs

One of the main examples of how the Abrams can be radically changed is the M1 TTB Tank Test Bed designed in the early 80's.

The design of the TTB very closely resembles that of the very recent T-14 Armata MBT. 

It had a crew of 3 located in a frontally placed armored capsule. In the center was an isolated ammo compartment that fed the autoloader from a vertically placed rack. 

The TTB's concept was later rejected because it did not stand in line with the doctrinal requirements at the time.

However now with the planned doctrinal shift, the autoloader issue could very well become a technical one. As seen for the last couple of decades, every tank that is equipped with an autoloader has merely 3 crewmen, and in the Israeli Carmel program - only 2.

The Abrams is planned to keep all 4 crewmen but with an autoloader in place, and inevitably also a newly designed loader's station to accommodate all the equipment required to operate the pack of UGVs.
Question is; how will they fit the autoloader not only without removing the loader's station, but actually making it even bigger?

The answer could be the Compact Tank Autoloader seen in the pictures above and below, showing a single large rotating ammunition rack operated with a single arm. Performing only a dual action, this design is simple, compact, and efficient.

Between 3:30 and 4:00 you can see the Compact Tank Autoloader in action. Meggitt also provides a variety of solutions for different platforms with different calibers and types of armament, and incorporates decades of experience.
And according to Meggitt, their Compact Autoloader allows retaining the full 4 man crew.

The M1A2 is not planned to have the full capability retrofitted, and most likely it will only be incorporated into the M1A3 once the development phase begins. 

The Army has yet to decide on the details, but they want a demonstration soon and that requires showing the full capabilities envisioned in the proof of concept period - firing and operating the drones at the same time.

The program does raise questions regarding the M1A3;
1)The commander, driver, and gunner cannot be bothered to concentrate on commanding a pack of drones. Regardless of the level of autonomy these have. Does it mean a 4th crewman will remain in the M1A3 despite the trend to go lower?

2)Will the ammunition capacity be compromised for the sake of drone operating?

3)Will an armored capsule be possible for a 4-man crew?

4)What exact purpose is envisioned for the UGVs to fulfill?

5)What advantage would it give the individual tank over a centralized command station that would justify such complex redesign of the tank and its operational concept? 

The obvious alternative is to utilize infantrymen carried in APCs to operate the drones. For example, a 6-man squad carried in a modified AMPV could operate the UGVs of a tank platoon in a more comfortable environment and knowing that it is their sole task. This would also provide 2 extra men to help coordinating with the TCs (Tank Commanders).

Only time will tell.

Netherlands first APS user in NATO

Recently BAE announced that Netherlands contracted them for a testing and evaluation phase of the Iron Fist system on the CV9035NL Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

If the process goes well, in 2018 BAE will receive a follow-up contract for the system's acquisition. 

Dutch CV9035NL

This is good news not just for Israel or Netherlands but also NATO as a whole. 

Iron Fist is the top contender in USA's APS acquisition program which tests Iron Fist Light Configuration for its lighter platforms such as Bradley and Stryker. 

The Trophy system is also a top contender, aimed mainly at the Abrams MBTs however.  

IMI Iron Fist Active Protection System

The acquisition of Iron Fist LC (Light Configuration) by the US and Netherlands, and acquisition of Trophy by the US and Australia (Land 400 program), could create a family of unitary APS in NATO which will become economically viable for every member state to buy, thus increasing vastly both the protective and offensive capabilities of NATO. 

What kept most NATO member states so far from acquiring APS is the cost involved, and the fact that they're cutting down on manpower and budget. 

Iron Fist could become the primary APS for light platforms while Trophy would be the primary option for heavy platforms. 

However, Iron Fist wasn't initially developed for use on light platforms. It was developed by the IDF to counter a wide spectrum of threats, including one the Trophy wasn't designed to handle - APFSDS.

Iron Fist was initially developed with 3 launching tubes per launcher, later to be reduced to 2 to cope with rotation speed requirements.

Its main advantage is that its interceptor warhead could defeat APFSDS with ease. But it seems that for the US and Israel the Trophy system is the better option. 

Iron Fist and Trophy system are set to be combined into 1 next-gen system. Works have started in 2014 in a joint effort by Rafael, IMI, and Elta. 

Eitan AFV - updated news

In August this year (2016), the Eitan AFV was unveiled to public in a short video made by the Israeli Ministry of Defense. 

The information given was rather scarce, but is enough to create the big picture.

Background

Eitan was developed for a multitude of reasons:

a)Namer APC is too expensive and is at its peak production capacity. Not enough will be made in time however.

b)Eitan is an easy to produce APC that can quickly replace the M113 APC that has been deemed too vulnerable ever since it entered service over 40 years ago.

c)Israel, facing threats from the north, center, and south, at the moment relies on HETs to transport whole divisions between regions. A very slow process and quite a challenge. Eitan will be able to drive on the road with ease, without relying at all on transporters, and thus provide a very quick reaction and relieve regional brigades from the pressure.

Eitan will provide the IDF with a highly protected, highly mobile, and easily produced APC. Albeit not nearly as armored as the highly requested Namer, it is to be bought en masse. 

It is in no way a replacement to the Namer, which will stay in current production volume, rather it is a complementary platform.

Rakiya Program

While it is a rather recent development, it could be traced back to 2012. 

In 2012, the Israeli news outlet JPost.com released an article describing a future fighting vehicle program called Rakiya. It was said to be in very early stages of assessment and many options were considered - whether it will be wheeled or tracked, high caliber armament or medium, and so on. 

Later in 2015 it was understood to have been split into 2 programs - Eitan and Carmel.

The former is now prototyped and will be operational by 2020. The latter is a 30-ton tracked platform and will be operational only by 2027. 

Carmel is said to complement the current fleet of tanks and not replace either the Merkava 3 or 4. 

Its armament is hinted at 76mm gun and wholly based on a new concept. However the existence of a Merkava 5 was questioned.

Unlike the M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger, and Leclerc, the Merkava 4 is not yet planned to be replaced.

Eitan Specifications

Weight - 35 tons
Power - 750hp
Top Speed - 90+ km/h
Armament - 30/40mm unmanned cannon (IFV), 12.7mm or 40mm AGL+7.62mm (APC)
Protection - passive*+reactive+active. 

Crew - 3

Passengers - 9
Versions - command, APC, IFV, ambulance(?), rest N/A
Additional payload - N/A
height - N/A
width - N/A
length - N/A

*hybrid protection estimated at STANAG 4569 level 6 on front and level 4/5 on sides.

Belly protection either 4a or 4b.

level 6 protection = 30mm APFSDS

level 5 protection = 25mm APDS

level 4 protection = 14.5mm AP WC

level 4a/b protection = 10kg mines

Eitan Design Features

Armor

Overall the Eitan seems like an average APC but it does have a few features that allow it to stand out.

It is currently the heaviest wheeled APC, and in terms of protection it is second to none. 

Passive protection cannot be accurately determined at the moment, as Israel is not a NATO member and therefore doesn't rank domestically used vehicles with the STANAG system, however it can be estimated to have a level 6 frontal protection and side protection of between level 4 and 5.

The German Boxer APC is one of the only wheeled APC coming in close, with a standard protection all-around against 14.5mm bullets (level 4) and frontal protection against 25mm (level 5), with the ability to push the weight limit a a bit higher to a level 5 protection on the sides and level 6 on the front. 

However, the Boxer is an older design and lacks ERA and/or an APS, making it unable to cope with emerging threats including the current ATGM threat that is so common on the battlefield, requiring the use of heavier vehicles such as Puma instead.

One version was demonstrated with an APS in an Australian bid, but it's unlikely to ever be purchased.

Boxer CRV in Australian LAND 400 Phase 2 bid

Another APC that comes close is the recent Russian Bumerang APC, which is equipped with an APS as well, but gives up much of its passive protection in favor of mobility. Sadly, it's also equipped with a weaker engine, so upgrading the armor would be a rather difficult and expensive task.

Bumerang IFV, recently spotted with Afghanit APS

Eitan relies not only on its heavy hybrid armor, but also on the Trophy APS which has recently proven to be capable of intercepting dozens of ATGMs in the Gaza Strip, including, with ease, the Kornet ATGM capable of penetrating 1,200mm of RHA, enough to penetrate even MBTs at the front.

Firepower

Eitan's current armament plans are not yet known. The APC variant will be armed with a 12.7mm HMG or 40mm AGL or a dual mount.

The IFV variant  was claimed to have either a 30mm cannon or a 40mm cannon. 

Difference between these two is pretty serious, so it means the IDF has yet to assess what type of firepower it needs for now and for the future. 

But a critical point was revealed; the turret will be an overhead station, meaning it will be completely outside the vehicle and remotely controlled. Elbit has the UT30 Mark 2 in its portfolio for a 30mm cannon, and they and Rafael are well experienced in designing remote turrets. However if a 40mm cannon is picked, it will likely require IMI's development since the chances of purchasing cannons from the UK or France is slim.

France and UK jointly developed a 40mm cannon in CTA technology, meaning the projectile is embedded within the charge.
Both France and the UK are using 2-man turrets however, which can be made smaller than overhead turrets.

T40 turret used on the VBCI 2 IFV

40mm shells of the CTAS turret

If the IDF picks 40mm for its future IFV, it will become among the most capable in terms of firepower, standing in line with the VBCI 2 and Ajax/Ares.
However the 30mm option may sound a lot more appealing for the IDF. The US has recently decided to acquire the XM813 cannon for multiple platforms, and not only will it not require any local R&D, but it can also be supplied via aid money, not to mention it will be easier to install as the Eitan is set to have the majority of its components produced in the US.

Sensors

a Key feature in the Eitan is the recently unveiled Elbit IronVision system.

The IronVision is based on the JHMCS II helmet developed and produced by Elbit and used on F-35 warplanes.

The system makes use of an helmet and a wide set of concealed and protected cameras to project a live feed and accurate few of the vehicle's surroundings.

If implemented, it will give a unimaginable boost to the Eitan's capabilities, as it will provide the crew and the passengers with an unprecedented level of situational awareness, as well as give the crew a quick engagement option since the gun can be slaved to the helmet. 

Mobility

Weighing up to 35 tons, the Eitan is propelled by a 750hp engine that not only gives it an excellent power to weight ratio, but allows it to grow in weight if needed. 

Automotive components are, for the moment, place-holder, and when the Eitan enters production we'll be able to see what new components it'll make use of. 

Although we do know that the Eitan is based to a high degree on the Merkava and Namer vehicles, sharing many components. 

Merkava Myth Busting

One of the things I've noticed in the past years when discussing the Merkava and its comparison with other tanks, is that most people base their view on it, on myths. 

I'll try to deal with some of the more prominent ones here:

Myth #1: The Engine is its Main Armor

This is not entirely true. The frontal hull armor, at least on the later variants, is in no way thinner than contemporary tanks. In fact, the Line of Sight (LoS) thickness of the Merkava 4 hull armor is greater than most contemporary tanks, rated at 750mm of composite armor.

So where did this myth come from? 

In the late 70's when the Merkava 1 development was finalized, the Merkava was claimed by its creators - most prominently Israel Tal (a renowned general) to be the safest tank in the world, owing to a rather unique design feature of having the engine installed at the front. 

This meant that while the armor itself was comparable to concurrent developments in the west, the tank afforded a higher degree of protection. The engine would shield the crew from penetrating shots.

That, combined with the fact that for a very long time pictures of the hull armor were either scarce or non-existent, created a myth that the armor is very thin and reliant on the engine.

Best way to think of the engine is as a last line of defense against any penetrating threat, before the crew is in danger.

Opened engine cover during preparations. 2014

Myth #2: The Added Protection Comes From The Engine Alone

It's quite popular to assume that the engine is the only design feature the Merkava owes its higher degree of protection to. 

However, there are quite a few other benefits that are no less important than physical shielding.

For example, the forward placement of the engine allows placing the ammo at the very rear, where it is least susceptible to enemy fire. Former General Tal, head of the Merkava development program, regarded this feature as at least equivalent in protective value to the frontally mounted engine. 

The turret was accordingly empty of ammo, so that in any frontal engagement, a "catastrophic kill" would be impossible.

Rear ammo racks in Merkava 3

Another noticeable advantage was the ability of the crew to escape via the rear hatch, safe from small arms fire. If the tank was immobilized, pierced, or in any way mission-incapable, the crew would be able to escape safely and live another day. This, knowing that it takes more time and more effort to train a crew than it does to build a single tank, and knowing that crew experience is invaluable. 

Rear escape hatch weighs 500kg but opened with 1 finger

Myth #3: The Merkava Acts as APC

It may be confusing for some, especially as many have heard the Merkava is capable of transporting troops. However, not everyone is aware that for the Merkava to actually transport troops, it must give up on its task as an MBT, as it is required to dump the entirety of its ammunition (bar the Merkava 3/4 that have very few rounds in the turret) to accommodate more than 1 extra fully geared soldier.

Picked up soldiers may sit in the rear where the ammo canisters are located, by removing and dumping them, but it doesn't make their ride very comfortable. The floor and walls are riddled with spikes which connect the ammo racks to them, making it practically impossible for a soldier to lean on the wall or sit comfortably without being stabbed in the ass or turning gay. 

Thus, they have to sit in a squat-like manner with all their gear. Not only that, but you can't even put half a squad in a single tank - 4 men, while a full squad is 9 men.

Doesn't seem very comfortable

Myth #4: The Merkava is Specialized Against Insurgents

Not only is it untrue, it is exactly the opposite. The Merkava was designed from the very beginning to be the best possible counter to Syrian and Egyptian tank hordes coming from the Golan and Sinai, equipped with the latest Soviet tanks and technology. 

Key features such as ammo-free turret, low profile turret, frontal engine, and rear placed hull ammo, and rear escape hatch, are all highly useful in Armored Warfare aka Tank vs Tank engagements, as they help shield the crew and tank itself from frontal hazards (i.e tanks) and are near useless in counter-insurgency warfare. 

It doesn't mean the Merkava will lag in counter-insurgency warfare though. It has demonstrated to be a highly adaptable tank, having incorporated a highly modular construction in the Mark 3 and 4 variants which allowed to defend against future threats.

For example, the modular construction allowed to install applique armor on the flanks of Mark 2, 3 and 4 tanks, as well as install an Active Protection System on the Merkava 4M. 

Myth #5: The Merkava is Big, Heavy and Therefore Slow

While partially true for the earlier Merkava 1 and 2 tanks, it's far from truth regarding the Mark 3 and Mark 4 tanks.

The early Merkava 1 and Mark 2 had a very poor power to weight ratio. They would, however, compensate by utilizing a rather unique suspension system based on springs that would absorb shock far more efficiently than torsion bars, at the cost of slightly higher weight. 

They would accelerate slower due to the power/weight ratio, but the new suspension allowed them to drive in places where an Abrams or Leopard were simply unable (e.g Golan Heights rocky fields) and provided a smooth ride and near unparalleled accuracy on the move.

Merkava 3 and 4 took a major leap ahead of the early tanks, by introducing a much improved system named TSAWS. This way, they could keep a much higher off-road speed than contemporary tanks on any terrain. The new suspension allowed them to keep the off-road speed much closer to the top speed than usual. 

For example, if an M1A2 SEP and Merkava 4 can both reach a road speed of 64km/h, then off-road the Abrams would drive at ~40km/h while the Merkava 4 would drive at 55km/h. 

So effectively, a Merkava despite its weight, can drive noticeably faster and with more confidence over rough ground than contemporary tanks. This is best described here

Spring suspension of Merkava 4 - dual springs

Myth #6: It's a Defensive Tank in Nature, Not Offensive

If I had a penny every time I heard this, I would have like $13. 

There is no such thing as defensive tank or offensive tank. 

Tanks are built for a single purpose - push. 

They don't just sit in prepared positions all day. That's what field guns are for. They see the enemy lines, fire, and push without stopping. The front-line is where the tanks are. 

Neither is there a tank that is region-specific. Engineers rarely, if at all, think of where the tank's little adventure would be next. 

Zuk Happy Place

Zuk's Happy Place

After years of participation in forums related to tanks, AFVs, and aviation, and months of consideration, I've decided to open my own blog with articles related to arms and everything that catches my eye.

In my blog I will mainly concentrate on Israeli military news, as well as occasional political topics.

It will take me some time to understand how to organize a blog, but I think it'll be worth the trouble.