Namer as LAND 400 Phase 3 contender

Monthly Australian defense outlet DefenceTechnologyReview has since the beginning of the Australian LAND 400 program, held a monopoly over information on the program, and perhaps other parallel programs that are part of Australia's recent push to modernize its equipment across all domains.

You can find their digital journal here: https://dtrmagazine.com/

LAND 400 is a program that is set to bring the Australian Army renewed capabilities in the form of a wheeled Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRV) in the 2nd phase of the program (1st phase was for requirement setting), and tracked IFVs in the 3rd phase, to replace the ASLAV and M113 platforms (respectively) currently in service, which are considered obsolete.

Phase 2 is already in an advanced stage, and two last contenders were downselected: Patria's AMV35 with an E35 turret, and the Boxer A2 with a Lance turret.
Phase 3 has yet to begin, but is closely related to the Phase 2 as it favors a bidder who integrates the same turret as the Phase 2 winner. Although commonality is a trait sought after by every armed forces as of long ago, it harms the competitive nature of the program as the winner of the 2nd phase will have a strong edge in the 3rd phase. Finding an optimal solution would be difficult. It is possible to award each competitor enough money to do integration works of the winner's turret in the 2nd phase, but the bidder who won in the 2nd phase will have the edge of smaller expenses.
This directly relates to the Namer IFV.

Namer recently tested with new turret, turning it into an IFV

Currently, the Puma from KMW, Lynx KF-41 from Rheinmetall, and CV9035 from BAE are expected to participate in the 3rd phase of the LAND 400 program. They all have commonality with the 2nd phase.
The Namer will be a an odd ball among them.

Introduction to Namer

Since the mid-90's the concept of utilizing a Merkava chassis for an APC was considered. A Merkava 1 was to be re-engineered to fit a squad of infantry in a special compartment. In 2004, the then-concept got a push and turned into an active program. This was due to what is known as the "APC disaster" (plural), when 2 M113 APCs (named Zelda in Israel) were destroyed with cheap AT weapons, and the fighters inside died. Footage of soldiers searching through the sand for remains of the deceased soldiers were deeply embedded into the public's memory.

In 2005 a prototype was shown, and in 2006 the program got another kick because of the lessons learned in the 2nd Lebanon War, as Hezbollah utilized highly powerful AT missiles/rockets such as Kornet-E, Metis-M, Toophan (Iranian copies of TOW), RPG-29 and more.

Namer prototype on Merkava 1 chassis. Notice flat sides.

In 2008 the production began, but so far only 1 brigade was equipped with the Namer, due to budget cuts. This means most of the IDF's front-line units are still equipped with either Achzarit or M113 APCs. Production was ground to a halt at some point, but currently the rate of production is said to be at 30 vehicles per year, and possibly doubled since the 2014 operation in Gaza. An estimated 600 vehicles are planned overall, and this is supported by the current contract given to RAFAEL and Elta in the sum of 1,041 Million NIS, or ~$300 million, solely for Trophy APS systems for Merkava 3 and 4 tanks, Namer APC/CEV/IFVs, and Eitans. The contract is due to end in 2027 and started in 2016.
In 2007 the cost of a single Trophy system was estimated at $300,000, which means that even if costs hadn't reduced, and they have, roughly 1,000 systems can be procured.
Of course, development costs are also included in this contract, but even if half the sum is utilized for acquisition, it's still an impressive number of front-line units that can be practically immune to a whole range of AT weapons.

In 2009 two Namer vehicles were tested in combat in Operation Cast Lead, and in 2014 already operated on a brigade level. They proved their worth against all threats found in Gaza, against the Hamas-employed Kornet missiles, RPG-29 rockets, and heavy IEDs that usually weighed hundreds of kilograms.
RPGs of various sorts, unknown whether tandem warheads or not, were used to no effect against the Namer, which proved to be invulnerable all around.
In another incident, the Namer reportedly took a Kornet missile to the side. The missile was said to have pierced the armor, but the crew and troop compartment remained uncompromised and none was injured. It leaves room for thought as to what was meant when they said the armor was pierced.
Perhaps more remarkably, the Namer drove beside a multiple story building which was booby-trapped with an IED that reportedly weighed well over a ton. The Namer was hit by the sheer force of the blast and had the building collapse on it, however again none was harmed.

In 2015 the Namer CEV was unveiled in 3 sub-variants aimed to replace the Centurion-based Puma CEV currently in service. It featured among other things increased internal capacity for a tenth passenger.

The Namer CEV was the first to feature a Trophy APS

In 2017 the Namer IFV was finally unveiled with a 30mm turret, featuring also a 60mm mortar, dual Spike missile launchers, and a Trophy APS already integrated. The idea of having a 30mm turret on it was experimented with for over half a decade, but budget cuts delayed it until now.

Another program that was in the running was replacement of the 1,200hp AVDS-1790-9AR from the Merkava 3 with the 1,500hp GD883 (previously MTU883) engine of the Merkava 4, which other than being more compact and lighter, is more powerful. However the GD883 also costs about 3 times as much as the AVDS does, while not offering a significant enough leap in power, thus the program was eventually muted and possibly cancelled.

Advantages of the Namer

Protection

Its protection level is higher than that of an MBT. The 22 tons saved by removing the turret were re-invested in armor protection over the already well protected hull. 

Built in Israel, the Namer doesn't follow NATO protection standards and suits everything to its needs, thus it is impossible to assess its actual protection in numbers. However, its front is similarly armored to the Merkava 4, which makes it capable of taking hits from high caliber cannons such as 120mm and 125mm guns firing modern munitions. 

Its sides are protected by thick slabs of passive and reactive armor, giving it an excellent and wider frontal arc compared to other APCs/IFVs, allowing it to take large caliber fire over a wider arc, and likely providing sufficient protection to make it immune to medium caliber fire, which most opt to have only the front protected against.

Against IEDs, its sheer weight of 60 to 63 tons (depending on variant) together with a thick belly plate and V-shaped hull, will make it a tough nut to crack. Higher weight translates to less noise, which then translates to fewer injuries. 

To further enhance its protection, the Namer is fitted with laser warning systems, automatically deployed smoke systems, and the Trophy APS which is a force multiplier for every vehicle.

The Namer, even without APS, however, is by far the most well protected vehicle in the competition, and probably the most well protected ground vehicle currently in service anywhere.

The second most well protected vehicle in the competition is the Puma IFV, weighing 43 tons. The Puma officially provides protection in accordance to level 6 of STANAG 4569 on the sides, through the use of ERA, and above that on the front. How much above that? Not known, but likely not too much.

The difference is quite high.

Firepower

It is the sole vehicle guaranteed to use the Trophy so far, and the Trophy has a unique feature to it - Slew to Cue. Upon detection of a threat by the Trophy system, the source of fire is located and the gunner can choose to slew the gun onto the target automatically, then fire the gun after the gun has been laid by the Trophy system.

It provides a boost to situational awareness by locating targets at a high rate, and closing the firing loop much more quickly, a vital aspect that is usually overlooked.
Kinetically, it's not too far from the front runners of the Phase 2 program. It sports the same Spike LR 2 missiles that are most likely to be chosen by Australia.
It also has a 60mm mortar which might be advantageous, but the downside is that Australia may not have, or even want to develop a doctrine for its use, i.e want to use it at all.

Integration

Having the Trophy integrated saves time and integration funds, and gives an edge in the lengthy process of the program. Same goes for the integration work of Spike LR 2 missiles, although it can use any existing Spike CLU if available information is correct.

Disadvantages of the Namer

Mobility

Being a 60 ton behemoth is no easy deal when you're expected to maintain a level of tactical and strategic mobility. 

Transporting them across the vast Australia will prove a fuel consuming journey similar to moving around Abrams MBTs.
Add to that the fuel consumption of the vehicles themselves and not merely the transporters, and you get a potentially expensive vehicle to operate.

Firepower

It currently features a 30mm cannon, whereas the competition uses 35mm cannons, so a 35mm cannon has to be integrated. RAFAEL and Elbit usually state their turrets can accommodate larger cannons (than 30mm) but the Namer's turret is made by MANTAK, a military institute and thus it's unknown how many provisions for improvement were given to this turret.