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. 

Elbit ATMOS partially fails demonstration

"Globes", an Israeli economy-centric news outlet who has in the past few months been the only source of information on the development of the IDF's future cannon artillery, and has taken a firm stance against MAFAT's conduct of selecting a single supplier in an allegedly flawed bid, now reports about a failed demonstration.

Elbit's ATMOS - The artillery piece intended for the IDF will be fundamentally different, and Elbit refused to show the prototype to the public.

Elbit's howitzer was said to have been demonstrated and tested twice at least. Once a month ago, and the other 2 weeks ago. The demonstration in the past month was said to be very successful, but we do not yet know how much of the system's capabilities were demonstrated, and whether or not certain parts were left out for later tests.
What we do know is that in at least one occasion, the automatic loading system has failed, and led to halting the demonstration.

Sources inform "Globes" that the trial of the new ATMOS cannon selected by the Ministry of Defense at the end of a controversial procedure was halted. Some of the capabilities of its automatic loading system were not demonstrated at all to representatives of the Ministry of Defense Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure and IDF artillery corps officers.

This is not something extraordinary. Things like this happen, especially in the rather short schedule Elbit is working on. 

Elbit failed to comment on the issue, but a "source" in the IDF relevant to this topic has said the issue has been fixed.

Something else, however, is disturbing - the IDF has yet to showcase the new artillery piece.

The Eitan, Namer + CEV, Carmel, were all shown to the public in one way or another before testing begun (in case of the Carmel, a 3D render). The Eitan's first prototype was built about a year before it was shown, but even then it was defined to the public in an appropriate way.

The ATMOS is not so much. Actually, we can't really call it an ATMOS, because we know it will be fundamentally different and acquire a Hebrew name, but we don't know just HOW different it will be.

It could be based on a truck. It could be based on an Eitan, or it could be based on the Namer (a hybrid of the Merkava 4 and 3). It could even be based on an independent and specially designed platform like the Rascal was, for all we know.

But what this means is probably that the IDF itself doesn't yet know what they want from this new howitzer other than the parameters they set for the turret.

Strangely, Elbit are also declining to show the turret prototype, and have maintained this stance since at least April when it was acknowledged a prototype was already built.

Source

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-elbit-atmos-artillery-performs-disappointingly-in-trial-1001203583

Namer IFV w/ 30mm Turret

In January this year, with great excitement I reported on the planned testing of a turret on the Namer, and today, July 31st. it finally arrived.
The turret is not an off-the-shelf design, but dedicated for the needs of the Israeli ground army.


 

Background

For years, a "war" has been raging on whether the Namer should have a turret. Both in defense related forums and defense analysis companies, and within the IDF's multiple branches related to the topic. The "Turret" camp has won, and rightfully so.

This turret is designed not just for the Namer, but for the Eitan wheeled combat vehicle as well. It was also said that in the future, the Carmel tracked vehicle will be armed with a similar 30/40mm cannon in its Combat Support Vehicle variant.

Namer with Samson 30 Mk 1 turret by RAFAEL

Features

It's very clear that this turret is not like anything I've seen before, because it has a very distinct feature of having a turret-mounted APS, not as applique but integrated into it.
Work was not finalized on it, and it may see some additions in the future in the form of an RWS and IronVision system.

At the moment, we're seeing a wide but low profile turret with a 30mm cannon. In an unconventional setup, the missile launchers are set at the rear, folded down, rather than the sides. The ammo capacity itself is also rather large, with 400 rounds, although it is unknown how many are ready to fire, and how many are in storage.

1)It is equipped with a powerful array of optics. Elbit has a long record of supplying top of the line FCS (Fire Control System) and optics to the IDF through its subsidiary El-Op, who won its first Israel Defense Prize in 1997 for creating the Baz FCS for the Merkava 3 tank.

Elbit's COAPS sight, same as the one used on Singapore's Leopard 2 EVO tanks. It appears the gunner's sight is a static version of the COAPS.

 2)Geared with Trophy HV Active Protection System, similar to the one fielded on Merkava 4M tanks and Namer CEV. The difference between this one and the CEV which already rolls with a Trophy system, is that this one is turret-mounted, and does it as an integrated system rather than applique.
Certain applications of APS on existing vehicles require mounting the APS on the hull, as it would otherwise be impossible on the turret without reaching tremendous costs, or breaching the upper limit of capabilities of the turret systems.

An APS is an immensely valuable asset on every vehicle, and is currently revolutionizing ground combat vehicles in multiple countries such as the US's MAPS effort which currently seeks an off-the-shelf system before going into a self-developed one, and Russia's Afghanit.

Training Trophy munitions in ready position.

3)Unfortunately it currently does not possess an Iron Vision system. It was hinted very vaguely that it might get it, but at the moment I'll just list it as a possibility. What indicates this is the lack of external sighting systems dedicated for that system. The COAPS cannot be used for that purpose as it is a rotating system, and the Iron Vision's application (at least 2 users per vehicle) requires a special static panoramic sight, to feed different footage to two recipients via one sight system.

However, the Eitan was said to eventually have this system by its production (in 2020, or earlier), and it is now also said that the Namer's new turret was designed for the Eitan as well, not just for the Namer.

Note the "clean" turret top

4)Something rather unexpected that caught my eye was the mortar. Yep, the iconic Merkava's feature of having a 60mm light mortar in its roof was copied into the new turret. That definitely testifies on what its operators and MANTAK as a whole think of the mortar's contributions throughout its very long service. It lays smoke at day, illuminates at night, marks targets with colored smoke, or fires HE on concealed targets to avoid exposing the vehicle. What is there not to love?

I believe it's not just a lovely gesture, but some original thinking. And although not new, it adds a new level of support the Namer can provide to its infantry. It could lay smoke for them, serve as artillery pocket for them, or the commander could even mark specific targets for them if they're not currently watching the BMS or have difficulty with precision spotting.

Mortar visible on the left side. This is reminiscent of the Merkava which houses a 60mm mortar on every variant.

5)Spike LR II missiles. They are located at the rear section in the center below a hatch and in a dual launcher.
The Spike is known for its ability to conduct precision strikes in manual guidance. This capability is further enhanced in the Spike LR II missile. It is not yet known whether it is indeed the Spike LR II missile, but judging by its schedule for production in 2018, and the Israeli Army's wish to equip its units with it, it would only make sense to use the new one.
Retracting on my previous claim, the missiles could be a great addition to the vehicle. Not because of its ability to defeat tanks, even advanced ones equipped with APS, but because of its precision strike and supportive capabilities for the infantry around the Namer.
It will be nay useless against Hamas in the Gaza strip, where the Namer will be positioned very close to the infantry, but it will shine in a hybrid warfare scenario against Hezbollah, where infantry will deploy a certain distance from the targets, and allow the Namer to use its array of weaponry from a distance while the infantry are advancing at their own pace.

Hatch for elevating dual missile launcher

Conclusion

This is an amazing improvement. Ad-hoc formations using infantry and armor from various brigades to create new "brigades" (or battalion-sized formations) were common practice, to provide battle taxis with strong firepower. Now, Namer formations can be independent in terms of firepower, and can also act as mechanized infantry thus attached to armored units. In the era of information and big data, data management is important and having to improvise on a regular basis is bad. 

The infantry will be less reliant on artillery and air power, and won't have to wait for armor whenever they have to deal with heavily fortified enemies that are out of reach for MATADOR rockets, or too numerous.

As for the turret itself, its rather unorthodox conceptual design brings about several improvements that are not entirely abundant.
Other than providing the infantry with active protection, it can support them with an exceptional and diverse array of weapons, that do anything from direct engagement, precision engagement, to artillery work, all within immediate reach for the squad commander via direct comms to the vehicle commander.

Bonus - Eitan

Eitan To Enter Service Soon / UGV Update

In a rather odd turnout, it seems the Eitan 8x8 wheeled combat vehicle will enter initial service in 2018, and not 2020 as initially envisioned.

There are several reasons to doubt this, but if true, it raises a few questions.
First, there had been no sight of a Trophy-equipped Eitan prototype. Nor a sign of a turret. Which begs the question; If they intend to start equipping infantry units with it this year, the trials with the Trophy and 30mm turret should have been underway.

For the first time, a photo of the interior was shown.

Demonstration of the 360° sighting capability

It also begs the question; where is the IronVision? A typical IronVision system would include at least 2 helmets and a sensor block on the roof. Both are absent, therefore it is possible that the Eitan will first enter service without all its key technologies - Trophy, IronVision, and a 30mm turret. 

It could help to reduce reliance on the M113, but they would eventually require refitting work for all those systems, unless they will only serve temporarily in the infantry brigades and will be later passed down for utility, which would then also require some refitting works. 

I remind that the Eitan is part of the Rakiya project which encompasses the Carmel tracked vehicle as well. Rakiya project commenced in 2012, and work on the Eitan wheeled vehicle commenced in 2014.

UGV Update

Works in the IDF on UGVs continue at a high pace, and a new UGV based on a HMMWV was displayed, with an autonomous driving capability and with a current limited range of 3km from operating station, to be extended later.

An Oshkosh truck (HEMMT) will also be demonstrated with the same capability in September this year.

With news that the Barak MBT based on the Merkava 4 will have its first prototype ready and in trials this year already, the possibility of an unmanned HMMWV being one of the Barak's tools along with retired M113, is growing, and it serves as a tremendous and highly mobile arsenal of expendable vehicles.

First anti-APS weapon: Spike LR II

Almost 9 years ago, in August 2009, something special happened. The first APS entered mass-service. Merkava 4M tanks equipped with the Trophy Active Protection System (named ASPRO-A in Rafael's portfolio), have become the standard production version of the Merkava family of tanks, and as of 2016 the Namer APCs have also joined this happy APS-equipped family.
Of course, the Trophy wasn't the first APS to be fielded in active units, and not even the first to be combat-tested, as that title definitely goes to the Soviet Drozd, fitted to T-55 and T-62 (named T-55D and T-62D respectively) in the early 80's.
The Drozd was rather primitive. It only covered a limited arc of 60°, couldn't track fast objects beyond 700m/s (although believed to be able to track faster objects than stated by manufacturer), and proved to be too dangerous for surrounding infantry, thus it was abandoned and never entered mass-service, and the outfitted tanks were sent to permanent storage.

Drozd APS utilized 4 tubes per side, covering a total of 60° in its earliest variant

Since the 80's, APS have come a very long way. From covering only 60° on the horizontal plain, no vertical protection, and primarily subsonic munition defeat, to cover a full sphere around the vehicle and intercept even hypersonic munitions.

The Threat

Now, of course, the Merkava 4M and Namer are not the only ones to tout an APS as a key asset in their protection suite. The US is now advancing quickly in its MAPS and interim APS solution programs by testing Trophy HV on the Abrams, and Iron Fist-LC on the Bradley, with the Stryker likely going with Artis' Iron Curtain.

The Abrams, for some reason, was rendered without its armor. We can see Trophy HV on Abrams and Iron Fist LC on Bradley

In December 2016 the Netherlands have also announced plans to acquire Iron Fist APS for their fleet of CV9035NL vehicles.

And perhaps the most central piece to my article today is Russia's push towards APS, and it's a serious push.

Unveiled to the public in May 2015, several new vehicles families appeared and signaled a major shift in Russian standards for land gear procurement. Russia abandoned, for the most part, most vehicle projects that commenced during the days of the Soviet Union and moved forward with a new philosophy. 

Now, the Armata family which includes the T-14, T-15, and T-16, the Kurganets family with the Kurganets-25 IFV and APC variants, Boomerang family with K-16 APC and K-17 IFV, are all going to be fitted with the Afghanit APS. Only a few years after mass-production for all these vehicles commenced, Russia will be able to take pride in a huge fleet of ground vehicles protected with an APS, a technology that is only beginning to revolutionize ground warfare.

5 Afghanit tubes embedded onto the turret of the T-14 tank

The Solution

So how can this suddenly appearing threat be properly met? The first country to admit taking this matter very seriously, is Norway.
Norway is now looking to replace its relatively new and modern Javelin anti-tank missile systems with a new weapon capable of penetrating APS defenses. They're looking for at least 100 systems with a total program cost of 200-350 million NOK (23-40 million dollars).
This comes almost immediately before Rafael, developer of the world renowned Spike missile, has announced the existence of the Spike LR II missile, which brings the Spike from 3rd and 4th generation into the 5th generation realm, which has so far only been inhabited by the MBDA MMP missile.

Spike LR II will enter production in 2018 and is a 5th Generation missile

Interestingly, the Spike LR II has already secured a first order, which together with Norway's announcement of its future acquisition program may hint that Norway is the first customer. Time will tell.

I will not go into detail about the Spike LR II, other than just mentioning that it is 10% lighter, penetrates 30% more, and flies 38% farther.
More can be found here (link).

The one feature that really deserves mentioning is the Spike LR II's ability to dive at a very steep angle of 70°. 

This does not really bother systems like the Trophy HV, Iron Fist, or Iron Curtain that the US, Netherlands, Israel, and Australia are fielding or plan on fielding. (ADS is also being considered in Australia's case), as these are all providing hemispheric protection that will have no trouble defeating such ATGM. However, Russia's Afghanit APS does not provide hemispheric protection, nor full rounded protection, and only protects on the horizontal plain, therefore it is vulnerable to such an ATGM.

The Afghanit borrows its concept from the Drozd system which I shortly described earlier. 

Drozd was capable of hitting with its tube-launched grenades, targets that were ~30° elevated or depressed relative to the tank's center-line, therefore we can assume the Afghanit can do the same.

With enhanced fragmentation and proper programming, it could probably be increased to 40°. Considering that, Spike missiles could evade the Afghanit with a Fire & Steer mode of operation, but that would require both a higher level of skill in operating the missile, and to constantly man the missile launch unit until the missile hits the target.

What the Spike LR II allows is to guarantee a hit on the top of the tank, where it is completely uncovered, without anyone manning the missile in a complete Fire & Forget mode.

Just Temporary

As I have mentioned above, only the Afghanit seems to be vulnerable to this system, as the Spike LR II uses a high angle of attack to exploit the Afghanit's large dead zone.

Russia has taken delivery of RPG-30 rockets, with the unique feature of a dummy warhead located in a separate small tube, which is fired before the real rocket is fired as a type of precursor. The precursor dummy round is supposed to activate the APS, leaving it unprepared to deal with the real rocket coming in right behind it. However, due to its concept of operation, and according to Rafael press releases, the RPG-30 remains largely ineffective against the Trophy, and was said to actually be developed to counter the Drozd and Arena systems, which may imply that the Afghanit is also vulnerable to decoys.

Precursor can be seen on the right tube

In order to defeat decoys, all that is needed is a 3D radar that will determine the shape and size of the projectile and classify it as either potentially dangerous or not, so the RPG-30 is ultimately a nice but failed concept.

Other APS systems that are currently fielded or will be fielded in western armies, are immune to top attack munitions, even those going down completely vertically on target, and it seems that for now, the theoretical solution to APS will be merely fire saturation.

End Result

It seems that despite the Spike LR II merely taking advantage of a dead zone of the Afghanit APS, NATO will have a strong counter to Russia's brand new fleet of armored vehicles for a long while, as replacing the Afghanit at this stage would be far too difficult, and would put Russia's land vehicle programs at an unbearable delay, even further than the delay they're suffering at the moment.

The Road Ahead

The future lies in saturation capabilities. Today, the best example of combat between APS-protected vehicles is naval combat. Every ship is protected with vast arrays of air defense systems that can intercept missiles at different stages of their flight and different ranges, all the way from hundreds of kilometers to just tens of meters away from the ship. 

Protective qualities of ships are usually measured in their ability to sustain a certain saturation fire, and ASM capabilities are usually measured in their ability to apply pressure on the defensive array and force at least a single missile through for a given salvo.

The winner is usually the one who manages to either deplete his opponent's defensive weapons and still retain ASMs, or apply a saturated enough salvo that the opponent will not be able to handle in a single time.

Same will go for ATGMs. How do you do that? You work mainly on the price. Simplify the seeker, warhead, battery, engine, everything you can do to drive the cost down, you do. That, I believe, will soon become the new hot trend in missile-building technology, together with a light weight. Both will allow higher salvos per tank, ensuring quick depletion of the APS's munitions.

Regarding tanks, who will naturally also take a major part in anti-tank operations, will have to rely on faster rates of fire to deplete the enemy's APS quickly. The Abrams, for example, MAY have an autoloader planned at the moment for existing M1A2 tanks, as described in an old article of mine.

Sources

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/20/time-arm-us-tanks-israeli-anti-missile-tech.html

http://armor-il.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/netherlands-first-aps-user-in-nato.html

https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/f134b420fc8f4d4889aaa06b2400c08e/2017-04-07-u-faf-2017-2025-english---final.pdf

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafael-to-debut-spike-lr-ii-missile-in-paris-437979/

http://defense-update.com/20170529_spike_lr_2.html

http://armor-il.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/abrams-to-get-drone-operating.html

Latrun Conference: Carmel tech demonstrator

First I'd like to thank IsraelDefense.co.il for covering a great deal of information given during the 2nd International Ground Warfare Conference held in Latrun this year, and a thank-you to Sirpad from Fresh.co.il forum who also attended the conference and obtained further images of the Carmel technology demonstrator vehicle that were not posted on the IsraelDefense.co.il website.

General Characteristics

-Halving the weight relative to current vehicles. The goal is 35 tons without compromising protection. A lighter platform will better navigate inside tight urban areas.

-Automatic identification, jamming, and destruction capability for every direct threat on a tank.
-Autonomous engagement of enemy targets as immediate retaliation to enemy fire.

-Increased protection, and significant reduction in the vehicle's signature (visual, thermal, noise etc).
-Multi-layered APS for both point defense and area defense of surrounding assets.

-Real time communication between all surrounding vehicles and units, and ad-hoc communication network for sharing targets.

-More advanced weaponry and ammunition than those currently existing. Hinted non-conventional guns.

-Advanced materials and transparent armor.

-Hybrid drive, smart energy management systems.

-Universal platform.

-Cyber protection for the communication and computerized systems inside the vehicle.

-Protected crew capsule with 3-person capacity.

-2 man crew. Third being a platoon or company commander with equipment to control unmanned assets.

-Dual controls for all crewmen to allow replacement of a crewman without leaving one's station.

-Medium caliber armament of unspecified type. Likely above 30mm and around 40-60mm.

Concept Art

Seen with wide FOV periscopes.

Same version but periscopes are absent.

No rear door.

Family includes APC(?), Recon, CEV, and VSHORAD as well as the standard version.

Okay so let's get down to it, shall we?
The concept art surprised pretty much everyone, including me. But not because of its odd shape, but because it's sloppy.
There is no rear door, so how could the crew enter or exit? There is no V-shaped hull, no APS, and no sights for either the RCWS or panoramic sights.
Not to mention the odd shape of the hull makes little sense. It would be reasonable to provide a higher level of protection to the crew capsule (center portion of the vehicle), but the side armor modules are each shaped differently, which means more different components for the sake of aesthetics which the design team of the concept art is responsible for.
The periscopes take up an immense amount of space and therefore pose a weakspot right above the crew compartment. This is sub-optimal because in an urban environment, top protection is vital. However in one of the pictures it is removed.


For the above-mentioned reasons, I am confident that this is NOT going to be the way the Carmel looks like in the final version. But here are a few details that the concept art does give us:


1)The family of vehicles based on Carmel will replace the Namer which currently serves as an APC and CEV, and will soon be converted to IFV as well. There is no mentioning of a troop carrying capacity for the Carmel yet, but because we see an HMG armed variant, it's likely it will be an APC.
It might be stretched, as opposed to the pictures.

2)Interestingly no MBT variant is shown, which is odd because if it will replace the Namer APC and IFV and Nemmera CEV, it will make the Merkava 4 Barak MBT the only one in the Merkava family without a proper long term replacement plan.

Again, the Carmel will be a highly advanced vehicle with a multitude of advanced capabilities and innovative technologies, but the concept art gives us more doubts than answers.

Latrun Conference: Barak MBT And ATMOS SPH

In time for the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference through May 16-17 and the 4th International C5I (C4I plus Cyber) Conference in May 18th, speeches regarding the development of Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) and developing tactics for their use, are being given.

I took the liberty to translate certain sections of these speeches and post them here, and analyze the new information that we're being given here regarding the Barak MBT, a little on the good old Mark 4, and simultaneously we've received new/old information on the Elbit ATMOS artillery system.

So far, in perhaps just a single release with just a single paragraph of text, a great deal of information was gathered on the Barak, and it was talked about here (link).

Let's dig in!

Another aspect is automation. We need automation systems that provide a real added value. Such systems are almost nonexistent at present. I do not want a robot that the enemy will destroy after a minute and a half. I need robots with automatic and semiautomatic modes of operation. Another layer concerns automatic firing. Wherever the human element is involved in the firing, the result is less favorable. The human element has an adverse effect on the precision and timing of the firing. The systems should provide automatic firing. That is the future. The next model of the Merkava tank will have an automatic firing button. The tank will detect and identify the element firing at it and would discharge a round at the source of fire 30 seconds later. You cannot accomplish that with a man in the loop.

Immediately we're given information about 2 innovations the Barak will have:

*Robots - autonomous or semi-autonomous.

*Automatic firing.

Let's talk about robots first.

UGV

This is really self explanatory. UGVs can provide a plethora of capabilities. I have talked about it in my previous post on the Barak (Link can be found above), so I will make it short by giving a few examples; UGVs can provide force protection by carrying IED detecting and jamming equipment, and if it goes undetected, it will take the hit as it'll go first.

Supply lines will be significantly reduced in areas regarded as vulnerable to ambushes by simply driving a pack of freight UGVs. 

I should mention that the US is now conducting a similar program for drone operating via specialized crewman inside a tank, with feasibility testing beginning this year. Read about it here (link).

But now they're talking about automatic firing in tanks so it should have a pretty serious impact on UGV conception. We could see armed UGVs also conducting automatic firing via sensory cues, and there might be legal implications. But the big news, if it is true, is that the IDF will start fielding armed drones at some point (other than EOD), whereas despite Israel's very strong market presence in this field and vast R&D record, Israel has so far been reluctant about using armed drones.

Automatic Firing

For a first time in manned ground vehicle conception perhaps, automatic firing is being talked not as a possibility, but as an actual plan for a vehicle that is already in development and slated to enter service just 4 years from now (2021).

This topic has been a Taboo. When it comes to firing, a man-in-the-loop always was considered the only moral choice to make, preferably with the shooter actually seeing the target.

For reasons I shouldn't mention, many countries have banned unmanned firing procedures.

But it's not exactly that, and perhaps we'll never even talk about robotized firing on human targets in the conventional sense. Because in this case, it's a part of one fail-safe solution. The fire is retaliatory.

In 2011 Trophy revolutionized armor development by exponentially increasing a tank's protective capabilities at just a fraction of the weight of its armor. But it also introduced other advanced features which include Slew-To-Cue. An enemy would fire upon the tank, and the turret would quickly turn towards the target and await the gunner to pull the trigger. This time it's just a modification of this operation. The FCS (Fire Control System) would no longer wait for the gunner or commander. It would identify the firing source, and shoot on its own. 

Closing the firing loop as fast as possible was a key capability the IDF has been building in the past few years, and this decision will certainly help to improve it.

Net-Centric Combat

Sadly this is hardly ever talked about in Tank and AFV discussions despite being a crucial aspect of the ground maneuver. The flexibility of the maneuvering forces to adapt to the emerging threats is what determines the result of the battle in the most dominant way.

The network will also affect the organization of the Armored Corps. The network should be secure, stable and reliable. During Operation Protective Edge, the network demonstrated stability for the first time. The information should be delivered quickly and must be relevant and accurate. We cannot accept an accuracy level of 20 meters. We need an accuracy level of up to two meters. With the network, the commander will be required to live and operate in a technological environment. The human element will have to accommodate the information, including on-line command. How do you make decisions under such conditions? That is a very serious question.

It may not be immediately obvious but they're talking about the BMS. In the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the BMS played a key role in the success of the armored corps, by allowing each tank to maintain clear communication with one another, with higher command, and with forces nearby. Improving the BMS is a given, but its merits are not to be underestimated. Even improved UI (User Interface) can go a long way in adding value to the combat vehicle. Communication is all the rage lately, and rightfully so.

This time however, they're talking about integrating entire systems with the BMS. This should include the FCS, IronVision, Trophy, and more.

This sort of added data input will be significant. Commanders will see targets on a helmet display rather than a touchscreen hidden among numerous other screens in his station. Upon being fired on, they'll see the shooter physically, and the tank could engage targets that are visually hidden but seen on the BMS through the FCS.

On Merkava 4's Armor

The Merkava tank does not have reactive armor boxes. Instead, it is fitted with continuous, semi-reactive armor. If you are hit in the same spot, you will still be protected and will be able to sustain additional hits in the same spot. In order to protect the tank crew, you will need a combination of active protection with semi-reactive/passive armor. Anyone who says that active protection is sufficient fails to take into account all of the threats the tank faces

 It was previously speculated that the Merkava 4 has ERA or SLERA (Self Limiting ERA) embedded in its armor due to the picture below:

Translates to Explosive

It was also speculated that the Merkava uses NxRA as armor, judging by this patent by RAFAEL.

But what could they mean by Semi-Reactive? Could NxRA be classified as such? Could SLERA? Both yes. Because they said "Reactive Armor Boxes". Didn't mention "Explosive", and both are indeed reactive in their nature.

The Reactive Armor groups split into 4 main categories;

1)ERA - Most effective per single shot but has poor survivability as it depletes after 1 shot.

2)SLERA - Less effective per shot but more survivable version of ERA. Potentially classified as passive.

3)NERA - Again step down in effectiveness per shot but more survivable. 

4)NxRA - Combines effectiveness of SLERA with survivability of NERA, making it more efficient than both SLERA and NERA, at least according to RAFAEL's patent.

Judging by the currently available information will be tricky, so I will refrain from getting into wild conclusions based on guessing. You be the judge!

A Bit On The ATMOS

Scratch everything I've said so far about the ATMOS and Elbit's proposal. This gun will not be the total mess I predicted it to be, if we're to believe Elbit regarding their plans for the artillery system. This, I believe, is the first time in a long time that they've given us new technical information.

Here goes:
1)The new howitzer will have autonomous engagement as well as fully autonomous loading. A crew of just 1 person is said to be able to make efficient use of the vehicle, as loaders and gunners aren't necessary. The turret will remain entirely unmanned.

2)Crew of 3 or up to 6 may be kept nonetheless if the IDF deems it more appropriate.

3)Each gun will be an independent fire unit. Fire could be directed via a remote Fire Control Center.

4)Testing will continue until the end of summer 2017.

5)Yet unknown whether it will be mounted on wheeled or tracked chassis. They say it won't affect the vehicle's non-mobility related performance.

6)A new precision fire fuze has been integrated to allow cannon artillery a cheap precision fire capability. This would add up to 3 different arrays within the artillery corps to have precision fire capabilities. The fuze is made by IAI and dubbed "TopGun".

7)A restriction on rate of fire of 8 rounds per minute is hinted, but said that it can be simply ignored if there are enough available rounds.

8)The vehicle's computers will be able to select the appropriate shell, fuze, and charge (modular charges) according to the mission without any human input.

Sources

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29642

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29614

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29649

Elbit chosen to supply Israel's future SPH

In an unsurprising move, Elbit was selected as the winner in the "tender" for the IDF's future Self Propelled Howitzer. After a decade of debate, development of a custom built howitzer is now underway. 

This follows months of analysis of alternatives by MAFAT (Research and Development Agency), and consultations with all relevant bodies.

Despite Elbit's victory not surprising anyone, it does appear odd that the winner, Elbit, is the only one in the tender to not actually present a functional system. At least not in the required configuration.

Its ATMOS 2000 has been used by numerous countries and trialed in Israel where it fired several thousand rounds already. But the new configuration it offers to the IDF is said to be completely untested.

The ATMOS 2000 in Elbit's portfolio is a modern and capable system, but is built for export and thus not optimal for IDF's needs. Therefore, it is speculated that the IDF requested the ATMOS's systems and subsystems (e.g gun, GPS, laying system, sensors, FCS) to be transferred to another, existing platform, supposedly a Merkava chassis. 

The Merkava has been the basis for a wide family of vehicles due to its naturally flexible construction, including a prototype howitzer before. 

Another alternative to the Merkava chassis, which was said to be considered, is the M270's chassis. This would allow the IDF to utilize aid money to purchase parts of the SPH and would create a commonality within the artillery corps, as the supply vehicles and MLRS utilize the same chassis.
KMW+IAI proposed the AGM (Artillery Gun Module) that follows this principle, however such decision would be short-sighted, as the supply vehicles are also becoming outdated, and the MLRS could be mounted on the IDF's recently acquired FMTV trucks, utilizing the Lynx architecture by IMI. Effectively creating a HIMARS equivalent.

AGM by KMW and IAI on M270 chassis

HIMARS utilizing Oshkosh FMTV truck and MLRS module

Elbit will develop the new SPH through its subsidiary Soltam. 

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/29137

IronVision tested on Merkava

Coming much sooner than expected, the Israeli Defense Forces are going to start initial testing phases of the IronVision system by Elbit this month. 

The IronVision is a helmet based system that provides a clear, transparent view of the surrounding area around the tank and feeds the image to the helmet directly, and follows the operator's head movement. 

Among its features are:

* A slew-to-cue mechanism, in which the commander can direct the gun towards the target.

* Ability to operate the tank's weaponry.

* Display of information from the WINBMS (Weapon Integrated Battle Management System).

* Zero latency feed in day and night modes.

* VR training.

Helmet of the IronVision system also featuring night vision mode

Its implementation in the Merkava is part of the Barak program which was described here.

The Barak is a tank based on the Merkava 4 and set to have a functional prototype ready within 3 years. 

The readiness to have the system tested so shortly, indicates that the scope of the upgrade may be far bigger than initially thought, and the IronVision may only be a small part of it.

Israeli Light Tank Prototype

In memory of a prominent contributor to the Merkava project, Yehiam Herpez, a book was written to describe his life work, in the form of interviews of colleagues and friends.

What caught my eye was a unrevealed project the IDF once had - a light tank!

The book can be found here in hebrew:

http://www.himush.co.il/himush.co.il/originals/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%20%D7%99%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%9D.pdf

Although he participated in the development of every generation of the Merkava and their automotive components and especially suspension, he was most highly appreciated for his success in developing the Merkava 3's suspension, which was considered no less than revolutionary at the time. 

Since the Mark 4 relied on a slightly improved Merkava 3 suspension and didn't take much of the development time, Yehiam was reassigned to the Light Tank project.

The Light Tank was developed in parallel with the Merkava 4 but doesn't seem to be based on any existing vehicle.

Despite having a frontally mounted engine, similar to the Merkava, there is no relation between the two.

It has an MG253 gun, an Achzarit Mk 1's engine Detroit Diesel 8V71TA (radiator moved to the hull floor below crew compartment), and a newly developed torsion bar suspension.

This decision seems odd, as there is no place in the Israeli doctrine for a light tank for many reasons, the most prominent of which are the lack of protection and no need for strategic transportation. 

It was most likely related to the then-efforts to create a future tank based on requirements of low weight and easy transportation. 

The real reason it was ever made is still a mystery.

Merkava 4 Barak

Background

Amid a problematic period for the IDF Armored Corps, several highly important announcements were made. The Armored Corps has a popularity issue, and to be more exact - it is the least popular in the ground forces. In the last incident, 86 men who were conscripted to the armored corps, refused to be enlisted to the corps and demanded to be reassigned to other units, primarily infantry. 

To repair this, the IDF came out in a few statements that will likely bring up its popularity. A very vaguely said one, but perhaps the most important of them all, is the development of a thorough upgrade for the Merkava 4, named Barak.

The Barak is said to be already in development, with a working prototype being ready within 3 years from now.

As a side note; Merkava 3 tanks are also slated to receive the Trophy APS of the upgraded variant, on which I will elaborate further in this post.

Stated features

1)More and larger touchscreens.

2)External cameras.

3)Upgraded Trophy system.

4)Better, BMS, observation and identification systems.

5)Sensor fusion and data fusion.
6)Unmanned Ground Vehicle operation.

What can we infer

1)Makes it practically a "smart" tank that brings it closer to what the youth that operates these tanks is familiar with. Every crew member's interface will be easier to handle.

2)External peripheral cameras existed on Merkava tanks for a little over a decade now. Clearly the mean something else, right? Right. The system at hand is the Elbit's IronVision which is based on Elbit's existing products - JHMCS 2 fighter pilot helmet designed for the F-35 warplane, and STA peripheral camera set that covers a hemispherical view (except the belly) around the tank.

So why cannot the IDF just settle for the STA and wants to go for the highly expensive helmet system? Because using the cameras with a joystick is time consuming in a rapidly changing environment, and it is tedious, which then forces tank crews to peek outside the tank and expose themselves. 

Elbit's IronVision system

A usual setup for the IronVision is 2 helmets - one for the TC, and another for the driver.

3)The development of a Trophy 2 system has been announced in 2014 and is a cooperation between RAFAEL (developer of the Trophy 1), IMI (developer of Iron Fist), and IAI.

IMI will provide its Iron Fist interceptors, IAI will provide the radar, whereas RAFAEL will do the integration and development work.

Iron Fist and Trophy are two very different systems, with very different features that act as their selling points. 

Iron Fist is a "grenade" launching system that applies a fragment-free directed spherical blast that would "cut" an ATGM or RPG mid-air, or will tilt an APFSDS shell to the point where it is no longer a threat. According to IMI's CEO, a simple 7° yaw would reduce the APFSDS's energy by up to 90%.

According to test footage, the yaw was actually far greater than 7°, and was nearing 45°.

At 3:00 a test against APFSDS is shown

Iron Fist provides a full protection suite that would defeat any form of existing fired anti-tank threat, but to do that it needs rather large munitions that cannot be reloaded in the current configuration.

Trophy, on the other hand, uses a much more unique method of firing an MEFP charge (Multiple Explosively Formed Penetrators) that sends sharp pellets flying towards the target. The charges are small and can be reloaded through an auto-loading system beneath it, however these small charges are unable to defeat APFSDS.

One more advantage of the Iron Fist is that it is more compact, and can be more easily applied to lighter platforms, for example the Eitan that will soon enter production. The Trophy is rather bulky in its current configuration when fitted to turreted IFVs.

Trophy HV on LAV III

4)The Merkava 4 is already equipped with a significant array of means to identify hostile elements. Starting with its basic gunner's and commander's sights with multi-channel feeds, to an interconnected BMS shared among the entire ground forces as well as the air force, to the Trophy which is able to pinpoint the location of an ATGM position immediately after firing. 

It could very well mean that another element for search and identification will be used, and among the options is a BMS coupled with the IronVision that provide visual location of a pre-identified enemy, rather than a dot on a flat 2D display. 

BMS are a great thing, but they're only as effective as the operator's ability to comprehend the data.

Even the best conventional BMS is not comfortable to operate

5)Tank Commanders (TC) are often overburdened with information in the heat of battle. Keeping up with constant reports of enemy movement, friendly movement, and ongoing fire exchanges is no easy task, and is highly prone to human error. For example in 2014 operation in Gaza, 5 soldiers were killed from friendly fire, and in an extreme case incident, a tank fired 4 HE shells on another friendly tank located several kilometers away. None was injured. The incident resulted from the TC's lack of understanding of where friendly units are positioned at the moment, and temporary lack of ability to identify the target as a friendly tank.

With the BMS, IronVision, and new communication technologies being implemented in the new Merkava 4 Barak, there is now a chance to integrate them into a single grid that will feed simplified data to the TC and substantially increase the combat capabilities of the tank on an individual level and battle group level.


6)The ability to receive feed from UAVs has existed for quite a long time, but UGVs are a completely different animal.
Although Israel does not yet make killer robots such as the Russian Uran-9, its industries have gained a world leader status in that field. The Guardium UGV has successfully been patrolling the Gaza border and around airfields, as well as in the volatile northern region, the Protector USV has been protecting Israel's ports, and a long line of UAVs have taken Israel Air Force's duty as the most numerous type of aircraft to be flown. 

Israeli industries have showcased a very wide range of solutions based on unmanned vehicles; ranging from logistics, surveillance and convoy protection to decoys and possibly firing platforms.

Perhaps the most creative and cheapest one would be to use masses of repurposed M113 APCs converted for unmanned operation, as supply carriers, forward observation vehicles, decoys for IEDs, and a whole range of missions. They're available in thousands and the conversion is very cheap.
In military terms it's really nothing.

Israel is leading in robotic autonomy development, and so creating a fleet of unmanned vehicles based on M113 for a multitude of missions, would definitely be viable.

What it means

Touchscreens already exist on the Merkava, but improving the interface further and making everything more accessible, will shorten training time and will be another step towards IDF's plans to reduce overall service time, which many criticize as a wrong decision because training time will take up too much of that period.

The ability to see through the armor and into the environment and the higher level of data gathering from new sensors, its fusion into a streamlined and simplified data; will significantly improve the crew's situational awareness and thus their overall effectiveness in all existing combat scenarios.

The Trophy 2 system will likely incorporate an automatic loading system into the Iron Fist's launcher system, giving it a highly durable operation that would allow both defeating tank-fired APFSDS, and deal with high saturation fire from all sorts of threats.

And the ability to control drones would greatly aid the tanks, as a group, in any given scenario as well. It could be a convoy protection vehicle that detects mines and IEDs. It could be a forward observation light vehicle to provide early reconnaissance before the tanks arrive at the scene, thus give it more independence from infantry recon. And even simply cargo carrying vehicles.
Israel is constantly pursuing independence of its military units on every level. Starting with independence of every branch to conduct all forms of operations, to battalion size independence. Such overlap of capabilities ensures resilience of the combat units even when taking heavy losses.

It also gives the tank crew up to brigade level, more accessible information and thus more freedom to make actions.


All in all, the tank will become a lot easier to operate, and a lot more comfortable. Comfort and ease of operation are essential for the crew to fulfill the machine's potential as much as possible, and are key for increased performance both on the individual level, and on the theater.

The addition of Trophy APS to a wider range of vehicles is also a revolutionary action for the IDF. Just 2 years ago it was still a system that only those who enlist to the 401st brigade could get the opportunity to play around with. Now it's operational in 2 brigades and a host of other units are getting it - Namer, Eitan, and Merkava 3 have all joined in through a massive purchase of hundreds of APS systems from RAFAEL.
The IDF will thus not only have a sperheading brigade in its sleeve. It will have at least two divisions rolling with it.

Conclusion

The envisioned Merkava 4 Barak upgrade plan is no less than revolutionary. Even if it isn't a Merkava 5, as it is still very much based on the existing Merkava 4, its capability leap can be seen as greater than the leap between every generation of Merkava tanks.

Each generation of Merkava introduced a farther leap in capabilities than the predecessor, and the Mark 4 Barak seems to provide just the revolutionary capabilities that make it more of an improvement than the Mark 4 was over the Mark 3.

So while it isn't a Merkava 5, it could certainly qualify as such.

And why isn't it a Mark 5? Because the concept of the Merkava 4 pretty much makes it a very long lasting machine. Its modular armor construction ensures it can grow enough to protect against any future threat, as the older armor modules can be switched out with newer ones with bare minimal cost.

Its FCS architecture is also modular, and easily accepts new emerging technologies. 

The engine bay allows for plenty of room for engine exchange. 

And the gun mantlet was built in a way to accept even the much larger and heavier 140mm guns (in cooperation with Switzerland), so even if a certain firepower upgrade is needed, it won't be expensive.

The Merkava 4 is envisioned to stay in service for a very long time, and in parallel the Rakiya - the next generation of combat vehicles, will be developed and produced.