Doing just a little update since I've received new information regarding the Eitan.
*Eitan is confirmed to have 30mm cannon. *Namer will be trialed with the new cannon as well beginning next year. *new touchscreens. *off-road speed during trials is 50km/h for safety. Said to increase in operational activity. *Improved synchronization of battle management systems and communications with the fire control systems. *currently going through final operational assessment phases, soon will have an assigned schedule for acquisition. *some faults discovered, mainly communication between commander and driver. Now being fixed.
I must say, I'm quite disappointed with the choice of 30mm cannon (XM813) as it provides a lower degree of firepower than a 40mm, and is left behind in the trend of higher caliber munitions, led currently by UK, France, Spain, Russia, and China, and in the long run also the US.
The 30mm may be enough for Israel at the moment, but looking at the future and the IDF's current focus on a mix of hybrid and mobile warfare, it may not be enough in the long run. It's important to note that at the moment, the IDF does not operate a medium cannon, and as such it doesn't face the logistical constraints of ammo commonality.
However there is quite a logical reason behind the IDF's choice of 30mm over the 40mm.
The current suppliers of cannons and ammo for the 40mm CTAS are France and UK, both are deemed by Israel to be unreliable arms exporters, since both have imposed embargo on Israel, with the latter doing so just a few years ago.
Developing locally would be too time consuming and resource consuming. The IDF only chose to develop its own armament when access to foreign cannons was denied.
The Really Big News?
Namer is said to be trialed with the same turret to provide alternative fire for tanks that may not be around.
For years the debate around Namer's firepower has been central in every discussion regarding its development, and now it is finally here.
Namer has already been tested with 30mm turrets before, namely the RAFAEL Samson 30 Mk-1 and Elbit's UT-30, however it was decided to not purchase either and not to pursue a more suitable one, since these were mainly export oriented turrets.
Namer with Samson 30 Mk 1 turret in trials
What this means essentially is that the IDF will now have not one, but two true IFVs allowing it to operate true mechanized infantry with independent firepower capabilities which include precision strike at long ranges via Spike missiles.
US attaches have reported the existence of a project (Project 761) to standardize the fire-control procedures of all various Israeli Army tanks by retrofitting them with a standard computer-based system. The Israelis have approached US companies about terms of sale or licensed production of gyro-scopes; resolvers; analog-to-digital converters; micro-processors; and large-capacity, random-access memories suitable for use in tank fire-control systems. These inquiries may be related to Project 761.
The Israelis have announced two newer Merkava models -- the Merkava II and III. The Merkava II is in development, and a prototype may be completed. Israeli press reports claim that the Merkava II may enter production in 1983. The Merkava III is in a design stage and is intended for production in the late 1980s. It may have a turbine engine. The new Merkava models are planned to have improved fire-control systems, armor protection, and suspensions. The Israelis have not specified the fire-control changes.
The first Merkava gun drives may have been installed without stabilizing provisions; historically the Israelis have preferred to fire from a halt. Stabilizing circuits have been retrofitted and adopted for new production.
Merkava's 105mm rifled gun is built by Israel Military Industries (IMI) and is designated the M64-L71A. The gun is a version of the US M68 gun, which in turn is a US adaptation of the British L7 gun). A thermal sleeve is provided with most Merkava guns. The Israelis specify that their gun can fire 7 rounds per minute in the field; a trained crew once demonstrated a firing of 12 rounds per minute.
The Merkava commander has a panoramic periscope probably identical to the TRP-2A commander's sight in West German Leopard I tanks. The external sight head resembles the Leopard I's, and published specifications are identical to those of the TRP-2A. The commander's sight is supplied by Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI). The Israeli sight is specified to have 4- to 20-power zoom magnification, a counterrotating link, and coupling to the gunner's sight. The counter-rotating link keeps the sight pointed at an acquired target as the turret traverses toward the target.
The Merkava's gunner's sight is mounted in a channel cut into the right front of the turret. Steel ribs set across the channel protect the sight from ricocheting small arms rounds. An armored lid covers the sight when it is not in use.
The gunner's sight is a daylight periscope containing an Nd:YAG laser rangefinder made by the Israeli firm El-Op and a computer-driven reticle. The exact designation and configuration of the sight in deployed Merkavas is unknown. Different international publications have described the sight as having zoom magnification to 12 power or as having two magnifications, unity and 8 power. The acronym SLS, mentioned by some Israelis, may refer to the sight, part of the sight, or an optional night sight.
The Merkava computers are M13-series digital-electronic ballistic computers built by the Israeli firm Elbit. The Merkava fire-control system is often referred to as the Elbit system. The computer receives ranges from the laser rangefinder and several other ballistic inputs from other sensors. The computer then calculates the super-elevation and traverse-offset angles, including a moving-target lead angle in the traverse offset. The angle signals are applied to a ballistic drive that displaces the reticle in the gunner's sight. The reticle is probably linked by a servomechanism to the gun drive machinery, so that it shifts back to center as the gun approaches the correct azimuth and elevation.
The super-elevation signal is also sent to the hydraulic elevation part of the gun drive. This signal may be used to raise the gun automatically to firing elevation.
The laser rangefinder, cant, and traverse-rate sensors automatically send signals to the computer. The traverse-rate sensor measures the turret traverse rate as the gunner follows a moving target. The computer also automatically receives feedback signals measuring the actual super-elevation and offset angles of the reticle to ensure that these angles match the calculated angles. Ammunition choice can be entered into the computer by any of the turret crew from their control panels. The gunner can enter throw-off angles for each type of ammunition to compensate for the gun jumping up and to one side as it fires. He can also enter windspeed, charge temperatue, gun-barrel droop, and air pressure. The range is displayed to the gunner for use in any manual aiming or range verification. A gun-wear estimate, based on the number of rounds that have been fired from the gun, is stored in the computer.
Elbit also built a model of the Merkava computer and sensor subsystem with automatic sensors for all of the computer inputs. The company claimed in advertisements that the automatic sensor model is being exported (possibly South Africa - Olifant project).
Early Merkava tanks may have had a different computer that was similar to the cam-operated computers in the early US M60s. In 1979 a US attache report on the early production models of Merkava described the computer as a ballistic computer taken directly from M60 supplies. M60 computers were designated M13s by the United States.
The gunner's computer-control panel has a provision for aligning the sight and gun boresights. The alignment procedure may involve introducing an electronic bias in the computer to compensate for the small sight misalignments, instead of precise mechanical misalignments.
For night firing, all Merkava I tanks have a 1-kilowatt EOS xenon searchlight, probably a passive night sight to replace the commander's panoramic periscope, and possibly an optional gunner's night sight. The searchlight is permanently mounted at the turret rear in a spaced-armor recess. A reflector controlled by the commander opens over the searchlight and directs the beam; the searchlight itself is under armor. Early production Merkavas had no gunner's night sight, much to the dissatisfaction of the Israeli tankers. The Israelis probably require a gunner's night sight, but none have been identified. The Israelis are also interested in thermal-imaging sights for the Merkavas.
The Merkava gun drive is probably a stabilized electrohydraulic drive designed by the US firm Cadillac Gage and made in Israel under license. Earlier Merkavas had nonstabilized gun drives by Cadillac Gage, called the S.H.L in Israeli publications, but have probably been fitted with an add-on stabilization option.
The Merkava shown at the first official unveiling of the tank at the independence day show in Jerusalem in 1978 had a cylindrical fitting on the top center of the turret. The cylinder was not seen on other Merkavas. The cylinder is unidentified but superficially resembles the Leopard II commander's sight head.
Main gun: 105mm M64-L71A (Israeli made M68).
Gunnery devides: Periscopic daylight sight with Nd:YAG laser rangefinder. M13A1 digital electronic computer. Optional night sight. EOS xenon white/IR searchlight.
Gun drive: S.H.L electrohydraulic drive with optional or retrofitted stabilizing unit.
Commander's sights: Panoramic periscope similar to German TRP-2A. Separate passive night sight.
As it turned out, it was indeed true but only a part of the picture.
IDF's military magazine "Bama'hane" ("In the camp") releases new information that the new artillery piece is 5 years away from being absorbed in the army units, will feature a fully automatic loading, and cut the current crew size (8) in half.
The autoloading feature and reduced crew of 4 is not possible with a truck-based solution, and 5 years would be too much as well. So all this information points towards a Merkava based solution.
Sholef based on Merkava 1
So how should we interpret the alleged purchase of 18 units of the truck-based ATMOS?
Could be perhaps a time-saving decision to allow the IDF to test the rough capabilities of the system and adapt to the new concept of operation while simultaneously developing the vehicle.
It's also possible to assume that IDF intends to buy truck-based ATMOS for the reservists anyway, or at least the ATHOS, as equipping everyone with a Sholef-style artillery piece would be an overly difficult task.
So recently 2 big decisions regarding the cannon artillery of the IDF were made. The first being the cancellation of the bid and a single-source buy, and the other being a purchase of 18 howitzers, which is 3 batteries worth of firepower.
Let the rant begin:
Background
The IDF has been operating the M109 howitzer for 4 decades now. To put into perspective, Israel's legacy of using the M109 started way back in the Yom Kippur War.
During the service life of the M109 in Israel, the IDF developed 4 generations of an indigenous tank, assimilated 2 generations of warplanes, and 3 generations of surface ships.
Through the years, the M109 has been upgraded to the M109A5 standard, and then to the Doher standard, which includes installation of new navigation systems, fire control systems, and general life extension upgrades. Nothing major.
Supposedly, the IDF wasn't meant to receive the later versions, and intended to purchase the Sholef. An artillery vehicle weighing ~70-80 tons that in its time was second to none. Sported a very small crew of 4, a range of 41km, and a fully automatic loading system with an impressive rate of fire, all in a highly armored package.
Budget constraints killed this wonder of a weapon.
Sholef based on Merkava 3 chassis
Starting as far back as 2006, the IDF has been slowly searching for a replacement for the legendary antique called M109, however the low budget caused delays in the process, leading a program that was supposed to end several years ago, to only begin soon.
The IDF requests for an MRSI capability (unspecified amount of rounds), a 40km range, and precision fire capability.
The Options
The bidding companies are Elbit as single source, IMI+Rheinmetall, and IAI+KMW
Elbit offers the ATMOS 2000, IMI offers a thorough modernization of the M109, and IAI offers a Bradley chassis (M270) on which KMW's Artillery Gun Module will be installed.
ATMOS 2000 (Elbit)
Starting development almost 2 decades ago, the ATMOS was meant for the export market as a high end solution in a cheap package with intentionally limited capabilities. The ATMOS originally lacks an autoloader and is based on a truck. Basically a mini version of any modern capability.
Offered a modest MRSI of 3, an optional semi-autoloading system, or full autoloading system.
Despite being sold only on 6x6 and 8x8 truck chassis, Elbit says the ATMOS is a modular package that can be installed on any type of platform and configured in tiers according to the requested capabilities.
ATMOS in its most recent version
It also comes with 3 options for the cannon - L/39, L/45, L/52.
M109I7 'Spark' (IMI+Rheinmetall)
The consortium offers to take either existing or newly delivered M109 platforms, to the modern standard of L/52 guns, which the IDF requests. The upgrade includes a wide range of improvements including an automatic loading system, new navigation system, new gun laying system allowing autonomy, and a reduced crew.
The M109I7 upgrade is said to cost 20% of the PzH 2000, but offer 90% of its capabilities.
However, much of its limitations remain, and thus despite the upgrade, it will remain with a rather slow Rate of Fire, a long shoot&scoot cycle, an above average crew size, and its potential for future upgrades will be limited.
M270 AGM (IAI+KMW)
Perhaps the most unique of the three, the consortium offers to place KMW's Artillery Gun Module on the chassis on which the M270 MLRS is made. The AGM is completely modular and can be placed in its entirety on a vast array of platforms. It contains within it a medium stock of ammunition (30), a fully automatic loading system, and operates autonomously when the crew is inside their cabin at the front of the vehicle.
AGM mounted on Bradley chassis
The AGM aims to bring most of the PzH2000's capabilities in a smaller, modular package.
Choosing the Bradley as a platform, the IDF is thus offered a unique benefit of creating a chassis commonality within the artillery corps.
The consortium also offers to locate the production at the choosing of the IDF, including the USA. Meaning the IDF could purchase it for almost free, using the aid money.
Current Status
The IDF however, decided to cancel the bid, thus eliminating IAI, IMI, Rheinmetall, and KMW, and going with a single source buy from Elbit, purchasing its ATMOS system.
IAI CEO plans to speak in front of MAFAT to reverse the decision.
The more alarming news is that the IDF intends to purchase 18 units of the ATMOS, fortifying its decision that a single source buy from Elbit is the best decision.
Normally, I would promote that, knowing that it saves a considerable amount of money since the only problem at the moment is budgetary. However the IDF intends to buy the truck-based version of the ATMOS, despite its clear interest in a tracked platform.
Possible Alternative
Simply put - Revive the Sholef. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Sholef was not economically viable in the late 70's because the industry was still not ready for such a challenge (barely started producing Merkavas), and the economy was still very small and weak, having to deal with another expensive project named Lavi.
But today the Sholef is indeed economically viable. Even more so, it is economically ideal. The Merkava has evolved since the days of the Sholef, and is now, more than ever, suitable for such a task.
The armor is completely modular - No more needless chunks of steel providing unnecessary tank tier protection. It can be reconfigured to meet the lower standards, thus removing a great deal of weight without any effort.
The engine is strong enough - The Merkava 1/2 had a fairly weak engine of 908hp. Now the Sholef can use either the cheap but highly reliable engine of the Merkava 3, or the more expensive but more powerful engine of the Merkava 4.
So why is the Sholef a better alternative to the ATMOS?
Answer: Space, crew, future-proof.
Truck based solutions are very limited in their carrying capacity. A modern artillery piece needs rather heavy equipment which mainly includes an automatic loading system coupled with a high store of ammo (50+). A Merkava based solution, or alternatively, an Eitan based solution, would offer the ability to use a fully automatic loading system fed with a large amount of ammo and a drastically reduced crew.
The IDF places an emphasis on man power in its current Gideon multi-year plan, which means man-power must be cut down from 7-9 crewmen of the M109 Doher, to an optimal 4-5. It won't happen with the ATMOS's 6-man crew.
Ideal Situation
The IDF would ideally purchase Merkava-based ATMOS systems, imitating the Sholef, replace the Alfa ammo carriers with Eitan-based vehicles, and purchase the ATHOS towed artillery with its semi-automatic loading system.
Sadly, the likelihood of this ever happening is slim.
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).
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.
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.
*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.
