Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Mighty_Zuk

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    1,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Mighty_Zuk

  1. The need for a new MBT as replacement for the M1 has been identified a while ago, and intentions to create a replacement based on OMFV technologies have also been declared. Feel free to continue this discussion at the US AFV thread and ask other members who keep track over these things.
  2. As I previously said, there is a lot of commonality between the Carmel/Kaliya and the NGCV program. Both are tasked to create some AFV that adds all these new ideas. The type of AFV (APC/IFV/MBT/recon etc etc) is dependent on what the IDF and US Army think is most urgent for them at the moment. For the US it may be a Bradley replacement, and for the IDF it could be a medium IFV to replace Namers or an MBT to replace Merkavas. Whatever the first version they choose, it's supposed to be a technological baseline for every other AFV type they field. If plans don't change, the M1A3 development will coincide with a certain phase of the OMFV's development, to draw on these technologies. Similarly, the IDF plans to use the Carmel program as a baseline for an MBT program to replace the Merkava. The vehicle shown in the video is nothing more than a show of a collection of concepts. It is hardly applicable as-is in modern combat between peers.
  3. I personally think that they added 2 RCWS simply because they already want 2 independent sights (current AFVs only have 1 at best), so attaching an RCWS with is really cheap and simple. This way both crewmembers get a sight of their own, and the ability to engage targets independently of who uses the main gun. It can also be used to emulate the concept of Bright Arrow without burdening the interceptors/launchers themselves with the added weight of an RCWS. Bright Arrow is basically a derivative of the Iron Fist LC in which an MG is attached to each launcher, and fires a burst immediately after the launcher fires. This way, in short range engagements it has a very high chance of eliminating the personnel who fires at the vehicle. At the cost, of course, of traverse speed of the launcher and thus increasing its reaction time.
  4. Eitan's first prototype still rocking it, this time seemingly testing its run-flat system and a new driver aid system, which I assume is an ultrasonic device for distance measurement.
  5. Keep in mind folks that the MT883 engine is what allowed the IDF to finally get the Merkava's frontal hull armor from piss poor on the Mark 3 to rock solid in the Mark 4. The Namer already got armor as thick as that of the Merkava 4's at the front, but could further be enhanced. I am inclined to believe, however, that the AVDS engines are no longer supported, or just improlerly supported. A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.
  6. A couple thermobaric (fuel-air) rockets can cover a fairly wide area relative to a line charge, are very cheap and easy to make, and can be carried in large numbers on a single vehicle. And I'm not sure about the following one but I believe they can exert substantially more downwards pressure to defeat AT mines. Will have to check this one.
  7. The Kaliya program, which birthed the Eitan in 2014 before separating from it, is supposed to create a whole family of vehicles, but they don't necessarily have to be the vehicle you see in this video. It may definitely include an MBT as well. The Carmel is a feasibility test, and anywhere between early 2020 and late 2027, the IDF should bunch up all the technologies they want for this program, and decide how to design the next family, or families, of vehicles. A tank to replace the Merkava 4 Barack will eventually be made. Whether it's going to be some form of evolution of the existing concept of Merkava tanks or a design that is radically different, is not yet known. Only that it will exist, and that it will incorporate Kaliya technologies. What you're seeing in this video is basically just a Wiesel-tier vehicle with all the latest and greatest situational awareness gadgets. This is a vehicle type for which the IDF does not have a doctrine, and likely does not plan to develop one for.
  8. @LoooSeR is that early bit of data on the 12 tanks entering service, is the only available data on the matter atm? Because it sounds a lot like they're just sending serial variants to experimental units and not regular troops. And afaik experimental units, along with their logistical backing, are totally organic.
  9. I cannot stress how logistically retarded this is. Maybe I'm just used to the Israeli system of upgrading one battalion because the logistical framework only allows battalion-level equipment changes. Maybe Russia's logistical framework is so comprehensive that it allows full support over long ranges to platoon level troops. But if that is not the case, and they don't have special logistical units to support experimental units, then that's fucked. And from what I've read the state trials should have ended or should end soon.
  10. As far as we know, the plans on switching to a larger caliber gun remain in place. I have estimated, and still believe, that there will be an exceptionally high level of cooperation between Israel and the US in the Kaliya and OMFV programs, due to the high degree of similarity between the two projects. In the previous video, posted by the Israeli MoD about a year ago, they showed a larger caliber gun, although it seems they were still ambiguous about it.
  11. It's just poor animation, that's all. If you look carefully, you can see that it's identical in shape to the sights located at the front of the turret.
  12. My post from here: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5197154648992459577#editor/target=post;postID=3802146867857306860;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname On 11/02/2019 Jane's posted a video from IAV (International Armored Vehicles), showing an interview given by Shmulik Olanski, Head of Innovation Programs Center, Land and Naval division. In the interview, Olanski talks a lot about Rafael's evolving future armored vehicle suite intended to provide mission support to the two crewmembers, also known in Israel as the Carmel. In the Carmel project, three teams, or three companies, were pitted against each other in a $100m competition between Rafael, IAI, and Elbit, to design a cockpit for the next generation AFV of the IDF. One of the key aspects of the cockpit are the ability of the crew to observe their surroundings almost seamlessly and thus prevent casualties from small arms fire when crewmembers stick their heads out of the vehicle. I remind that the concepts are as following: Elbit - IronVision helmet mounted system. Rafael - Panoramic wide screen setup. IAI - Combination of wide screens and a helmet. IAI has still not presented its concept in a visual way, nor has publicly revealed any details about it, other than it being a combination of Elbit's and Rafael's concepts. Elbit's concept was also revealed a while ago: Elbit has also presented a prototype at roughly when Rafael only began working on their solution, but that won't seem to be an issue, except for one thing: Elbit's solution has already been picked for the Merkava 4 Barack MBT, Eitan IFV, and presumably also the Namer AFV. This may create some bias within the IDF for Elbit's system for the Carmel, however the Carmel is supposed to be a clean sheet design, and the competition is only supposed to examine various concepts, not the end product's performance. It is also in my belief that Elbit's control of the BMS market will not affect the competition. The purpose of this post is to provide a brief summary of the pros and cons of each of the presented solutions. Rafael Pros Crewmen can point to the other crewman on the screen, and be sure they are observing the same thing. Especially useful in ambush scenarios, or in recon duties when the BMS is not yet fed with the target data or cannot pick up the target. Easy data input via touching the screens. More intuitive for a larger crew - a 3rd human crewman may be added for special missions. More rugged. Can possibly display other critical mission data when external cameras are offline. May be used to interface with other systems in the tank during the mission, when cameras are online. Stimulates team-work. Cons Coverage is limited to the location of the screens, requires movement of the independent panoramic sights to observe high elevation targets, which may take up some of the visual space for the other crewman. Either analog and thus inferior movement of the independent sights or complex eye tracking technology. Elbit Pros More intuitive for the single crewman, seeing everything right in front of his eyes. Easier to operate the independent (TC or gunner's) sights. Possibly less complex technology to move the independent sights (inertial navigation vs eye tracking). May interface with different sights without interfering with the work of the other crewman. Higher coverage. Cons Harder to communicate with the other crewmen over shared objectives. Stimulates solo operation. Less rugged. If external cameras go offline, the vehicle's backup interface and systems may be more difficult to operate. Difficult data input, may require separate computer or only allow commander to do so via less intuitive methods. Those were just the pros and cons I could think of in the total span of maybe 5 minutes. Carmel Now onto examining the video itself: Here we can see one of the points I was talking about earlier. The man on the left points for the guy on the right, allowing easy interaction between the two crewmembers who can easily be distracted by vast amounts of incoming data. Touching the screen also allows the crewmembers to easily lay new data for each other and on the BMS. For example selecting a target and classifying it as hostile/non-hostile. The Carmel in this video, seems to be more clearly defined as a tankette, rather than an IFV, which on the concept level seems to replace the MBT altogether, or rather add a brand new vehicle which is yet unknown how it will fit in existing formations. It could be an organic addition to infantry or recon battalions, but no doctrine has been developed for such a vehicle. Even in the Russian army where they have at least once considered purchasing BMPT vehicles as tank escorts, there is no solid doctrine proposal. Same old Trophy system with no changes may indicate that no serious work has yet been done to integrate Iron Fist's launchers onto the Trophy system, even though the IDF required it for the Barack MBT. Or it could just be a matter of editing choice, choosing to focus on the situational awareness technologies rather than unrelated APS development. Another image here shows that Rafael chose to use 2 independent cameras, one for each crew member, which may be a result of the requirement to allow every crewmember to assume the role of the other in case the other is incapable of fulfilling his mission (injury/death). But what's more interesting is that Rafael proposed using 2 RCWS as well. The merits of such a proposal are disputable, but if two separate sights are already required, then adding an RCWS is considered an inexpensive upgrade, and could make engagement of targets more comfortable for the crew, knowing each one can control an MG at any given time for self defense in tight areas.
  13. https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5462046,00.html IDF finally rejects the new uniforms it was supposed to start buying in the thousands in the coming weeks. The soldiers who tested the uniforms complained about added discomfort because of the fabric, increased sweating, and also the danger of friendly fire. The uniforms in just one of numerous schemes: A total of 150,000 units were supposed to be purchased, and produced in the US (The company that designed them is a US company as well). The IDF stated they will be looking for new alternatives, given the poor feedback.
  14. It sure does seem like it could be related to the APS, but it isn't. It's part of the vision block. Notice how there are 2 identical vision blocks placed at the front and sides of the vehicle, but nothing to cover the sides. The lower circle shows what is supposed to give vision for the sides.
  15. No idea what the TOW-ER is (talking about newer variants with over 4km range?), but range is a little more than a figure on paper. For example any missile with a top attack mode, the Javelin included, with the same range on paper, would have higher realistic range because very often the LoS in combat is lower than the max range of the missile, and these missiles can engage NLOS targets while the TOW cannot. Also please refer to the rest of the comment: The networking and top attack capability of missiles like either the Spike 2 family or MMP, as well as LOAL modes, are not only offering substantially higher effect vs MBTs, but are fully capable of utilizing the sensory package and user interface the OMFV program intends to achieve. e.g they want a small scouting drone on the OMFV. With a good enough optical payload, it could do target designation of an NLOS target to a Spike/MMP. Or, you receive data on your BMS on the whereabouts of a high priority target. You fire off a missile to its coordinates, and right before the terminal stage you can visually identify it via a TV feed, and guide it to target yourself for the best approach (e.g you can fire it into a window, or maybe collapse the roof, or maybe they concealed in a bush so you want to aim based on movements not picked up by thermal sensors). The TOW is inqdequate for the OMFV. Maybe it is for the Bradley, but it should be phasing out already. Almost the entire Europe is now moving onto the current generation of ATGMs, whether Spike or MMP.
  16. The difference is not in the size of monitors, but what they are supposed to feed back to you. Rafael's concept is kinda like Elbit's IronVision, giving you a full hemispheric view of the vehicle's surroundings, but instead of using a helmet, using very large touch screens, which also allows interfacing with mission aid software which is limited on the IronVision.
  17. 1)The JLTV costs quite a lot of money and is still a lower priority for replacement at the moment. First a critical mass of heavy Namer APCs and medium Eitan APCs have to enter service. Only then, when their production and budget are secured, the IDF can start allocating resources to replace the old APCs in support roles. But replacement of the Zelda in combat roles is top priority! 2)The FMTV truck is already in service and the IDF so far placed contracts for 200 units, although it also said it intends to purchase a further 'hundreds more' trucks for medium and heavy loads, which includes the HEMTT trucks as well. 3)Serving in Lebanon is no longer a thing since 2000. Any maneuvering combat unit going into either Lebanon or Gaza, or any other hostile territory, as part of a military operation, will be going in heavy APCs/IFVs. First go the units equipped with Namers. Then go the units with the 2nd best armor and so on. The units patrolling the border near Lebanon, in areas of high risk, are constantly driving in heavy APCs. Although in any case of war they do not enter Lebanon, or at least are not the first to enter.
  18. Revert from any prospect of finally replacing the TOW, to still using the TOW 10 years from now up to 50 years from now. The TOW is limited by its guidance unit to LoS engagement, and limited in its efficiency by its flat trajectory. The OMFV should be equipped with a missile that is at least based on a 5th gen design, i.e one that allows an efficient engagement of MBTs (top attack), an evasion of some APS (top attack), precision fires (GPS+Networking), and NLOS (man-in-the-loop+Networking). As it stands, the TOW is only truly efficient in one task - demolition. This is an overlapping capability with the 50mm gun, which based on current proposals seems to be geared more towards increased post-penetration effect and anti-infantry, than penetration of armor. A significant upgrade to the Javelin, or a purchase of the Spike or MMP, will give the OMFV a substantial increase in firepower AND combat roles.
  19. Why would they want to revert to a CLOS missile in the OMFV? It's time to replace the TOW with a BLOS (Beyond Line of Sight) missile.
  20. I don't understand how that contradicts what he said.
  21. The v3 is getting the new armor. They're talking about protection gained from Trophy.
  22. New issue of DTR is out: http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iguid=de7f04cc-f697-4547-8ddf-1281221a1de9
  23. More ATMOS 2000 howitzers for Thailand, as well as Spear mortars.
  24. It really do be like that though. Buy my Merkavas pl0x.
  25. Spike NLOS 5th gen, or Spike NLOS 2. At 0:45 that's quite an interesting target... And right after that they're showing a steep dive in anti-APS mode.
×
×
  • Create New...