Mighty_Zuk

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

@N-L-M

@Mighty_Zuk

I still don't see it as a practical solution. The stability issues (i.e how to fire a fragmentation warhead mid-air without inducing the tilt and yawing effects an APS would attempt to induce on the rod) seem like too much of a challenge.

7 hours ago, DIADES said:

First layer of protection is don't be seen - if a hull down position with the barrel on the enemy, there will be a lot of turret visible.  We don't know the specific depression but with the gun that close to the hull, it simply can't have much depression.

Your deduction is the opposite of common wisdom.

Although not necessarily, a higher turret with specifically more height between the top of the gun and the turret roof, allows for MORE gun depression.

On 5/2/2019 at 11:53 PM, N-L-M said:

Any idea about the rate at which they'll be produced? That number can convincingly be argued to be anywhere from 1 year (150 at very high rate, excluding prototypes), to 10 years (250 at low rate plus a year or two for production prototype testing) of production line time.

On that note, how many tanks is the Turkish military looking to replace with the Altay when all is said and done?

50 tanks per year sounds like a good rate. You keep production running for at least 20 years and you still get to re-equip units fairly quickly.

5 years per batch is also a good amount of time to develop new kit for the tank and certify it. 

Deviate too little from the 50 mark and you get odd numbers of tanks per year. Deviate too much and you get messy development. So 50 makes sense.

Not only ERA but didn't find a proper thread:

Can anyone explain what in their opinion a guided missile offers to a tank, that would be important enough to eat up some of the space for HE-MP and APFSDS shells?

IMO, the maximum level of guidance should be minor unpowered, wing/fin-enabled course correction similar to the one done for mortars or artillery shells. But is it sufficient within the kinetic envelope of unguided tank shells?

Those Malyutkas were later in service with the IDF for a short time, forming approximately 1 AT battalion.

7 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

They put the engine at the front not for protection. 

If speaking in absolutes, then no. It's not for protection.

But absolutes don't really exist. There are always numerous reasons to do something. Protection was one of those reasons, but not the absolutely only one.

7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.

It may have been a dominant reason for the Merkava 1, but that does not explain why to this day the Mark 4 has a front engine.

It's not like the Abrams family that you can just grab an M1A1, refurbish it, and replace kit to make it an M1A2C. Nothing in the Mark 1 and 4 is interchangeable.

It also doesn't explain why the Kaliyah AFV, which was not presented in an APC version at all, has a front mounted engine.

The IDF's relevant bodies have wealth of experience with both front engine and rear engine designs, and probably including the in-house development of a rear engine tank in the 90's.

Pre-serial production variant.

Prototype:

Noticeable differences:

• Lower (fog?) lights are protected.
• Storage boxes on the sides appear to be somewhat extended downwards, with the central one being significantly enlarged.
• UFP has a little bump in the middle.
• Rear sponsons were somewhat changed.
• Smoke grenade launchers were removed.
• New commander's cupola?
• Sides are now protruding outwards, due to the installation of the new armor modules.
• New tires and wheel design.
• Different headlights.

Eitan to be accessible to the public in an expo:

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Consider the geometry of actual armor without ignoring the LFP.

In addition, the mass of the ammo is almost insignificant (25 kg per round and 40 or so rounds in the hull is 1 ton, vs 2 tons each for the engine and transmission plus fluids).

I've considered it. What next? Several designs were shown here, including one with an armored LFP in an Abrams-like fashion.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

You keep throwing this around without sourcing it. While I get that the Merk 4 is better protected than the previous ones, I'm interested in hearing what the actual professionals have to say.

https://yadlashiryon.com/news/התובה-של-טנק-המרכבה-סימן-4/

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Also, the Namer shows that when sufficiently motivated even the Izzys can adequately place armor around an AVDS if we ignore the LFP as usual.

Are you even aware that the Namer and Merkava 4 are using the SAME armor module on the hull front? The Namer is able to achieve that, however, by increasing the height of the vehicle.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

The Mark 2D seems to show that the guys in charge disagree about the driver's visibility and armor on that side. On the engine side, continuing the hull line at the hump forwards to the beak instead of having it drop would make room for an armor module in front of the engine. That area is not in the FOV of the driver's central periscope nor in the FOV of the right one, which looks out over the engine deck.

I don't know what their considerations were. They at least tried it on the Merkava 3 in a demonstration for the Mark 4, but no figures about weight, or weight distribution, were given in that demonstration.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Please don't throw around things like this, they betray just how little you actually know.

 

 

Notice something? The AVDS is nominally approximately 4" longer. But that includes the turbo arrangement, which isn't included in the MTU engine dimensions. Once you include the turbo, the MTU 883 is longer.

But wait, you say, the powerpack isn't only the engine! The Merks have used CD-850 Allsions and RK-304 and RK-325 Renk transmissions!
So let's take a look at those now.

First, the CD-850:

 

Note that the depth of the transmission, 29", is approximately 730mm.

next, the RK-304:

 

and finally, the RK-325:

https://www.renk-ag.com/en/products-and-service/products/vehicle-transmissions/rk-325/

Dimensions: 1,910 x 830 x 960mm

that's L*W*H.

So, in fact, the RK-325 as found on the Merk 4 is longer than the transmissions in any previous Merk model, as is the MTU engine.

So yeah, the "significant reduction in length of the powerpack unit" is a simple sign that you don't actually know what you're talking about, care to guess again?

What is it with you and the constant need to insult people to overcome deficiencies? If you want to have a proper debate, engage with the person you want to debate with. 

Yes, you are correct about the length, but perhaps I should have rephrased. In the relevant parameters, the new powerpack is smaller than the Merkava 3's, and organized better. It allows for more room for armor.

But what's bothering me about these figures is that it seems as though the transmission is taller than the engine, when in reality it seems the other way around:

The new powerpack, at least externally seems more suitable for the task because of its shape, and according to your own figures, is quite substantially lower. Indeed, I was incorrect about length. I am more used to talk from my gut about info I remember from a long time ago, and don't keep track of every single piece of data I stumble across. The more relevant parameter seems to be height, with length also being important but to a lesser extent, and with width being the least important parameter.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

You should know the drill by now. Source this claim.

Correction on the figures - 50%-55% is the usual in the west, and 70%-80% in the Merkava. 

Finding a source on this claim is also difficult, because again it's a very old one. But I'll do my best to find it in the morning.

So far all I've found is that the source is David Eshel's "Merkava 3: Israel's New Spearhead".

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Well you'd also expect them to realize that ammo separation is the objectively correct way to go, but I suppose you can't get everything.

The Abrams is so far the only MBT that fully separates ammo from the crew compartment. Back in the 70's it was deemed a good solution to keep the ammo below the turret ring, because an Abrams-like setup made a K-kill still quite likely, as a piercing APFSDS would have a chance at piercing the armored doors, in which case the blow-out panels are not going to fulfill their task.

It remains one of the only points of criticism I have towards the Merkava's design, and the decision to still place the ammo in the hull in the Mark 4, but at least at RAPAT they've realized that this is an issue, and any future AFV is going to have a separated ammo.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Also how exactly would you expect them to realize that the alternative is better when they don't have any experience with rear engine tanks newer than the M60A3, anyway?

The very close cooperation they have with allied nations' tank and AFV programs?

Sure, the IDF hasn't really done anything with rear-engine tanks since the light tank project in the 90's, but why do something twice when you can draw from the experience of others?

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Reminder that the Merk 3 has a roof sight.

Define roof. If you mean the "tunnel"-like setup it has, similar to the Leopard 2A0-2A4's gunner's sight, then no. It compromises the turret's protection. What I mean is something along the lines of what the Merkava 4 has.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

There's a difference between making something work and it being a good idea which gives you what you actually want.

 

As I've said, every major variant of the Merkava has seen substantial amounts of combat, and enough to draw conclusions from. Throughout its entire history, the Merkava has performed as expected, or above expectations, at least in terms of crew survivability.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

This bit we've been over before, and I'm just qouting it again to rub your face in how wrong it is and how you never bothered to perform 10 minutes of googling because you lack any self-critical thinking ability.

You're gonna have to source this too, this claim in particular is interesting, as on the Merk the air filters were never in the way of the UFP in the first place!

https://yadlashiryon.com/news/התובה-של-טנק-המרכבה-סימן-4/

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

That's not only an incredibly asinine statement, considering how the IDF hasn't designed any rear-engine MBTs, but it's nevertheless still wrong:

I'm not sure what you're trying to show me here. All these photos show, on the hull front, a UFP modular armor kit, and an LFP-attached mount that holds the belly armor. None of these has an LFP armor kit.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

In short, @Mighty_Zuk, you have a lot of unsubstantiated claims to back up, Referte Avt Morimini.

You've also said a lot of bullshit that betrays a basic and fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Git larned, and kindly match the confidence displayed in your posts to your actual level of knowledge in the subject matter, and not to what you'd like others to believe it is. You are invited to step up your game and keep the baseless speculation and denial to other forums like AW, and refrain from overly nationalistic fanboyism.

Also, if you don't know something, even in a field which is close to your heart, just admit it. there's no shame in not knowing shit, but there's quite a lot in pretending to know stuff you don't and being flat out wrong.

Kindly raise the standard of your posting, we really don't want this place devolving into AW or worse, DFI. Which is unfortunately the current posting standard you are representing.

What is it you're trying to compensate for, with all these attempts to insult me? We've had quite a few disagreements so far, you and me. Have you seen me trying to insult you for that? No. But I've witnessed quite a lot of outright childish behavior coming from you, and I expect better if you wish to maintain a debate. Please revise your strategy when approaching a debate.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

If you actually bother to look at how the Merks 1-3 and the AVDS-1790 are put together....

If you actually bothered to read anything, or watch the video, you'd know the debate is specifically about the Mark 4. So right off the bat you've allegedly started a debate with the following:

1. An insult with no logical addition to the debate.
2. An offtopic debate.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 The Merk 4 also what looks like layered sponsons around the exhaust grate, which the 3 lacks; so that area too should be better off than it was. These tanks however also have solid steel hulls, which the engine can and does heat up through its mounting points (as you need pretty solid mounting points to hold down a 1000+HP diesel), and the hull extends forwards to the nose (and to the non-modular sponsons on the Merk 3), giving a large area in the front radiating away. It should also be noted that transmissions produce non-negligible quantities of waste heat, as do the brakes (torque converters too, yay viscous fluid shear), for obvious reasons; more so that the engine if you're doing anything other than standing still. And having those stacked right up close against the steel hull is asking for it to heat up.

I don't remember seeing any thermal view of the Merkava 4 online. 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

Regarding the pic you posted, there's a certain component that deserves some attention there. Specifically, the tires on the roadwheels. You may note, that they are white and therefore cold. Now, what do we know about roadwheels on tanks?

So by the fact that the wheels are cold, we know that the Merk you posted has not been moving, and indeed one cannot tell how long the engine has been running; nor can the LFP, which is by all accounts part of the steel hull, be seen. Using a photo such as that to demonstrate the effect of the engine on the thermal signature is disingenuous at best.

True, but the grate is hot, which wouldn't really make sense as when idling, the tank uses an APU instead of the engine. But we can't just assume they used the APU, so that begs the question - even though it's idling, shouldn't at least SOME heat be radiated from the front?

As I've said, I don't have any other available thermal image of the Merkava 4. But we can see here that there is no heat emitted from the UFP at least.

As soon as we get more footage, then we can properly debate this.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

The LFP is a thing on the Merk 4 too, you know; and considering how the rest of your treatment of this point is "I'd rather have a damaged engine", you're effectively trying to squirrel out of the fact that yes, the engine on the Merk is more vulnerable than it is on MBTs.

The point of that argument was that it makes no sense to list it as a downside, or a problem, in the Merkava. Of course the engine is more vulnerable, but it is at least going to result in a mobility kill while otherwise it would be a mission kill.

The LFP is indeed a weak spot, as a penetration of roughly 50% of its area can result in substantial damage to the transmission, but statistically it's not considered vulnerable enough to be prioritized for additional armor compared with areas like the belly, sides, or top.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Not if said conventional design had, y'know, armor there, like, I dunno, the Abrams or Leo 2.

You're assuming the Merkava 4 has no armor on the front, an assertion that is objectively incorrect considering the vast evidence presented in this very thread. If you wish, I could link these photos again.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Again, do you have a single fact or source to back that opinion up?

I thought the consensus here was that engines and associated components are made of materials that are too light to make any substantial addition to protection against KEPs. I just rolled with that consensus, as it was explained by members more knowledgeable than me. I believe it was Bronez who explained it, though I don't remember entirely.

Why are you keen on breaking that consensus? And why are you not offering any information to dispute it?

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

And, as usual, you are ignoring a much more vital component than the engine, care to guess what it is and why?

The transmission that is more dense?

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

In actual competently designed tanks post-1973 there are no fuel tanks in the crew compartment (excluding derivative designs which inherited them), so that's a bit of a moot point. Most modern tanks keep the fuel in the engine bay and/or the sponsons, and not in the front of the hull where armor belongs.

So the Abrams keeping fuel tanks around the driver is a sign of an incompetently designed tank?

The point also wasn't that any tank keeps fuel tanks with a potential to leak into the crew compartment. It was to ridicule the maker of that video.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

I find that hard to believe, you wouldn't happen to have a source for that would you?

Cause if we take that at face value, that would make the Merk the first tank designed without armor compromises since what, 1916?

Also the multiple generations of modules and sideskirts spotted on Merks suggests that that is not actually the case.

Of course another point that both you and Red missed is that tank armor is designed to meet a reference threat. What that threat is is a different question, but considering how Egypt, Jordan and Syria all operate tanks which fling APFSDS and which the Merk 4 is at least notionally supposed to be able to go up against and win, the idea that its armor doesn't at least do something against KE is laughable, to say the least. What the CE threat is is also an open question. Red also clearly doesn't get how "special" armors work against CE.

The sources you're repeatedly asking me for, are a few articles written over 15 years ago. I've only read them a few times, so my memory is not the best. 

Now that I've found the articles, I'd like to make a correction - they overcame certain "basic" compromises or limitations, but these are irrelevant to this topic.

So if you were trying to argue about absolute values in an inherently relativistic statement, then you've absolutely won that one.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Again, fact to back that up? Cause without a source, that's just meaningless handwaving.

Cause even with the most modern turret modules seen on the Merk 4m, there doesn't seem to be any burster plate to prevent the blast from an ATGM disassembling the armor inside, the way we've all seen the pictures of it happening from 2006. If the declasified Brit Burlington docs are anything to go by, NERA arrays have trash multi-hit ability without burster plates, and there's no reason to believe the Izzys have some super duper sekrit sauce nobody else does to solve this problem.

The article about the Mark 4B having upgraded armor is very old. Not 15 years old, but old enough to get lost, and Yad La Shiryon didn't document it and save it like it did with the older articles you've asked me to link here.

However, since the only time we've seen the internals of the Merkava's armor was in 2006, and the upgrade came in response to that, we can't know for sure what the armor modules contain now. But since the context given was exactly the vulnerability of the armor to repeated hits, I assume a burster plate addition is a possible upgrade.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

That's a very strong statement to throw around unsubstantiated. You wouldn't happen to have anything resembling a source to support this claim would you? Official claims that this is indeed the case? Product page on one of IMI's websites that claims this gun ever existed? pictures of a testbed with the gun?

Not entirely sure about the source of this image:

But basically Switzerland and IMI cooperated on the project, with Switzerland developing the gun, and IMI developing the APFSDS round. IMI was a government-owned company back then, and only took part in projects that would directly benefit the IDF.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

For reference, L/55 guns have a whole host of problems accompanying them, including balance issues, elevating mass and inertia, recoil impulse and length (same problem faced with more energetic ammo in L/44 guns), and so on. As part of the upgrade to the L/55 in the Leo (part of the A5 upgrade pack), the gun drives were replaced and the entire mantlet area redesigned -the newer mantlet is much narrower, and the gap is filled by armor boxes attached to the fixed turret structure, most likely to reduce the elevating mass and restore margins.

L/55 guns are enough of a headache that the US seems to have decided to not go that route because of the problems the testbeds had with them. Handwaving away integration issues like this as "no biggie" is being deliberately ignorant.

Yes, I am aware of the implications of introducing a larger gun to a tank. Is there anything NEW you'd like to add? Because you really need to stop speaking in absolutes all the time.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

We've already been over the whole thermals business and that picture, but what I don't get is even if we assume you are correct and the Trophy antennae are a stronger radiator in the relevant wavelengths*, how is this greatly increased thermal signature a point in favor of the Merk?

It's not a point in favor. It shows that at one point he takes issue with a side effect of the design that impacts its survivability by a certain margin, and then proceeds to talk about the Trophy so eagerly despite its radars actually being, in many cases, substantially more impactful in that regard.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

A. You are aware that the wonders of modular armor mean that armor packages can be changed mid-batch, and that therefore doesn't make it a 4a/4b difference.

B. If you think minor changes like that (and whatever internal changes to the armor module it covers) are enough to prevent the blast from a warhead shrekking the armor after a hit you're somewhere between deluded and hopeless.

An Mk 4B doesn't really technically exist. It's just a conglomeration of different upgrades implemented simultaneously around 2011-2012.

If you're so eager to find a source on this, I promise I will do some digging among the 50+ issues of the very long Shiryon magazine, but I can't promise much, and it certainly doesn't help that you once again choose to insult me to mask an inability to maintain a proper debate. 

1 hour ago, HAKI2019 said:

Old picture.

 

Maybe NERA on the UFP？

That part of the UFP was entirely steel. Below it is a fuel tank.

Iron Dome was, from the very beginning, capable against fixed wing aircraft at mid-high altitude (up to 10km IIRC). 

Its first successful test against cruise missiles was done years ago.

The C-Dome is actually far less suitable for export than the standard Iron Dome because the naval IADS market is dominated by the high end interceptors, and shore defense revolves mainly around ABMs.

The US is buying the Iron Dome because its industries do not yet have a proper competition.

13 hours ago, Serge said:

Sufficient is the right term. 

I say sufficient because I don't think there was ever a proper comparison, or at least one available to public, on how the Merkava and other tanks compare to each other in different types of terrain, especially on mud. Judging by the plentiful available footage, I don't see any ground to claiming the Merkava falls short to any MBT in this category.

13 hours ago, Serge said:

It’s not possible to integrate heavy armor modules with front engine. 

This is a reason why other countries  never made this choice. 

There are others problems of course like :

- the diving trend of the tank at speed ;

- the problem for thermal sight ;

- the pointing problem for the barrel ;

- the hull down position can be dangerous. 

It WAS not possible. Today it's possible. The much smaller MT883 engine greatly helps in that regard. With the AVDS-1790 it wasn't possible.

Since basically every tank other than the T-14 had started its life long before compact but powerful enough engines existed, it truly wasn't really an option, and still isn't an option to most as it would require a serious redesign of the tank.

With hybrid or electric engines, this problem is basically reduced to dust. You can place the transmission in the front and then either a small generator or some batteries in the front to beef up the protection, and whatever remains that would take up crucial space, could be placed elsewhere. This was partially also done with the Merkava 4, as in that same interview they've also said that other than using a smaller powerpack, they moved other stuff around like filters and batteries, so they won't get in the way of armoring the UFP.

The "problems" of pointing the barrel, or heat waves for the thermal sights, are just myths and completely baseless, and I've already explained why.

A quick diving at negative slopes could be somewhat of a problem, which I've never heard Merkava drivers complaining about. 

And no idea why a hull down position could be in any way endangered by this design. The Merkava was designed from the very beginning with a British approach to protection, which revolved more around a static defense, especially in the Golan that offered vast spaces to fire on from above.

13 hours ago, Serge said:

The Mk3 chassis is completely redesigned compared to the first generation. 

Yes, but I'm talking about the hull in its entirety, as its design is still dependent on the engine. As shown here above, an Abrams-like approach to armoring the hull could be taken with any engine setup, but traditionally the IDF hasn't really armored the LFP of even tanks with rear-mounted engines.

Another prime example is the Namer. Because of the height of its hull, its armor design was engine-agnostic, so to say. They chose the AVDS-1790 engine because it was cheaper and would not hinder the protection of the vehicle. The armor was basically identical as the Merkava 4's - LFP is un-armored, UFP is of the same thickness. 

13 hours ago, Serge said:

Front engine has plenty of advantages for the tank crew everyday life. It makes possible to have a modular rear volume wich is a good point other tanks lack. 

And, as a former tank commander, I preferre front engine even if it gives plenty of drawbacks in tank design. 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Until 2017? What kind of panoramic sight are you talking about?

 

All B3 have Sosna-U with thermal imagers, 90As, BMP-3s and BMD-4s with Sodema sights, 80BVM, soon even BTR-82s will get them. It is not a small number of vehicles.

Don't know its name, but referring to this one:

About what vehicles have thermals, maybe I was wrong.

1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

How many of those 3,000 are considered up to date/modern? 

I believe plans were to modernize all of them. But Russia's definition of 'modern' is not a particularly good one. 

It's mostly a "produced after year X is modern, even if shit standard". The T-72 was the first to hit the modernization effort. First batches of T-72B3 were rolled out in 2013, but until 2017 lacked panoramic sights, which has been standard equipment on western tanks for decades.

And apparently thermal imagers aren't even a standard equipment in Russian AFVs yet. That is, not nearly widespread enough yet.

8 hours ago, Adraste said:

Iron Dome was started as an exclusive Rafael venture (thus Rafael should theorically own all the IP) while David's Sling is a Rafael - Raytheon JV. Iron Dome was probably already sold to Singapore although it is a well-guarded secret. I don't see Iron Dome export as being impeded by the US, they even recently purchased 2 batteries for themself thus being the first operator officially outside Israel. As the first operational and effective  C-RAM and SHORAD system, Iron Dome should sell like hot cake if and when the need arises worldwide.

 

As far as David's Sling is concerned, the israeli defence cos can still benefit tremendously as sub-contractors for the PAC-3 by correcting its weakness (radar, cost-effective interceptor). And technology wise, the Stunner is rumored to be the IAF next-gen air-air missile with no US tech and funding involved.

Please re-read what I said about the Iron Dome. I said that its export potential is hindered by the US's involvement, but not hindered in the context of selling to the US itself.

Perhaps the US provided the same funding (and it most certainly does fund the Iron Dome) but refrained from demanding a share of the intellectual property, because its own industries do not produce any VSHORAD system that it can compete with, while the David's Sling is a very dangerous opponent to the Patriot in the long range air defense market.

If the US sees it as an interest, they will demand some IP in return for the funding.

12 minutes ago, Adraste said:

Contrary to Iron Dome, US paid for David's Sling R&D so they have part of its intellectual property. As a consequence they have every right to veto its export sale abroad. Incorporating the Stunner interceptor into PAC-3 is a smart way of boosting its capabilities and sale prospect. But the lack of a proper and operational 360 degree AESA radar will make the Swiss think twice before choosing the PAC-3. The Swiss could ask Raytheon to pick the EL-M 2084 but it is wishful thinking.
 

The $8 billion figure is misleading because it is the cost of both the futur Swiss air force's F18 replacement AND a new SAM system. The Swiss needs 2 SAM batteries so the cost would not exceed approximatively $1 - $1.5 billion, far from the Polish PAC-3 overall cost. 

Thanks for the correction on the cost. 

The David's Sling is not unique here, as the Iron Dome's R&D was also paid in part by the US. It could, however, explain why outside the US, these systems have been marketing failures. 

It can also be further used as an example to debate whether or not Israel should continue accepting US monetary aid. Back in the 80's it was needed, but today not as much. There is a solid case to be made that the aid program now hurts Israel's defense industry, and the monetary gain may be overshadowed by a net loss on vetoed sales.

For now only in Hebrew:

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/38228

The David's Sling system is out of yet another competition, this time worth $8 billion. Rafael needed a permit from the MoD, which the MoD didn't supply. They also failed to comment on why the export permit was not granted.

The Swiss competition, Air 2030, is the 2nd competition in which the David's Sling was supposed to participate, and brings its total immediate export potential to a whopping $20 billion. 

It bears extreme similarity to the Polish program, in that Israel voluntarily withdrew from the bid, or did not participate in the first place, most likely by the request of the USA. It then means the US is likely to include the Stunner interceptor as part of the deal as a compensation. In the Polish program, the Stunner interceptors were 10% of the cost. 

9 hours ago, Serge said:

Because you don’t have space to put armor modules at the front of the engine. 

I've already addressed this in a reply to Loser.

9 hours ago, Serge said:

???

With tracks it’s useless. It’s even dangerous because you have a diving trend wich reduces the mobility on soft ground. 

There are more wheels in the front than the rear, as a consequence, to restore balance. And as you could have seen from past footage here, the Merkava has sufficient mobility in muddy terrain. Mud is where it's going to drive anyway, 50% of its service.

9 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. Compared to a Mk3, not compared to another tank chassis. 

This is a context you added that did not exist in the article, so you're only estimating.

The different generations of Merkava were certainly evolutions of their predecessors, but clean sheet designs were not lacking.

Mark 1-2: Same tank.

Mark 3: Clean sheet design turret. Clean sheet design drivetrain.

Mark 4: Clean sheet design hull. Clean sheet design powerpack. Clean sheet design turret.

As both the hull and turret had to be changed drastically to apply the new changes, for example a new hull to account for the new engine+transmission, and support the new heavier turret. And a new turret to support a roof-mounted sight, a substantially larger cannon than Mark 3, and higher coverage of modular armor.

With that level of rework on the tank, and a rather substantial amount of combat for any of the main versions of the Merkava until the Mark 4, one could expect the IDF to realize a rear-engine tank would be the better alternative, if properly armoring the front was no longer possible.

Additionally, they wouldn't have been so keen to install the engine on the front of their brand new, entirely clean sheet designed MBT, if they didn't believe they could provide sufficient crew protection. 

It's very easy to inflate or deflate the cost of an MBT, if you choose to include or exclude certain even small aspects of the project's costs, because there's a lot of money revolving such projects indirectly.

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Umm... ok. Weight? Volume? What is that? How can big chunk of steel interfere with mounting even bigger chunks of steel and layers and layers of other materials in the same part of the vehicle?

In terms of volume, quite a lot. The AVDS-1790 interfered with armoring the hull by simply being too big. Any more armor and the driver would have poor visibility. 

In the Merkava 4, that's not the case. And there's even enough length to spare in terms of visibility for the driver, as the new engine offered a significant reduction of the length of the powerpack unit.

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   When Merkava became rear turret tank? Are rear turret tanks better in general then central-turreted ones? Do you know that Object 299 front engine and rear turret/ammo layout resulted in "crew capsule" and not so great armor in front of engine compartment?

Not rear-turreted in an absolute sense, but a relative one. Relative to other tanks, its turret is located far closer to the rear than any other tank. That affects the balance of the tank relative to other tanks.

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Also, how much ammo adds to weight of a tank and what happens if tank don't have it? In peaceful time you will need a weight immitator to balance your vehicle to run it without addition wear of frontal parts of suspension, if ammunition was a main balancing factor in your design, heh. But would additional weight result in additional wear of components of suspension?  

Ammo was just one example. RAPAT cite a figure of 50%-55% of the overall mass of the tank being utilized for extra protection of the crew, compared with an average of 20%-25% in contemporary designs.

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Enough for one could be not enough for others. Leo 1/AMX 30 vs T-64, for example.

That's a rather extreme comparison. The design philosophy of the Merkava, at least in terms of armor, is much closer to the British one than, say, the German or American one.

I don't see how a front mounted engine interferes with armoring the front. A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

There is still some inbalance favoring the front, but it's not necessarily an issue. It helps in gaining traction over sloped surfaces.

What is really a factor is the volume. However, as I've said, in an interview given by a RAPAT official, the use of the MT883 engine allowed them to allocate enough armor to the front.

@Sovngard The sights have indeed changed, but there is no indication yet that the loader's hatch addition is directly related to the 4B model. The 4B model entered service around 2011-2012, long after that hatch was added.

47 minutes ago, Scav said:

Is there a way to visually differentiate them from each other?

Externally, I haven't really paid much attention to it.

But the difference in armor construction is visible here:

Mark 4A - armor is perforated:

Mark 4B - armor is not perforated:

Time to play smack-a-gentile.

This absolute madlad called @RedEffect put out a video with quite a few claims about, specifically, problems with the Merkava. I know the problems with the Merkava, and what he raised is either inaccurate, or misunderstood.

Here's the video:

The claims are, as following:

1. Significant heat signature on the front.
2. Engine can get easily damaged.
3. Heat can obscure the thermal vision of the gunner, so gunner has to turn away the turret.
4. Fuel tanks can catch fire. 
5. LFP bad, UFP not so bad. Can't stop APFSDS or ATGMs though.
6. Does not have any blow-out panels.
7. Armor is "fragile" so hits in the same area can damage it.
8. Wedge shaped armor is bad, only strong in the center.
9. Still uses L/44 gun, while L/55 is better.
10. Trophy is god-tier amazing but the Merkava is still held back by its thermal signature.

And here's the rebuttal:

       1. Not true, and it's flawed logic if one arrives at this conclusion by looking at photos of other tanks' rear sections and seeing their apparent thermal signature on the engine compartment. The reason is very simple - on conventional tanks, it's not nearly as important to mask the thermal signature from the engine, because when looking roughly at the front of the tank (the deviation from the front grows smaller as the range increases), the engine's signature is masked. For the Merkava it's more important, and the engine is not covered by thin sheets, and the exhaust isn't just blown wherever. The entire area above the engine is thick armor, and the exhaust air is cooled and thrown downward. The engine cover is not hot, but the exhaust is. It adds only a very small portion to the heat signature. 

You can see it here:

       2. In the Merkavas 1-3 I would say that it is true. The engine is overly vulnerable. In the Merkava 4 that has proper armor in the front, that's not the case. If the engine is damaged by a penetrating shot, then in a conventional design it would have been a dead crew. Against an APFSDS the engine indeed would not add much protection, but even today the most proliferated threat to armor is ATGMs. Even in a peer-peer combat, due to the nature of combined arms combat, the tank would still be highly threatened by many different assets other than tanks - helicopters and infantry employing ATGMs, planes employing either ATGMs or JDAMs, artillery, etc. Against these, protection against HEAT is extremely valuable.

       3. Unsubstantiated, and so far I haven't heard of any firing drill that involves rotating the turret away from the exhaust.

       4. Fuel tanks in any tank can catch fire. That's not unique to the Merkava. In the Merkava it may fry the engine. In another tank it could fry the driver.

       5. RAPAT (Israeli equivalent of TARDEC) believe the armor suit they developed for the Merkava 4 is one where they didn't have to make any compromises, and could make it work against the perceived threats. None tried to fire an APFSDS against this tank so I wouldn't know. Additionally, he mentions the Kornet ATGM, and that one specifically was said to have been fired at the front section of the tank but without success. They didn't specify what "front" means, but since Hezbollah were smart enough to fire not only at the sides, but specifically at the ammo stowage compartment at times, makes me believe they were also smart enough to occasionally fire specifically at the hull.

       6. Entirely false. The hull isn't equipped with blow-out panels but the turret is. Since he mentions the Leopard as an example of a tank with such panels, despite having a huge ammo rack at the front with no panels, makes me believe he did not mean the entire ammo, but even parts of the ammo. So again, false.

       7. That was a problem with the Merkava 4A, but not the Mark 4B and subsequent variants.

       8. Theoretically true, but the upper portion of the turret is completely inert because it's actually just the roof armor and storage bins, and the lower portion is to some extent covered by the hull. Yep, the hull's armor extends above the actual roof of the hull to hide the turret ring. You have to actually be on a pretty nice elevation to see the turret ring.

       9. L/55 is better if you only take raw penetration into account. But that is not the only consideration. With urban combat growing in frequency, shorter barrels still show some clear advantages. An L/55 is a whole 1,320mm longer than the L/44, and that makes it hard to traverse in narrow city streets. That is, when considering that any tank with the L/44 is already pretty bulky for streets. The Merkava's turret was built in a way that allows for substantial growth in firepower - up to 140mm. Accepting an L/55 gun is a no biggie. But there is no operational need for such a gun, and it's possible the IDF will skip right to the 130mm or whatever the next gun may be.

       10. Similar to point 1, but you can see in the photo I added there that the radars are actually just as hot, if not hotter than the exhaust air.