Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Welcome to Mighty Zuk's place of mental rest and peace of mind. This is my realm. 

I've decided it would be best to ditch the old Merkava thread for 2 reasons:

1)It does not feature any bunched up information in its main post, and valuable information is scattered across different posts on different pages. 

2)Many AFVs that are not related to the Merkava, or related but are not it, appear in that thread with improper representation. There are other AFVs than the Merkava, and it would be better to refer to them in a general way.

 

As time will go by, I will arrange this thread into a sort of information center. 

 

I will take up a few first comment spaces to make sure proper amount of information can be stacked up on the front page and for easier access for everyone.

 

[Reserved for future posts - Merkava]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


 11.JPG

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.
 
 
 
 
 
321.jpg
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.
 
123.jpg
 
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.
12.JPG
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.
15.jpg
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.

14.JPG
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.
 
16.jpg
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.
 
Inked13_LI.jpg
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

12.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troop compartment of the Eitan. Quite spacious. Judging by the dirt marks, this prototype has been tested extensively.

78918950990100640360no.jpg

 

Driver's touch-screen.

78918490990100640360no.jpg

 

The Eitan (credit: ANNA AHRONHEIM)

 

EDIT: New info - Eitan will supposedly enter initial service this year, instead of the envisioned 2020. It is however difficult to see how that can be done when not a single prototype was yet fitted with either the Trophy system, or the turret.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Apparently it's a 30mm Bushmaster and the vehicle as shown, is the configuration entering service. 

One important question is will Spike ATGMs be an option?

 

Cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Namer is very big compared to M2. So, the barrel seems to be tiny.

25mm is of no more use today. 30mm is a balanced choice. 

 

Look at a Bradley with 30mm :

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun was identified as the new Mk 44 Bushmaster by ATK, in the 30mm caliber. 

 

Spike, as it seems, is not an option. However I do not entirely advocate it. While it will have no disadvantages other than training expenses, it won't have too many benefits to begin with. The vehicle will be too close for precision strikes and will use its gun, and against tanks it will likely rely on the specialized AT infantry units (dismounts).

 

I believe I've read somewhere that a typical Spike launcher can be easily placed on the hull roof. 

 

Either way, not too many uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zuk,

Normaly I would agree with you. I am not a fan of either IFVs or mounting ATGMs on an infantry carrier.

 

It depends how the vehicle is to be utillised though. If it is going to be used in the same manner as a the Russian BMPT-72 (unlikely) as a tank support vehicle, or as an infantry support vehicle (likely). If the former, then ATGMs would make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But Namer is nothing more than a H-APC, not a fire support armored vehicle. They have tanks for this. 

 

I think two points :

1- the key point is to continu to deploy Trophy ADS ;

2- when considering the whole net of Israël fire power (tanks+artillery+air cav), the Mk-44 is the right choice. It will complet the whole organisation at the right cost.

 

The interest in ATGM on Tsahal IFVs is not founded. They are no more facing huge well organised armored armys. They are facing man portable AT roquette/missile proliferation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Serge,

 

I am well aware that the Namer is a heavy APC. Yet the intent for the Namer was originally for a family of vehicles, including a "Fire Support Variant". How do I know this? I was invited to attend a presentation and discussion of the Namer project, by the then head of Mantak, at the time the first Namer  prototype was undergoing its firepower trials. 

 

Lack of funds and differences of doctrine withinj the IDF  scuppered these plans. I do suspect that only a proportion of Namers will carry the new turret and envisage them acting as a Fire Support Vehicle, albeit, without ATGMs.

 

I do understand that the nature of the enemy has changed, assuming things do not go pear shaped with Egypt or Turkey.  As I stated, I do not expect ATGMs to be mounted on the vehicle.

 

Incidentally I do not believe the IDF has "Air Cav" at least not in the way the US invisages it.

 

Cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

New turret for the Namer with an integrated APS. Will provide updates as soon as I get home. This is Zuk time!

capture6-jpg.62377

 

capture54-jpg.62378

 

capture34-jpg.62379

 

capture432-jpg.62380

 

1%20(1)_0.jpg?itok=W6QNv48V

 

I like everything about what they're doing here!

 

Even the lack of Spike totally makes sense to me in a sort of "you eat elephants one bite at a time" way.

 

What i mean by this is attempting to integrate spike on top of the APS all in the same relatively small volume and possibly power consumption limitations would have likely added 6-18 months and at least one or two extra zeros to development time and prices.

 

Meanwhile, Moore's law might be rapidly reaching the wall in consumer stuff but properly hardened and certified military computing etc options still seem to have a bit more wiggle room before they hit their wall. 

 

What this means to me in this instance is that we're probably very likely to see something spike like show up at worst as a midlife upgrade. At which point, everything about the necessary electronics etc will be cheaper, more robust, and more capable for any given budget.

 

Also, namer looks really F***ing MEAN with that turret, which is AWESOME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Is it a manned turret, or an RWS type?

Unmanned and completely overhead. 

Worth noting that the Namer was designed with provisions for a turret, and was tested with the UT-30 Mk 1 and Samson Mk 1 who are both overhead stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breech loading mortars in turret roofs are not new, they date back to WW2 at least. What is very novel is an autoloaded breech loaded (?*) mortar in a turret roof, I don't think that's been done before

 

*Potentially there could be an arm that comes out of one of the hatches, but I think breech loading would be simpler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. 
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire teams of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. 
      Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia disruptive pattern. 
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. 
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that is is offered separately, it’s high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst by no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.  
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

×