Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

Two types of interceptors for APS?

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

 

It's APS, in the video this thing launches interceptor to destroy RPG (2:30)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Screenshot_1.png

 

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.

 

Screenshot_2.png

 

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.

 

Screenshot_3.png

 

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.

 

Screenshot_4.png

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

It's APS, in the video this thing launches interceptor to destroy RPG (2:30)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Adraste said:

The ATK 50mm gun as shown in the Griffin demonstrator would be a more promising fit for the Carmel even if it means slightly lenghting the turret to accomodate the bigger ammos. The Carmel deserves a next-gen gun.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'Carmel' future armored vehicle project seems to me more and more a worderful compact 'turtle', with amazing situational awareness (the Rafael solution is largely the best concept I've ever seen), great firepower (even better with the ATK 50 Supershot), mobility and probably also great protection, passive (a so compact 36 ton AFV could be over Stanag 6 level) and active, with its APS. 

 

I think it could be a perfect platform for ISR and strike missions, in the role of forward echelon / covering force of the heavy armored brigades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VPZ said:

Are they going to install tank cannon on Carmel? Because, after all, army will need a replacement for Merkava.

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.

Share this post


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

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.

 

That vehicle looks a lot larger and higher than 5 tons and 2 meters and packs a lot more firepower. Seems more something along the Russian Terminator line of CONOPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aroud 3:42-3:43 when they replace 3d model of that vehicle to 3d model of Boxer - one can somewhat compare those two.
jTNUp03.jpg
To me it looks like that thing was about 20 feet long and 6 feet 3 - 6 feet 7 high by hull's roof excluding turret, and (as seen on 3:36) rather wide,
FXOh3Vn.jpg
- overall, hull allmost as big (mere feet-and-a-half shorter) as that of the Bradley.
It looks smaller in earlier part of the video, when it materializes around 2 soldiers - but than it shoul have gun barrel length of like 5 or 6 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

 

According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

 

If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

 

PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Adraste said:

The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

 

According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

 

If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

 

PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

 

 

Transmissions are probably produced in Israel (at least, it was so in the past).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, VPZ said:

It has to be 30-35 tons, like modern light tanks.

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MRose said:

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

 

The chassis in the video is not what will really be.

Share this post


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

A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.

"relatively"
It's much narrower, compared to what could be expected given Namer's width when measured by tracks -
partly because of those antimine seats and because of whatever is located behind them on this pic:
7mSdfaJ.jpg 
MKhRGoQ.jpg

in the end soldiers seat in wery tight knee-to-knee configuration, although on those two pics its partly because of backpacks they wearing.
YBlz9wU.jpg
vAKbycj.jpg
VlN8DGF.jpg

different seats + not wearing backpacks inside = much more spacious, look at this Bradley photo:
QEYHcNH.jpg
or T-15 Armata, to that matter:
5LEc49E.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VPZ said:
14 hours ago, MRose said:

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

 

The chassis in the video is not what will really be.

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

 

A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VPZ said:
3 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

 

A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

 

The whole more guns than crew hasn't struck you as a little odd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By delfosisyu
      I heard Merkava tanks have  revolving magazine for main gun loading.
      Magazines hold 6 rounds for Merkava I, II,   5 rounds  for Merkava III, 10 rounds for Merkava IV. 
      After emptying the magazine, how is the procedure for filling magazines with stowed rounds?
    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
×
×
  • Create New...