Mighty_Zuk

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.


 

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.
 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

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.
 

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

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]

They put so much effort into ditching the rubber side skirts in favor of solid, probably steel-made skirts which allow good mounting for the ERA, and they use bags? Why did they even replace the skirts then?

3 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

I dunno about that, knowing the SAA they'll surely find a way to fuck it up royally.

They could always send Russian troops to man it, then instruct SAA soldiers on how to operate them.  They do have their fair share of experienced, capable operators.

2 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

I think that vehicle would fare fairly well in conflicts like the SCW.

Which makes me wonder why did they delay its exhibition and delivery until now. Instead of sending refurbished T-62M and T-72AV they could have invested a little bit more money, then profit on the fame it will get.

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Speaking of your blog, Spike II is the first version that can do steep dives?

You can do it manually with the Spike LR of the current generation, but only in manual mode. The 5th gen Spike LR II allows you to exploit its F&F mode while doing steep dives.

Thanks for the cutaway photos man!

My blog is fine, I just had to temporarily change its name but it'll be up and running soon. I need new material first, though.

7 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

On what grounds do you say that?

 

I'm merely relying on the findings of an aviation specialist I know. His arguments are that DoD never confirmed such information, neither about the AIM-120 nor about the AIM-9, and that CNN has added that information with the sole validation of "Two US officials told CNN". 

I'll be waiting for official confirmation. Until then, I maintain doubt.

2 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

That Su-22 that got shot down the other day spoofed an AIM-9X before dying; http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/

This story is most likely BS. 

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Syrian-skirmish-spills-over-into-Israels-Golan-Heights-497782

In spillover, SAA troops fire 10 shells into Israeli territory. No injuries.

Israel responds by destroying HMG position and two tanks, who were the source of fire.

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

Lets play a game of "Guess the ATGM":

 

 @LoooSeR @SH_MM @Collimatrix @Mighty_Zuk

Definitely a Spike missile, but not sure whether MR or LR. I'm gonna go with MR.

6 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

I was speaking about "ears" on turret sides, near rear end of it.

That's what we're all talking about.

These aren't them, MM. 

Merkava 3 does use this laser warning system but without a mast.

The sensors on the mast appear to be different, with wide openings.

Thanks again for an informative post.

Now, I must ask, why did the T-90K never enter production. Do platoon/company commanders just roll in regular T-90A, or is there a commander version of it called T-90KA or AK?

In the Golan again:

Alrighty then. I stand corrected on the armor part. I'm surprised but at the same time I'm not.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Here is something for this topic:

 

A Greek blog entry on their testing of the Challenger 2E, Leclerc, Leopard 2 Improved, M1A2 Abrams, T-80U and T-84 tanks. The scores from the evaluation are the following:

1. Leopard 2 Improved - 78.3
2. M1A2 Abrams - 72.95
3. Leclerc - 71.92
4. Challenger 2E - 69.89
5. Т-80U - 59.2
6. Т-84 - 56.3

The google translate output is quite interessting, if correct. Supposedly the Challenger 2E was found to be worse armored (!) than the M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2 Improved despite being heavier. So much about mighty "Chobham Mk. 2 Dorchester" being the best armor. Even the ten tons lighter Leclerc tank had nearly the same level of protection as the Challenger 2E.

 

I find it hard to believe the Leclerc was deemed better armored than a significantly heavier Challenger 2, especially when both were very modern at the time.

Maybe they meant it was better protected, as opposed to better armored? No need to mention that protection and armor are not the same thing.

Any news on Poland's future tank program? I believe it was interested in participating directly in the Leopard 3 program between KMW and Nexter, but haven't heard any news on that for a long time.

http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-to-develop-new-155-mm-self-propelled-howitzer.html

Maybe they like the BMP-3 turret because they're trying to sell their platforms to the UAE which operates these turrets?

Didn't know if it should be in the whirlybird thread or this one, but considering it centers around the armament I'll put it here:

The AH-64D Apache in IAF service will (likely) replace its Hellfire missiles with Spike variants. Thus, the AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radar will be removed as seen here:

To be fair, their hulls are elevated so their floor would be above that of an Abrams.

I just assume they kept it to keep the crew a little more sane, as otherwise every bullet could have been heard well.