VPZ

It's good that in other countries light tanks are not called "tank destroyers".
The thing is that some people believe that Sprut was made for destroying MBTs, but it wasn't (this fact is mentioned in the article I quoted).

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles during an amphibious assault.
 

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
 

Two types of interceptors for APS?
 

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land-amphibious/3521-us-developing-abrams-upgrades-to-ensure-survivability-into-2030s/amp?__twitter_impression=true
 

Concepts of Strogiy corvette. I think their 3D renderer just don't work properly.

 
 
 
 

2 questions:
1)What exact components are outdated? If the outer shell holding the armor is changed, and the armor being possibly changed, the internal construction to alter the ammo stowage also being changed, and finally the FCS also changed, I don't see what exactly is left that could be considered outdated.
 
2)Even if the layout is almost identical (except for TOGS), does it necessarily mean the turret is the same?
I don't see why the externally visible components have to be relocated. 

The latest issue of the armor magazine in Israel, reveals that the 401st Armored Brigade is the first to accept the Barak into service, and the assimilation process has begun several months ago. 
An assimilation process includes first a study of the tank's systems and development of a doctrine prior to the production phase that will begin in 2020, and the final induction phase of operational capability starting in 2021 and ending in 2023 for that brigade. 
This confirms that the 188th brigade will retain its Merkava 3 tanks that will be upgraded with Trophy systems, and the first Trophy-equipped Merkava 4M tanks will start being delivered to the reserve forces. This is the current status of the armored corps:
 
By 2021 the reserve forces will have only 1 brigade of Merkava 2 tanks. By 2023 it should be entirely phased out, with the exception of converted vehicles such as the Ofek.
The state of the armored corps will be:
5 brigades of purely Merkava 4 tanks, of which 2 are Merkava 4A/B, and 3 are Merkava 4M. 6 brigades of Merkava 3 tanks, of which 3 are Merkava 3D, one is Merkava 3M, and 2 are Merkava 3A. An instructional brigade will remain with a mixed force of Merkava 3D and 4M, in a ratio of 1/2 respectively. In the year 2026 the Merkava 4 in all variants will become the most dominant tank in the IDF ground forces.
 
 

Merkava 3 with prototype APS? 

Wire cutters? Americans used them too.

Jag

 
 

Israeli defense writer for news site "IsraelDefense", Ami Rojkes Dombe, brings up a good point in a so-far-hebrew-only speculative article, that the Israeli MoD's project for a joint APS developed by all major gov't owned companies - IAI (radar), IMI (interceptor), and Rafael (electronic and overall architecture), is probably even more dead right now than it was in 2014. 
 
The history goes a bit like this:
 
2006 - Rafael and IMI demonstrate their APS in state trials.
2007 - Trophy is selected to enter service.
2008 - Trophy enters production.
2009 - First battalion is fully equipped.
2014 - IMOD initiates program to develop joint APS by Rafael, IMI, and IAI, with Rafael being the prime contractor.
2016 - 2 brigades are fully equipped, and preparations made for production for Namers and Merkava 3 tanks.
2017 - Total of 1,000 new systems are on order until 2027, with an average production rate of 100 vehicles per year.
==============================================================================================================================
 
Now for the future:
 
2019 - Carmel project ends (cockpit design) and is superseded by Kaliya/Bullet, thus increasing the urgency for next gen APS.
2021 - Merkava 4 Barack tanks enter service with new APS capable of defeating KEPs.
2027 - Vehicles developed in the Kaliya/Bullet program enter service with a next generation APS.
 
So by 2021, which is relatively speaking right around the corner, The IMOD should have an anti-KEP APS already in service.
 
This puts quite a dent in that goal, but MANTAK can't really be blamed for falling behind schedule. It's very atypical for them. In the worst case, the MoD presents a schedule that is unnecessarily stretched, but MANTAK are known to always deliver.
==============================================================================================================================
 
Back to the speculation part:
 
The deal was that IMI, IAI, and Rafael will supply a joint APS. It was actually tried before, and failed. The companies did not agree to work together for a whole lot of reasons, mostly related to pride, even though they were government owned companies.
It was revived, and although nothing new of it came up throughout the years, other than that the Barack will get an anti-KEP APS which is without a shred of doubt a reference at the joint APS, it seems that the MAPS program of the US Armed Forces, along with the financial difficulties of IMI, have made a completion of this project somewhat unlikely.
 
What we know:
IMI is now being absorbed into Elbit, with the move perhaps being finalized before the end of 2018 (stock merger in November). Elbit, being a private company, can be far more aggressive in marketing than even Rafael and IMI were known to be, and they are showing that they can definitely swallow entire markets within Israel's defense industries. Rafael and IMI are fiercely fighting against each other in the US, Australia, and all over Europe, instead of working together on offering a joint system that shouldn't be more developmental than the new developmental iterations of the Trophy and Iron Fist. However there is one mitigating factor that should be taken into account:
The IDF is reportedly testing the IF-LC on the Eitan and D9 bulldozers, which should signal to Rafael that they may want a cooperation after all, to mitigate the threat presented by Elbit.

I think Damian here is confused, or was confused.
A long while ago, back in 2017, he said there were a total of 6 interceptors, which means 2 in storage and 1 ready per side, which is 3 per side for a total of 6.
Now he's saying it's 4+1 per side? It's definitely plausible but it's quite confusing.