Adraste

The Elbit Sigma (which is supposed to replaced the venerable M109 in IDF service) is taking shape. Production models are still months/year beyond

In 2019 there was a FMS contract for the IDF acquiring 240 MTU GD883 to equip new-built Namer. My question is since the water-cooled MTU engine is considerably more compact than the AVDS-1790, do you think the IDF intends to increase the number of crew seats by shrinking the size of the Namer's drive train compartment? 

Will it be considered as the Namer Mk II?

PS: I am putting a link of the report which went relatively unnoticed back then:

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24259#.YABCYehKhPZ

How to polish the Merkava IV (Four long video covering maintenance aspect of the tank)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyMLYDPTFNVXfheEXo8mdDA

On 12/27/2019 at 10:04 AM, SH_MM said:

Germany has signed a contract with MBDA for the Wirkmittel 1800+ program. MBDA's Enforcer missile was chosen over the Spike-SR system offered by EuroSpike under licence.

 

Remind me of the Mini-Spike (cancelled). The warhead was tailored for anti-personal & light armored target  role due to its small size.

IDF D-9 Bulldozer are also selected to be installed with Iron Fist Light Decoupled. Great news for the IDF Engineering Corps!

Just last April the Indian Army made a small but urgent Spike missile purchase (240 Spike MR missile). They can make small acquisition up to $72 million worth of items for each deal separate from the Indian MoD.

Once the Spike enters indian service, the Indian Army will probably purchase further batch as they cannot wait forever on bureaucracy's fairy tales. And the Indian Army might want something more potent like the Spike LR2, ER2 or/and NLOS. Strategic patience is needed when dealing with India's bureaucracy.

12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

I understand your first point but let me disagree with you. Until recently, Iron Dome was marketed mainly as a semi-mobile C-RAM system which very few countries needed except maybe South Korea thus limiting its potential worldwide. Now that Iron Dome's live testing and process qualification against conventional threat such as cruise missile, UAV or air-launched PGM are in full swing, the export opportunities will multiply.

The development of Iron Dome's spin-off variant such as the naval C-Dome and the fully-mobile all-in-one I-Dome should only emphasize my point.

Possibly as a payback, the US may strike a deal with Israel to include x percent of US-made components for particular markets such as NATO, like they are already doing with the US-funded IAF's Iron Dome batteries.

47 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 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.

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.

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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. 

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 multi-mission radar from Elta but it is wishful thinking.
 

The $8 billion figure is misleading because it is the budget allocated for both the futur Swiss air force's F-18 fighter replacement AND a new SAM system. The Swiss needs 2 SAM batteries so the cost would not exceed the $1 - $1.5 billion figure, far from the Polish PAC-3 overall cost. 

It has yet to be seen whether the IDF will install Trophy APS on the 188th Brigade's Merkava mk3. Since the 188th will switch to MK4 Barak after 2020, I doubt the IDF will make the costly investment on tanks that were not initially designed to host such a power-hungry device like the Trophy APS. They didn't retrofit non-Trophy MK4 with the APS (yet), why would they do it for older and less capable tanks?

The decision to replace the Merkava 3D Baz with MK4 Barak appears to be in line with the purchase of 270 GD883 (MTU883) engine to power the Namer instead of the Merkava MK3's old Continental AVDS-1790 engine. It will facilitate the jobs of the maintenance, logistics and repair units in the field and in the warehouse and be more cost-effective and time-efficient with one common powertrain for each active tank and infantry heavy armor brigade.

It would have been a shame and an enlistment nightmare that the 188th Barak Brigade continues with older MK3 tanks while the 401th get two generation of MK4 consecutively (3 if we count the MK4M). Barak tank for the Barak Brigade is justice!

A few pics from the recent flare-up

On 3/27/2019 at 12:41 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

And yet, this data is contested even by Rafael's official data. They say the range of the Tamir is classified, as is the range of the David's Sling, and therefore only provide very vague figures that appear to be only true in very specific cases, in order to give the public something without revealing the true range.

A 150 square kilometer protected area does imply 7km range, but Rafael claimed in 2011 that a test of the system proved a then-newly-identified capability to intercept drones at a 10km altitude. A system with a 7km range on the horizontal plain would hardly reach even half that on vertical. 

I think what the 150 sqkm figure tells is over what area a single battery's components can be spread (mainly the launchers) without interrupting real-time communications. 

 

With a 10km altitude, any heavy rocket with a range of even 200km or more, comes within the interception range of the Iron Dome if it overflies it. That's what happened over the Hermon, and that's what happened numerous times over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in 2014. Yep, the Iron Dome has a combat proven capability to defeat heavy rockets far larger and far more powerful than the officially stated "against rockets with 70km range" claim. 

 

All the areas surrounding Gaza are pretty much covered by the Iron Dome already. Therefore the David's Sling operators can focus on the much faster ballistic missiles possessed by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah, rather than Gaza's long range rockets.

 

It was indeed possible for the David's Sling to react in both these cases, but I repeat that this duty overlaps with the Iron Dome, and the Iron Dome's inactivity, not failure, is being investigated.

 

Finally, it's quite sad Rafael didn't throw in its bid in the Swiss program. It could have been a key opportunity. In Poland they also withdrew their bid, but that was because the US offered them to have their missiles be part of the US offer in the Patriot system. Here it seems Raytheon entered a bid with only the PAC-3, but time may tell us more.

AFAIK during the Hermon missile attack, the Iranian guided-ballistic rockets were specifically targeting the military and civilian sites. There was no overfly per-se, the iranian rockets were in their final descending phase of the ballistic path when the Tamir missiles were launched to intercept them. There was an intelligence warning that the IRGC intended to attack the Hermon so an Iron Dome battery was positioned just next to the ski resort beforehand. 

I am not an expert in rocket science but the heavy caliber medium range rocket like the M-302 in Gaza should be able to reach an apogee much greater than 10 km altitude, probably between 30 and 50 km when launched at their maximum range of 150km.

Even if the Iron Dome can reach an altitude of 10km, intercepting medium and long range rockets would be only possible when the threats are themself in their terminal phase of flight.

Thus having the Gaza strip surrounded by Iron Dome batteries would not necessarily protect the center of Israel against Hamas  long-range rockets like the M-302. A faster and longer-range interceptor like the Stunner could be used not only to intercept the M-302 during its terminal phase over Tel-Aviv but also during M-302's ascending and apogee phase before and during mid-flight.

Iron Dome is falling under the V-SHORAD and CRAM category. An Iron Dome battery can allegedly protects an urban or military area of approximately 150 square kilometers. It would mean the Tamir has an effective range of about 7 km which is in line of what we can expect from a V-SHORAD system.

To put thing in perspective Tel Aviv metro is  >1500 km² and the IDF has only 10 operational Iron Dome batteries for the foreseen futur. On the other hand, David's Sling has no such range limitation. Even if the Tamir interceptor has been upgraded with later model and the area it can defend has increased, it is still limited by its specific requirements and economics. There was little to zero chance that this unlucky moshav would have been under the protective coverage of an Iron Dome battery.

You understand why David's Sling is an absolutely critical layer specifically against the large caliber medium range rocket/missile like the ones fired at Tel Aviv metro from Gaza

On 3/19/2019 at 9:10 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/37870

 

 Israel and the USA completed a test of the David's Sling system, in a "newly developed configuration", that is said to expand its envelope of targets, and prepare it for more complex types of targets.

 

I'll remind that this system is currently being integrated to the Patriot architecture as part of a contract with Poland.

 

There is something fishy going on about David's Sling recently. After the political echelon proudly proclaimed its operational deployment in April 2017, David's Sling failed its 'baptism by fire' in july 2018 missing two SS-21 missiles launched by SAA as part of the ongoing civil war.

I have no doubt the failure provided valuable informations to improve the David Sling which is about to undergo an upgrade according to the latest news. What is worrying is since the mid-2018 miss, it has not been used operationally neither against the Iranian SSM on the Hermon nor against the Hamas M-302 SSM 'unintentional' attack early March and the yesterday's attack on a Moshav north of Tel Aviv.

These medium/long range rockets should have been the realm of David Sling's interceptors to whom just a single battery can cover the whole Tel Aviv metropolis and central Israel while you would need at least a half-dozen shorter-range Iron Dome batteries to do the same job in and around Tel Aviv.

Lastly, Rafael has withdrawn David Sling for the Swiss bid.

For patrol mission in  medium and high-risk area, the Oshkosh M-ATV (already armored by Plasan) coupled with IMI Iron Fist LC would be a perfect fitted for the IDF. The M-ATV would advantageously replaced the up-armored HMMWV in IDF service which are not deemed safe enough to patrol the Lebanese border anymore or any dangerous place for that matter and force the IDF to use NAMER instead.

There is already a clear expectation that the IDF would procure the JLTV (Oshkosh L-ATV) and since the M-ATV is an up-armored variant, it would be a natural process. No need to reinvent the wheel and waste ressources on R&D while it is better need elsewhere. And it would still leave a space for a custom IDF-tailored MRAP APC.

31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In the MRAP role, the IDF so far has the Ze'ev (Wolf), seen in the 4th picture.

Currently the IDF is looking for an MRAP in the 8 ton category.

Wolf is already a 8 ton MRAP APC. 

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

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.

Quote

 

Iron Fist APS

 

• Phase I Iron Fist live fire and user testing was completed in 2018. Preliminary assessment by the Army was that the system demonstrated an inconsistent capability to intercept threats. Counter-munition dudding and power failures to the launcher were leading contributors to the low intercept rate. The Program Offi ce has been working with the vendor on design improvements to address the system performance shortcomings. Some prospective solutions have been implemented and will be tested in Phase II.

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018aps.pdf

Now we have a better idea as to why the IDF was reluctant to select IMI Iron Fist and paid for more R&D and improvements themself . Trophy was and still is more mature and efficient. The good news is that the US army kept her faith in the Iron Fist and asked IMI to improve several shortcomings thus benefiting all the other futur operators of this APS

13 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

 

M113 as armed UGV:

I thought the IDF wasn't going to invest any shekel on M113. Interesting.

I am surprised we don't see any Merkava mk3 of the 188th Brigade upgraded with the Trophy APS yet. The whole brigade should have been equipped with it by now, I wonder why it is taking so long? Sounds worrying.

Credits @ Zachi Evenor

Some Spike ER2 Porn. You can see the range in the middle at the bottom of the screen. It crossed the 10km range mark on multiple occasion

Correct me if I'm wrong but one aspect that the IDF is somewhat lagging behind is in the medium/heavy wheeled MRAP sector.

The Israeli military industry have come up with many prototype and commercial design over the years with the Rafael Golan, IMI Wildcat, Plasan Sandcat and more recently Gaia Thunder and Amir. While the Sandcat (in a lightweight configuration) has been bought by the Israeli border police, the IDF doesn't seem to be interested by MRAP vehicle. Is there any reason of this disaffection by the IDF?

Here is the Gaia Amir MRAP which I never heard of until the latest Eurosatory: