What's new

IDF Armored corps

'Trophy uses an MEFP warhead, which requires a rather uncontrolled form of detonation. As the body of an EFP needs to be made of metal (with a thinner, shaped front plate), there will always be fragments of the steel shell flying to all sides. To prevent the blast and fragments from damaging the tanks (optics, anti-air machine gun, smoke grenade dischargers) or wounding the crew (when operating above the hatches).
To fix this, Trophy is fitted with a blast shield made of steel. This is fixed to the tank, though I am not sure if this can be folded down like a hatch or retracted. The blast shield prevents Trophy to be turned around (althought the general layout of the Trophy system with launchers located at the turret sides), so each launcher covers only about 180-220° of azimuth. This means, that it is not possible to use the left launcher to defeat any sort of missile coming at the right side of the tank. If one launcher is reloading, the other one cannot cover the tanks side. If two or more RPGs are fired at the same side of the tank at the same time, one launcher is not enough to stop them.'

ZttZc4z.png


Blast shields for the MEFP warhead creates blind spots, you can clearly see how with this model.
bdog35129b_720x600.jpg
 
'Trophy uses an MEFP warhead, which requires a rather uncontrolled form of detonation. As the body of an EFP needs to be made of metal (with a thinner, shaped front plate), there will always be fragments of the steel shell flying to all sides. To prevent the blast and fragments from damaging the tanks (optics, anti-air machine gun, smoke grenade dischargers) or wounding the crew (when operating above the hatches).
To fix this, Trophy is fitted with a blast shield made of steel. This is fixed to the tank, though I am not sure if this can be folded down like a hatch or retracted. The blast shield prevents Trophy to be turned around (althought the general layout of the Trophy system with launchers located at the turret sides), so each launcher covers only about 180-220° of azimuth. This means, that it is not possible to use the left launcher to defeat any sort of missile coming at the right side of the tank. If one launcher is reloading, the other one cannot cover the tanks side. If two or more RPGs are fired at the same side of the tank at the same time, one launcher is not enough to stop them.'

ZttZc4z.png


Blast shields for the MEFP warhead creates blind spots, you can clearly see how with this model.
bdog35129b_720x600.jpg
exactly what i was thinking trophy is not a 360 degree protection system but question arise can top attack missile exploit its weakness or not.don't know about spike or javelin but tow 2b most probably will be intercepted because of its low flying before it can reach top of the tank.
(as shaped charges lose its effectiveness if there is significant distance between detonated charges and target hence need for low flight)
 
thanks for the detailed reply bro spike truly is a remarkable missile against tanks with ERA and RHA. just want to ask you one more thing is it or for that matter any top attack missile is effective against active protection systems.
No current ATGW (direct attack or top attack) is designed to defeat APS because current ATGWs pretty much predate the advent of any functional APS. But that doesn't mean they couldn't. E.g. if you know for a fact that APS system X has a blind spot in coverage, what's to stop you from applying your old ATGW right there. Top attack ATGMs like the ones we discussed attack the tank (turret) top, requiring the active protection system to attack nearly vertically, for which the APS hard kill element might have not been designed. The same is true for an RPG being fired in a steep downward angle from an elevated location at a target below.

Also, one would neet to know WHICH active protection system, as they are not all alike.
 
upload_2016-8-17_0-23-11.png


Ok so here we are over on the front left side of the Merkava 4 with Trophy, when viewed from the tank. The tank's left hard kill launcher can clearly hit us at this angle. But the right one clearly too. This suggest the two field over fire clearly overlap well, to the front. But, we are at some distance from the tank (so the closer in we get, it may be more difficult to achieve that overlap, as the turret and blast shield will get in the way.) and also we are a bit above the tank (so, the lower down we are, it may be more difficult to achieve overlap, as the hull front and gun barrel will get in the way)

Merkava4BazMAddOnFrontCharging.jpg

Similar but over on the other side of the MBT. I don't think there is a coverage gap forward.

Frontal shots, closer in, from lower angle for comparison.
upload_2016-8-17_0-28-30.png

namer-merkava.jpg

merkavaivbaza.jpg

It would be nice to know the diameter of the circular coverage i.e. how far out from the tank are missiles supposed to be killed. Is this the same all around ?


exactly what i was thinking trophy is not a 360 degree protection system but question arise can top attack missile exploit its weakness or not.don't know about spike or javelin but tow 2b most probably will be intercepted because of its low flying before it can reach top of the tank.
(as shaped charges lose its effectiveness if there is significant distance between detonated charges and target hence need for low flight)
In Bill, the downward firing charges are angled, relative to one another and fires sequentially in such a way the the first charge hits exactly the same spot as the second. One fires slightly backwards, the other straight down. The Bill and TOW 2B missiles overfly the target at a set height. These missiles come in horizontally, at a little more than the tanks overall height (say, 4m of the ground). Spike and Lahat don't do that, they dive onto their target from above at a shallow 30 degree or not so shallow 85 degree angle. They make contact at the nose (i.e. zero distance between missile and tank)

Rear area coverage may be more problematic due to the turret bustle. But again, the hard kill takes place some distance away from the vehicle.
upload_2016-8-17_0-46-13.png



Of course, the hardkill system is mounted on the turret, so any coverage gap to the front or rear of the turret moves along as the turret turns. Where - if at all - the hull is not protected depends then on turret position.....

[start edit] I believe the Trophy systems at least gives warning of incoming ATGW, so it may be possible to - manually or automatically - slew the turret to a position that provides optimal coverage. [/end edit]

Merkava4BazAddOnNotWhatYouWantToSee1stThingAM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Atleast from what I heard,Trophy gain control over the turret if needed. Also self reloading capability is very very fast, and the chances u'll shoot couple of missiles at that "gap" is almost zero, and destroying the tank is even lower.
 
Atleast from what I heard,Trophy gain control over the turret if needed. Also self reloading capability is very very fast, and the chances u'll shoot couple of missiles at that "gap" is almost zero, and destroying the tank is even lower.
It does not take control over the turret if needed, because it's actually not even needed, for each warhead has ~210 degree of action - they are overlapping into each others covering territory.
 
Background
Amid a problematic period for the IDF Armored Corps, several highly important announcements were made. The Armored Corps has a popularity issue, and to be more exact - it is the least popular in the ground forces. In the last incident, 86 men who were conscripted to the armored corps, refused to be enlisted to the corps and demanded to be reassigned to other units, primarily infantry.
To repair this, the IDF came out in a few statements that will likely bring up its popularity. A very vaguely said one, but perhaps the most important of them all, is the development of a thorough upgrade for the Merkava 4, named Barak.

The Barak is said to be already in development, with a working prototype being ready within 3 years from now.

As a side note; Merkava 3 tanks are also slated to receive the Trophy APS of the upgraded variant, on which I will elaborate further in this post.

Stated features
1)More and larger touchscreens.
2)External cameras.
3)Upgraded Trophy system.
4)Better, BMS, observation and identification systems.
5)Sensor fusion and data fusion.
6)Unmanned Ground Vehicle operation.


What can we infer
1)Makes it practically a "smart" tank that brings it closer to what the youth that operates these tanks is familiar with. Every crew member's interface will be easier to handle.


2)External peripheral cameras existed on Merkava tanks for a little over a decade now. Clearly the mean something else, right? Right. The system at hand is the Elbit's IronVision which is based on Elbit's existing products - JHMCS 2 fighter pilot helmet designed for the F-35 warplane, and STA peripheral camera set that covers a hemispherical view (except the belly) around the tank.

So why cannot the IDF just settle for the STA and wants to go for the highly expensive helmet system? Because using the cameras with a joystick is time consuming in a rapidly changing environment, and it is tedious, which then forces tank crews to peek outside the tank and expose themselves.


Elbit's IronVision system

A usual setup for the IronVision is 2 helmets - one for the TC, and another for the driver.

3)The development of a Trophy 2 system has been announced in 2014 and is a cooperation between RAFAEL (developer of the Trophy 1), IMI (developer of Iron Fist), and IAI.
IMI will provide its Iron Fist interceptors, IAI will provide the radar, whereas RAFAEL will do the integration and development work.

Iron Fist and Trophy are two very different systems, with very different features that act as their selling points.




Iron Fist is a "grenade" launching system that applies a fragment-free directed spherical blast that would "cut" an ATGM or RPG mid-air, or will tilt an APFSDS shell to the point where it is no longer a threat. According to IMI's CEO, a simple 7° yaw would reduce the APFSDS's energy by up to 90%.
According to test footage, the yaw was actually far greater than 7°, and was nearing 45°.


At 3:00 a test against APFSDS is shown

Iron Fist provides a full protection suite that would defeat any form of existing fired anti-tank threat, but to do that it needs rather large munitions that cannot be reloaded in the current configuration.

Trophy, on the other hand, uses a much more unique method of firing an MEFP charge (Multiple Explosively Formed Penetrators) that sends sharp pellets flying towards the target. The charges are small and can be reloaded through an auto-loading system beneath it, however these small charges are unable to defeat APFSDS.


One more advantage of the Iron Fist is that it is more compact, and can be more easily applied to lighter platforms, for example the Eitan that will soon enter production. The Trophy is rather bulky in its current configuration when fitted to turreted IFVs.


Trophy HV on LAV III

4)The Merkava 4 is already equipped with a significant array of means to identify hostile elements. Starting with its basic gunner's and commander's sights with multi-channel feeds, to an interconnected BMS shared among the entire ground forces as well as the air force, to the Trophy which is able to pinpoint the location of an ATGM position immediately after firing.

It could very well mean that another element for search and identification will be used, and among the options is a BMS coupled with the IronVision that provide visual location of a pre-identified enemy, rather than a dot on a flat 2D display.
BMS are a great thing, but they're only as effective as the operator's ability to comprehend the data.


Even the best conventional BMS is not comfortable to operate

5)Tank Commanders (TC) are often overburdened with information in the heat of battle. Keeping up with constant reports of enemy movement, friendly movement, and ongoing fire exchanges is no easy task, and is highly prone to human error. For example in 2014 operation in Gaza, 5 soldiers were killed from friendly fire, and in an extreme case incident, a tank fired 4 HE shells on another friendly tank located several kilometers away. None was injured. The incident resulted from the TC's lack of understanding of where friendly units are positioned at the moment, and temporary lack of ability to identify the target as a friendly tank.

With the BMS, IronVision, and new communication technologies being implemented in the new Merkava 4 Barak, there is now a chance to integrate them into a single grid that will feed simplified data to the TC and substantially increase the combat capabilities of the tank on an individual level and battle group level.


6)The ability to receive feed from UAVs has existed for quite a long time, but UGVs are a completely different animal.
Although Israel does not yet make killer robots such as the Russian Uran-9, its industries have gained a world leader status in that field. The Guardium UGV has successfully been patrolling the Gaza border and around airfields, as well as in the volatile northern region, the Protector USV has been protecting Israel's ports, and a long line of UAVs have taken Israel Air Force's duty as the most numerous type of aircraft to be flown.

Israeli industries have showcased a very wide range of solutions based on unmanned vehicles; ranging from logistics, surveillance and convoy protection to decoys and possibly firing platforms.

Perhaps the most creative and cheapest one would be to use masses of repurposed M113 APCs converted for unmanned operation, as supply carriers, forward observation vehicles, decoys for IEDs, and a whole range of missions. They're available in thousands and the conversion is very cheap.
In military terms it's really nothing.

Israel is leading in robotic autonomy development, and so creating a fleet of unmanned vehicles based on M113 for a multitude of missions, would definitely be viable.


upload_2017-3-13_18-46-37.jpeg

The-Border-Protector-UGV-Photo-courtesy-IDF-Spokespersons-Unit-600x483.png

What it means
Touchscreens already exist on the Merkava, but improving the interface further and making everything more accessible, will shorten training time and will be another step towards IDF's plans to reduce overall service time, which many criticize as a wrong decision because training time will take up too much of that period.

The ability to see through the armor and into the environment and the higher level of data gathering from new sensors, its fusion into a streamlined and simplified data; will significantly improve the crew's situational awareness and thus their overall effectiveness in all existing combat scenarios.

The Trophy 2 system will likely incorporate an automatic loading system into the Iron Fist's launcher system, giving it a highly durable operation that would allow both defeating tank-fired APFSDS, and deal with high saturation fire from all sorts of threats.

And the ability to control drones would greatly aid the tanks, as a group, in any given scenario as well. It could be a convoy protection vehicle that detects mines and IEDs. It could be a forward observation light vehicle to provide early reconnaissance before the tanks arrive at the scene, thus give it more independence from infantry recon. And even simply cargo carrying vehicles.
Israel is constantly pursuing independence of its military units on every level. Starting with independence of every branch to conduct all forms of operations, to battalion size independence. Such overlap of capabilities ensures resilience of the combat units even when taking heavy losses.

It also gives the tank crew up to brigade level, more accessible information and thus more freedom to make actions.


All in all, the tank will become a lot easier to operate, and a lot more comfortable. Comfort and ease of operation are essential for the crew to fulfill the machine's potential as much as possible, and are key for increased performance both on the individual level, and on the theater.

The addition of Trophy APS to a wider range of vehicles is also a revolutionary action for the IDF. Just 2 years ago it was still a system that only those who enlist to the 401st brigade could get the opportunity to play around with. Now it's operational in 2 brigades and a host of other units are getting it - Namer, Eitan, and Merkava 3 have all joined in through a massive purchase of hundreds of APS systems from RAFAEL.
The IDF will thus not only have a sperheading brigade in its sleeve. It will have at least two divisions rolling with it.
Conclusion
The envisioned Merkava 4 Barak upgrade plan is no less than revolutionary. Even if it isn't a Merkava 5, as it is still very much based on the existing Merkava 4, its capability leap can be seen as greater than the leap between every generation of Merkava tanks.

Each generation of Merkava introduced a farther leap in capabilities than the predecessor, and the Mark 4 Barak seems to provide just the revolutionary capabilities that make it more of an improvement than the Mark 4 was over the Mark 3.

So while it isn't a Merkava 5, it could certainly qualify as such.

And why isn't it a Mark 5? Because the concept of the Merkava 4 pretty much makes it a very long lasting machine. Its modular armor construction ensures it can grow enough to protect against any future threat, as the older armor modules can be switched out with newer ones with bare minimal cost.
Its FCS architecture is also modular, and easily accepts new emerging technologies.
The engine bay allows for plenty of room for engine exchange.
And the gun mantlet was built in a way to accept even the much larger and heavier 140mm guns (in cooperation with Switzerland), so even if a certain firepower upgrade is needed, it won't be expensive.

The Merkava 4 is envisioned to stay in service for a very long time, and in parallel the Rakiya - the next generation of combat vehicles, will be developed and produced.

https://zuk-armor-il.blogspot.co.il/

@Penguin @500 @Natan @Archdemon @GBU-28 @F-15I @mike2000 is back @Blue Marlin @Mountain Jew @Beny Karachun @Adir-M @Ilay @theman111
 
IDF to Trial Elbit's IronVision in Merkava MBT
Elbit Systems' IronVision helmet-mounted armored fighting vehicle (AFV) situational awareness system will be integrated onto a Merkava main battle tank. Field testing will begin in April 2017

Ami Rojkes Dombe | 29/03/2017

Send to a friend
A+A-Size
Share on
Share on
33125728642_a56c586583_z.jpg

Photo by Cpl. Eden Briand, IDF Spokesperson's Unit - https://www.flickr.com/photos/idfonline/33125728642/

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are soon to conduct trials with Elbit Systems' IronVision helmet-mounted armored fighting vehicle (AFV) situational awareness system integrated onto a Merkava main battle tank (MBT), according to a report on janes.com.

Boaz Cohen, VP Land Systems at Elbit Systems, told Janes that the system "will be going into testing with the IDF in April."

Using technology normally associated with airborne situational awareness systems, IronVision uses a number of externally mounted cameras to project the 360° view of an AFV's surroundings onto the helmet-mounted visors of its crew members. The IronVision system transmits real-time, high-resolution color video to the commander and/or driver, providing them with a natural, bi-ocular, conformal view of the vehicle's surroundings, together with relevant symbology and C4I data.

Trophy 2

3)The development of a Trophy 2 system has been announced in 2014 and is a cooperation between RAFAEL (developer of the Trophy 1), IMI (developer of Iron Fist), and IAI.
IMI will provide its Iron Fist interceptors, IAI will provide the radar, whereas RAFAEL will do the integration and development work.

Iron Fist and Trophy are two very different systems, with very different features that act as their selling points.




Iron Fist is a "grenade" launching system that applies a fragment-free directed spherical blast that would "cut" an ATGM or RPG mid-air, or will tilt an APFSDS shell to the point where it is no longer a threat. According to IMI's CEO, a simple 7° yaw would reduce the APFSDS's energy by up to 90%.
According to test footage, the yaw was actually far greater than 7°, and was nearing 45°.


At 3:00 a test against APFSDS is shown

Iron Fist provides a full protection suite that would defeat any form of existing fired anti-tank threat, but to do that it needs rather large munitions that cannot be reloaded in the current configuration.

Trophy, on the other hand, uses a much more unique method of firing an MEFP charge (Multiple Explosively Formed Penetrators) that sends sharp pellets flying towards the target. The charges are small and can be reloaded through an auto-loading system beneath it, however these small charges are unable to defeat APFSDS.


One more advantage of the Iron Fist is that it is more compact, and can be more easily applied to lighter platforms, for example the Eitan that will soon enter production. The Trophy is rather bulky in its current configuration when fitted to turreted IFVs.


Trophy HV on LAV III

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/merkava-4-barak.483280/
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/active-protection-system-aps-for-tanks.418153/page-2
 
IronVision tested on Merkava

Coming much sooner than expected, the Israeli Defense Forces are going to start initial testing phases of the IronVision system by Elbit this month.

The IronVision is a helmet based system that provides a clear, transparent view of the surrounding area around the tank and feeds the image to the helmet directly, and follows the operator's head movement.
Among its features are:
* A slew-to-cue mechanism, in which the commander can direct the gun towards the target.
* Ability to operate the tank's weaponry.
* Display of information from the WINBMS (Weapon Integrated Battle Management System).
* Zero latency feed in day and night modes.
* VR training.


Helmet of the IronVision system also featuring night vision mode


Its implementation in the Merkava is part of the Barak program which was described here.

The Barak is a tank based on the Merkava 4 and set to have a functional prototype ready within 3 years.

The readiness to have the system tested so shortly, indicates that the scope of the upgrade may be far bigger than initially thought, and the IronVision may only be a small part of it.
 
The Future Armored Vehicles of the IDF
A special interview with Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach, Commander of the Tank Program Administration (MANTAK) at IMOD, about the future concepts in the world of armored fighting vehicles. In anticipation of the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference, to be held May 16-17 in Latrun, Israel

Ami Rojkes Dombe | 15/05/2017

Send to a friend
A+A-Size
Share on
Share on
pic_0.jpg

The Eitan wheeled APC (Photo: IMOD)

"The development of the Merkava tank was initiated mainly because of the Arab boycott on Israel in the 1960s and 1970s," explains Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach, Commander of the Tank Program Administration (MANTAK) at the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD). "Back then, only five countries worldwide manufactured tanks, and none of them wanted to sell (tanks) to Israel owing to the Arab pressure. The objective of the IDF was to acquire a new tank that would replace the old Centurion and Patton tanks opposite the modern Soviet-built tanks the Arab countries had acquired. The British were the only ones who agreed to sell us tanks, so two (British-made) Chieftain tanks with 120mm guns were shipped to Israel for trials, but eventually they changed their mind under the pressure of the Arab countries, mainly Egypt."

As a result, it was decided, in the early 1970s, to establish a team that will review the feasibility of the production of an Israeli tank. The Tank Program Administration was established and Maj. Gen. Israel Tal ('Talik') was appointed to head it. It is important to note that the decision to establish the Administration was also – possibly mainly – economic and not just defense-related. In April 1979, the first Merkava Mark-I tank from serial production was delivered to the IDF.

Sources at IMOD stress that it was also a decision to develop Israeli economy. Today, the Merkava program provides work to some 200 companies in Israel and to about 10,000 individuals directly. The entire project has been privatized, and about 92% of the Merkava tank are manufactured by private industry – only 8% are manufactured overseas or by the IDF. Additionally, over the years the range of developments for the Merkava tank made a substantial contribution to the defense exports of a major part of the companies taking part in the manufacture of the tank.

Brig. Gen. Matzliach explains that IMOD does not have any practical plans for the development of the next tank at the moment. The Merkava Mark-IV is expected to be upgraded, within the next four years, to the 'Barak' version that is expected to remain in IDF service for the following decade (at least). "You build a tank for a period of 40 years," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach. "We currently manufacture the Merkava Mark-IV tank, the Namer APC and soon the wheeled APC Eitan. These three armored platforms jointly will satisfy the needs of the IDF with regard to the ground maneuver.

"At the moment we do not consider it necessary to develop a new tank. We have the 'Carmel' project that focuses on technologies that may be implemented on existing platforms or those currently on the production line. The IDF Ground Arm should provide the characteristics and specifications for what they want the new tank to be like. At the moment, there is no such characterization to justify a new development effort."

As Brig. Gen. Matzliach noted, the 'Carmel' platform is a technology demonstrator. This platform is lighter than the Merkava Mark-IV tank and will incorporate an active protection system fitted to each tank individually in addition to spatial protection for platforms operating within a specific area cell. Its weight is only half of that of the Merkava tank, to enable it to operate with relative flexibility in dense urban areas. The platform may be operated by a crew of two or three troopers as opposed to the standard four men crew of today's tanks.

According to Brig. Gen. Matzliach, there are thoughts of developing an unmanned tank, but in the more distant future. "The first stage is to develop semi-autonomous auxiliary systems, make as many tasks as possible fully automatic in order to close the fire loop faster," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach.

Does the Trophy system live up to the high expectations?

"The Trophy system became operational in 2010. It consists of four antennae and interceptors. The Radar antennae detect the threat and the system blows it up a few dozen meters away from the tank. The Trophy system was designed to intercept projectiles fired from ranges of less than a few hundred meters (radius) from the tank," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach.

"During the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, 800 IDF tanks were hit and 500 were penetrated, namely – 60% of the tanks hit were penetrated. During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, 47 IDF tanks were hit and 21 were penetrated, namely – about 40% penetration. That was before we had the Trophy system. In other words, the objective of the Trophy system is to reduce the 40% penetration.

"Battlefield threats are divided into three categories: short range shaped charge projectiles (antitank missiles) – this is a category of threats that enables an infantry detachment to destroy a tank. The second category consists of antitank armor-piercing cartridges fired by tanks, and the third threat category consists of belly or roadside explosive charges. Active protection systems provide a solution only for the first threat category. The kinetic threat does not have a full-proof solution. The Iron Fist system has the potential of reducing the severity of this threat, but you will still need reactive armor and passive armor to stop it completely.

"The Merkava tank does not have reactive armor boxes. Instead, it is fitted with continuous, semi-reactive armor. If you are hit in the same spot, you will still be protected and will be able to sustain additional hits in the same spot. In order to protect the tank crew, you will need a combination of active protection with semi-reactive/passive armor. Anyone who says that active protection is sufficient fails to take into account all of the threats the tank faces."

Are you considering the concept of a multicopter for each tank?

"We are thinking about it. We also think about how the tank will receive information from multicopters operating over the battlefield. There is a question of who should operate the multicopter. Should the tank crew be assigned yet another task – to control a multicopter, or will it be more appropriate for someone else to operate the multicopter and provide the crew with the information that is relevant to them. We are also thinking about protection against multicopters used as enemy strike weapons," says Brig. Gen. Matzliach.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29614
 
Chief IDF Armored Corps Officer: "Not much has changed since 2006"
"Protection, firepower and mobility – these are the elements of the tank's added value," said Brig. Gen. Guy Hasson. "Can this mobility be reflected on the battlefields of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon? These are our operational profiles"

Ami Rojkes Dombe | 16/05/2017 Contact author
Send to printer
Send to a friend
A+A-Size
Share on
Share on

Brig. Gen. Guy Hasson, Chief IDF Armored Corps Officer, at the 2nd International Ground Warfare & Logistics Conference (Photo: Gilad Kavalerchik)

"The world of the Armored Corps does not change as rapidly as people may think. It is difficult for us, the people, to change. Not much has changed since 2006. The enemy and the environment have remained the same," said Brig. Gen. Guy Hasson, Chief IDF Armored Corps Officer, at the Second International Ground Warfare & Logistics Conference. "We have just signed a mega-deal for the Trophy system. That will make a change.

"To this day we have been busy disrupting the enemy. We have not succeeded in reaching a sufficient degree of lethality vis-à-vis infantry elements. The first time that I had a projectile capable of killing infantry troops was during Operation Protective Edge. That was also the first time when the ground network led to a breakthrough in our capabilities. It is the element that succeeded in leading us to break out of our conceptual boundaries. For the first time, during Operation Protective Edge, the network evolved into a network for the masses."

"Wherever the Human Element is involved in the Firing, the Result is Less Favorable"

"Protection, firepower and mobility – these are the elements of the tank's added value," said Brig. Gen. Hasson. "Can this mobility be reflected on the battlefields of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon? These are our operational profiles. The tank is more mobile and faster, but is it more effective? In mountainous, closed-in and urban terrain, mobility decreases.

"Today, firepower depends on the enemy. The enemy is the initiating party. They choose the moment to emerge and for how long. The tanks must acquire the target and hit it with the first round, as otherwise they will be irrelevant. We are showing a trend of improvement compared to four years ago. Regarding the protection element, in three years' time we will have large protected fleets. Today we are a boutique, and that is not enough. Another advantage of the tank is the energy it delivers to the battlefield. It may be fitted with sensors that the infantry cannot carry.

"Opposite infantry, you need more pin-down elements than assaulting elements. To catch the target as it emerges. The way the battlespace is currently organized is consistent with the classic armor-versus-armor profile – not the armor-versus-infantry profile. It is not consistent with the friction with a disappearing enemy. The enemy will not pop up if we do not arrive, and if we arrive and fail to catch them – we will gain nothing.

"Another aspect is automation. We need automation systems that provide a real added value. Such systems are almost nonexistent at present. I do not want a robot that the enemy will destroy after a minute and a half. I need robots with automatic and semiautomatic modes of operation. Another layer concerns automatic firing. Wherever the human element is involved in the firing, the result is less favorable. The human element has an adverse effect on the precision and timing of the firing. The systems should provide automatic firing. That is the future. The next model of the Merkava tank will have an automatic firing button. The tank will detect and identify the element firing at it and would discharge a round at the source of fire 30 seconds later. You cannot accomplish that with a man in the loop."

On-Line Tank Commander

"We are engaged in a review of the organizational structure of the Armored Corps," said Brig. Gen. Hasson. "The ability to reach an organization of tanks capable of forming up flexible structures. Breaking down and forming up within a short time – that is the future. Our efforts are aimed at a decentralized enemy, through numerous small forces that will affect the entire battlespace. Specifying the flexibility is an organizational challenge. A part of this planning process is the step we took in expanding the officer complement in the Armored Corps.

"The network will also affect the organization of the Armored Corps. The network should be secure, stable and reliable. During Operation Protective Edge, the network demonstrated stability for the first time. The information should be delivered quickly and must be relevant and accurate. We cannot accept an accuracy level of 20 meters. We need an accuracy level of up to two meters. With the network, the commander will be required to live and operate in a technological environment. The human element will have to accommodate the information, including on-line command. How do you make decisions under such conditions? That is a very serious question.

"In conclusion, in order for the tank to evolve into a lethal machine opposite infantry, several elements are required. The basic operational capability – not to lose orientation with the hatches closed, as otherwise a sniper will be able to disable a tank. During Operation Protective Edge, we lost a company commander and a platoon commander in this way. This issue will be provided with a solution by the Merkava Barak variant in 2021. We also need the ability to identify human targets. Today we can identify a tank from a range of 5 kilometers, but a human target is a more complex matter. Without identification, there can be no lethality. To complete the loop closure process, we will have an automatic firing button. The same Trophy system coupled with other sensors will be capable of discharging a projectile autonomously. All of these capabilities will increase the effectiveness and lethality of the tank in the future."

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29642

@Penguin @500 @Natan @Archdemon @GBU-28 @F-15I @mike2000 is back @Blue Marlin @Mountain Jew @Beny Karachun @Adir-M @Ilay @theman111

So, Merkava 4B will include,directing fire to Trophy's target using a single button, Iron Vision, the machine gun will probably be controlled from within the tank, Maybe trophy 2, and few other improved technologies, anything to add?
 

Back
Top Bottom