DavidSling
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,826
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
In time for the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference through May 16-17 and the 4th International C5I (C4I plus Cyber) Conference in May 18th, speeches regarding the development of Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) and developing tactics for their use, are being given.
I took the liberty to translate certain sections of these speeches and post them here, and analyze the new information that we're being given here regarding the Barak MBT, a little on the good old Mark 4
So far, in perhaps just a single release with just a single paragraph of text, a great deal of information was gathered on the Barak, and it was talked about here (link).
Let's dig in!
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.
Immediately we're given information about 2 innovations the Barak will have:
*Robots - autonomous or semi-autonomous.
*Automatic firing.
Let's talk about robots first.
UGV
This is really self explanatory. UGVs can provide a plethora of capabilities. I have talked about it in my previous post on the Barak (Link can be found above), so I will make it short by giving a few examples; UGVs can provide force protection by carrying IED detecting and jamming equipment, and if it goes undetected, it will take the hit as it'll go first.
Supply lines will be significantly reduced in areas regarded as vulnerable to ambushes by simply driving a pack of freight UGVs.
I should mention that the US is now conducting a similar program for drone operating via specialized crewman inside a tank, with feasibility testing beginning this year. Read about it here (link).
But now they're talking about automatic firing in tanks so it should have a pretty serious impact on UGV conception. We could see armed UGVs also conducting automatic firing via sensory cues, and there might be legal implications. But the big news, if it is true, is that the IDF will start fielding armed drones at some point (other than EOD), whereas despite Israel's very strong market presence in this field and vast R&D record, Israel has so far been reluctant about using armed drones.
Automatic Firing
For a first time in manned ground vehicle conception perhaps, automatic firing is being talked not as a possibility, but as an actual plan for a vehicle that is already in development and slated to enter service just 4 years from now (2021).
This topic has been a Taboo. When it comes to firing, a man-in-the-loop always was considered the only moral choice to make, preferably with the shooter actually seeing the target.
For reasons I shouldn't mention, many countries have banned unmanned firing procedures.
But it's not exactly that, and perhaps we'll never even talk about robotized firing on human targets in the conventional sense. Because in this case, it's a part of one fail-safe solution. The fire is retaliatory.
In 2011 Trophy revolutionized armor development by exponentially increasing a tank's protective capabilities at just a fraction of the weight of its armor. But it also introduced other advanced features which include Slew-To-Cue. An enemy would fire upon the tank, and the turret would quickly turn towards the target and await the gunner to pull the trigger. This time it's just a modification of this operation. The FCS (Fire Control System) would no longer wait for the gunner or commander. It would identify the firing source, and shoot on its own.
Closing the firing loop as fast as possible was a key capability the IDF has been building in the past few years, and this decision will certainly help to improve it.
Net-Centric Combat
Sadly this is hardly ever talked about in Tank and AFV discussions despite being a crucial aspect of the ground maneuver. The flexibility of the maneuvering forces to adapt to the emerging threats is what determines the result of the battle in the most dominant way.
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.
It may not be immediately obvious but they're talking about the BMS. In the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the BMS played a key role in the success of the armored corps, by allowing each tank to maintain clear communication with one another, with higher command, and with forces nearby. Improving the BMS is a given, but its merits are not to be underestimated. Even improved UI (User Interface) can go a long way in adding value to the combat vehicle. Communication is all the rage lately, and rightfully so.
This time however, they're talking about integrating entire systems with the BMS. This should include the FCS, IronVision, Trophy, and more.
This sort of added data input will be significant. Commanders will see targets on a helmet display rather than a touchscreen hidden among numerous other screens in his station. Upon being fired on, they'll see the shooter physically, and the tank could engage targets that are visually hidden but seen on the BMS through the FCS.
On Merkava 4's Armor
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
It was previously speculated that the Merkava 4 has ERA or SLERA (Self Limiting ERA) embedded in its armor due to the picture below:
Translates to Explosive
It was also speculated that the Merkava uses NxRA as armor, judging by this patent by RAFAEL.
But what could they mean by Semi-Reactive? Could NxRA be classified as such? Could SLERA? Both yes. Because they said "Reactive Armor Boxes". Didn't mention "Explosive", and both are indeed reactive in their nature.
The Reactive Armor groups split into 4 main categories;
1)ERA - Most effective per single shot but has poor survivability as it depletes after 1 shot.
2)SLERA - Less effective per shot but more survivable version of ERA. Potentially classified as passive.
3)NERA - Again step down in effectiveness per shot but more survivable.
4)NxRA - Combines effectiveness of SLERA with survivability of NERA, making it more efficient than both SLERA and NERA, at least according to RAFAEL's patent.
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
I took the liberty to translate certain sections of these speeches and post them here, and analyze the new information that we're being given here regarding the Barak MBT, a little on the good old Mark 4
So far, in perhaps just a single release with just a single paragraph of text, a great deal of information was gathered on the Barak, and it was talked about here (link).
Let's dig in!
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.
Immediately we're given information about 2 innovations the Barak will have:
*Robots - autonomous or semi-autonomous.
*Automatic firing.
Let's talk about robots first.
UGV
This is really self explanatory. UGVs can provide a plethora of capabilities. I have talked about it in my previous post on the Barak (Link can be found above), so I will make it short by giving a few examples; UGVs can provide force protection by carrying IED detecting and jamming equipment, and if it goes undetected, it will take the hit as it'll go first.
Supply lines will be significantly reduced in areas regarded as vulnerable to ambushes by simply driving a pack of freight UGVs.
I should mention that the US is now conducting a similar program for drone operating via specialized crewman inside a tank, with feasibility testing beginning this year. Read about it here (link).
But now they're talking about automatic firing in tanks so it should have a pretty serious impact on UGV conception. We could see armed UGVs also conducting automatic firing via sensory cues, and there might be legal implications. But the big news, if it is true, is that the IDF will start fielding armed drones at some point (other than EOD), whereas despite Israel's very strong market presence in this field and vast R&D record, Israel has so far been reluctant about using armed drones.
Automatic Firing
For a first time in manned ground vehicle conception perhaps, automatic firing is being talked not as a possibility, but as an actual plan for a vehicle that is already in development and slated to enter service just 4 years from now (2021).
This topic has been a Taboo. When it comes to firing, a man-in-the-loop always was considered the only moral choice to make, preferably with the shooter actually seeing the target.
For reasons I shouldn't mention, many countries have banned unmanned firing procedures.
But it's not exactly that, and perhaps we'll never even talk about robotized firing on human targets in the conventional sense. Because in this case, it's a part of one fail-safe solution. The fire is retaliatory.
In 2011 Trophy revolutionized armor development by exponentially increasing a tank's protective capabilities at just a fraction of the weight of its armor. But it also introduced other advanced features which include Slew-To-Cue. An enemy would fire upon the tank, and the turret would quickly turn towards the target and await the gunner to pull the trigger. This time it's just a modification of this operation. The FCS (Fire Control System) would no longer wait for the gunner or commander. It would identify the firing source, and shoot on its own.
Closing the firing loop as fast as possible was a key capability the IDF has been building in the past few years, and this decision will certainly help to improve it.
Net-Centric Combat
Sadly this is hardly ever talked about in Tank and AFV discussions despite being a crucial aspect of the ground maneuver. The flexibility of the maneuvering forces to adapt to the emerging threats is what determines the result of the battle in the most dominant way.
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.
It may not be immediately obvious but they're talking about the BMS. In the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the BMS played a key role in the success of the armored corps, by allowing each tank to maintain clear communication with one another, with higher command, and with forces nearby. Improving the BMS is a given, but its merits are not to be underestimated. Even improved UI (User Interface) can go a long way in adding value to the combat vehicle. Communication is all the rage lately, and rightfully so.
This time however, they're talking about integrating entire systems with the BMS. This should include the FCS, IronVision, Trophy, and more.
This sort of added data input will be significant. Commanders will see targets on a helmet display rather than a touchscreen hidden among numerous other screens in his station. Upon being fired on, they'll see the shooter physically, and the tank could engage targets that are visually hidden but seen on the BMS through the FCS.
On Merkava 4's Armor
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
It was previously speculated that the Merkava 4 has ERA or SLERA (Self Limiting ERA) embedded in its armor due to the picture below:
Translates to Explosive
It was also speculated that the Merkava uses NxRA as armor, judging by this patent by RAFAEL.
But what could they mean by Semi-Reactive? Could NxRA be classified as such? Could SLERA? Both yes. Because they said "Reactive Armor Boxes". Didn't mention "Explosive", and both are indeed reactive in their nature.
The Reactive Armor groups split into 4 main categories;
1)ERA - Most effective per single shot but has poor survivability as it depletes after 1 shot.
2)SLERA - Less effective per shot but more survivable version of ERA. Potentially classified as passive.
3)NERA - Again step down in effectiveness per shot but more survivable.
4)NxRA - Combines effectiveness of SLERA with survivability of NERA, making it more efficient than both SLERA and NERA, at least according to RAFAEL's patent.
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
