Next Generation MBT Discussion and Concepts

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
This article is a discussion about considerations for the future use of tanks. As the authors mention it is UK-centric but can be applicable to other armies.
I really dislike articles that give a vibe of more questions. It is insightful though, about how tanks are a niche capability, not the one stop shop for all your maneuver needs.

Here's the same article but G-rated this time:
Tanks of the 4th generation are not going to be the main element of maneuver, but an essential part of the land battlegroup. Tank and infantry brigades will now be brigade combat teams.
Kudos, by the way, to the Americans for pioneering this.
Soviets, you were way too early and couldn't really enjoy the true benefit of independent brigades, but nice try.

The technological advancements that are now being carefully tested and matured to enable the 4th generation MBT, are actually breeding the next generation battle group.
They're not trying to make only a tank, but develop these core capabilities to be the COMMON denominator of all maneuvering elements.

All elements on the frontline will be actively protected (APS).
All elements will actively monitor their surroundings and feed and be fed information to and from other elements, including the EM spectrum.
All elements will be transmission nodes to create a distributed, user-enabled network.
And as many elements as possible will be armed for urgent response.

So every tank, every artillery piece, heavy UGV, infantryman, will have a datalink to a grand BMS, will have early warning to threats, shared protection, and an enhanced ability to plan missions.

The tank's uniqueness will be reduced to the fact that it is manned and can control other UGVs. However, that does not detract from its usefulness.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
All this battlefield network capability is a huge plus... until it is stuffed up. I don’t have any knowledge on how vulnerable this capability is but given Chinese efforts in all sorts of electronic weapons and cyber espionage, one has to wonder. The Russians aren’t standing still either. As for APS, there are significant advances but attack from above is a threat to thinly armoured tops of MBTs and IFV vehicles unless these weapons can be effectively countered.

From a Canadian perspective, given the cost of Leo 2s and the expense of deploying them, tracked IFVS might have been a better option for the CAF. Any major tank requirements in a European battle from Canada would be minimal and late. IFVs are less costly and could be stationed in Europe with less political blowback from the Canadian electorate and would be an important contribution to our NATO obligations.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
All this battlefield network capability is a huge plus... until it is stuffed up. I don’t have any knowledge on how vulnerable this capability is but given Chinese efforts in all sorts of electronic weapons and cyber espionage, one has to wonder. The Russians aren’t standing still either. As for APS, there are significant advances but attack from above is a threat to thinly armoured tops of MBTs and IFV vehicles unless these weapons can be effectively countered.

From a Canadian perspective, given the cost of Leo 2s and the expense of deploying them, tracked IFVS might have been a better option for the CAF. Any major tank requirements in a European battle from Canada would be minimal and late. IFVs are less costly and could be stationed in Europe with less political blowback from the Canadian electorate and would be an important contribution to our NATO obligations.
As a man who worked for many years in everything electronic, I can tell you this is a very delicate field.
There are 2 ways to conduct electronic warfare:
1)One side uses highly complex techniques to mask its transmissions and data, to avoid incursions into the network, while the other side tries constantly to hack into it.
Much like 2 armies prepare for a fight in multiple domains, such as air force, ground force, navy, and then different types of integration and cooperation between them, so are electronic systems prepared in the same manner for a battle of strategies.
This strategy allows surgical attacks into a network and its exploitation, but is slow and often interrupted.

2)Brute force it. You transmit at maximum power in a large cone ahead, over a wide spectrum, so as to disrupt communications. But the transmitting platform is very short lived because it's lit up like a christmas tree, and it's going to equally disrupt communications of friendly troops ahead of this system, who are most in need of stable comms.


Regarding APS, the whole APS vs top attack situation is quite funny. Absurd, even.
The only APS that can defeat a top attack missile are western.
The only ATGMs in service that are top attack, are western.
Well there's the Chinese copy of the Spike NLOS but that's an exception to a still solid rule.
So do not worry about it.
Worry for the Russians, whose Afganit can only deploy smoke against the tens of thousands of Spike missiles serving in 32 countries, or the even more abundant Javelin that is common enough on Russia's borders.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #44
Regarding APS, the whole APS vs top attack situation is quite funny. Absurd, even.
The only APS that can defeat a top attack missile are western.
The only ATGMs in service that are top attack, are western.
Well there's the Chinese copy of the Spike NLOS but that's an exception to a still solid rule.
So do not worry about it.
Worry for the Russians, whose Afganit can only deploy smoke against the tens of thousands of Spike missiles serving in 32 countries, or the even more abundant Javelin that is common enough on Russia's borders.
On the one hand you have a great point. The Afghanit isn't even in service. The Arena might be in service before Afghanit is, given the testing done on T-72s and the recent suggestion that the T-90M will get it and it's an even less sophisticated system. On the other hand China has top-attack munitions, and as you correctly pointed out so do many other countries. If we think outside the over-analyzed Russia-China-NATO dynamic, it becomes a different picture. Turkey is in the process of fielding an APS, could they face a top-attack threat? They certainly could. Russia is working on top-attack in all three areas, loitering munitions (see Concern Kalashnikov's recent work), fire-and-forget helo missiles (izdelie 305 LMUR), and top-attack ATGMs (OKR Sokol). Any one of those could make it's way to Syria, or Armenia, and be used against Turkish or Turkish-supplied tanks. Or consider Libya where Turkey has deployed considerable forces. Could they run into western-source top-attack munitions? Of course they could. So the limitations of their APS are very much relevant.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Regarding APS, the whole APS vs top attack situation is quite funny. Absurd, even.
The only APS that can defeat a top attack missile are western.

The only ATGMs in service that are top attack, are western.

So do not worry about it.
Worry for the Russians, whose Afganit can only deploy smoke against the tens of thousands of Spike missiles serving in 32 countries, or the even more abundant Javelin that is common enough on Russia's borders.
Plus any APS system has a small signature that enemy electronic intelligence will pick up — which is why there are other counter measures that Singapore’s Armoured Brigades (SAB) have to deploy and use when an APS system is installed in the Hunter IFVs (that use a Samson 30mm RWS) that is just under 30 tons.

SABs are equipped with L2SGs, Broncos and IFVs. The Hunter IFV will allow the last batch of Ultra M113s to be phased out.

Compared to the Bionix II, the Hunter IFV is longer, 6.9 versus 5.9 metres, the greater length of its tracks compensating the increased weight when considering the mean maximum pressure. This new IFV is wider at 3.4 metres in width and 3.4 metres high at the turret top. And it is too wide to operate in certain types of terrain — which means the Bionix II equipped SABs are still needed to seek out our enemy in certain types of closed terrain.

It’s not an ATGM vs APS equipped tank fight, rather, a SAB’s goal is pressure forward and use systems of systems engineering to kill our enemy OODA loop via EW.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Singapore hasn't yet deployed an APS on the Hunter. Perhaps it did not buy it yet, awaiting a certain version.

Since the Samson turret was purchased, Rafael has made improvements to the Trophy and introduced IAI's OTHELLO system, a hostile fire detector, that keeps the radars turned off until hostile fire is identified.
It is possible the Hunter will get that version.
Notice the optical sensor above the radar panel:
whatsapp-image-2020-07-23-at-110022.jpeg

Or it might wait for another version altogether. This year, the Barak MBT was supposed to enter service with an entirely new APS capable of defeating APFSDS. It was said to use Elbit interceptors since Iron Fist long had that capability (demonstrated in 2008), but these new Merkava 4M tanks entered service instead and the project was delayed as the companies likely could not make the APS in time. But eventually there will be something new and better.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Rafael is a key player in Israel's next generation AFV program, and is likely to also be one in the American NGCV.

It is already demonstrating central technologies like its Fire Weaver BMS, BNET SDR, Firefly munitions, and Spike missiles, while tech like APS is already in use by the US.

Other technologies like automatic target acquisition and recognition are already operational in Israel, but are likely to be offered in a more aggressive manner by any company Rafael will partner with.

Other companies that are likely to be active in the US's NGCV program, specifically for the OMFV and DLP, are Elbit and IAI.

In this video Rafael demonstrates how their technologies are working together, including a live demonstration which uses footage presented with the Carmel a while ago.


Rafael's NGCV suit utilizes reconfigurable and flexible external modules like sensors and effectors, and the brains for all components are centralized in one easily removable module, with modular processing cores.

Although Elbit has greater potential for aggressive marketing as it is a fully private company, I personally prefer Rafael's approach to the NGCV challenge.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thanks for sharing, it’s really appreciated.
Singapore hasn't yet deployed an APS on the Hunter. Perhaps it did not buy it yet, awaiting a certain version.

...This year, the Barak MBT was supposed to enter service with an entirely new APS capable of defeating APFSDS. It was said to use Elbit interceptors since Iron Fist long had that capability (demonstrated in 2008), but these new Merkava 4M tanks entered service instead and the project was delayed as the companies likely could not make the APS in time. But eventually there will be something new and better.
The SAF ONLY needs the APS to defeat ATGMS and there is no requirement to defeat APFSDS.

I suspect that buy order from Singapore will likely be placed in late 2022 or early 2023 (and retrofitted into the fleet).
 
Last edited:

Lone Ranger

Member
In this video Rafael demonstrates how their technologies are working together, including a live demonstration which uses footage presented with the Carmel a while ago.
There are sure lot of similarities between Rafael's NGCV suit and Hunter AFV's systems, wondering if there is systems cooperation beyond the the SAMSON RCWS.

Some of the capabilities mentioned in this paper are also seem in Rafael's NGCV suit
-Automated target detection and tracking
-Touch-to-Aim
-Area-of-sight analysis and auto-routing
-Video-based BMS (using AR)

Others known but not mentioned in the paper, like,
-Manned-Unmanned Teaming
-Digital Mission Planning

All in all, they shared many similarities.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
There are sure lot of similarities between Rafael's NGCV suit and Hunter AFV's systems, wondering if there is systems cooperation beyond the the SAMSON RCWS.

Some of the capabilities mentioned in this paper are also seem in Rafael's NGCV suit
-Automated target detection and tracking
-Touch-to-Aim
-Area-of-sight analysis and auto-routing
-Video-based BMS (using AR)

Others known but not mentioned in the paper, like,
-Manned-Unmanned Teaming
-Digital Mission Planning

All in all, they shared many similarities.
Singapore is a significant enough market for Israeli defense companies, Rafael included.
It's very likely that Rafael has sold ready processing units and sub-systems to Singapore for the Hunter.

Regarding indoor mapping, I know Rafael's been in the field for quite a while. Not sure why they're advertising only now. Either way, this is one case where the industry standard is one algorithm that is common to all competing systems, and the main competition is on the peripherals and integration capacity.
So I'd be very worried if there wasn't similarity.
 

Lone Ranger

Member
Singapore is a significant enough market for Israeli defense companies, Rafael included.
Sorry for the side track. I have recently realized Rafael did a lot of customization projects for Singapore but I won't say this is common among Israeli defense companies, as I don't see Elbit doing it. More often than not, Singapore will get systems off-the-shelf from Elbit - no customization or customization will be done locally in Singapore. However, for Rafael, it does seem to me (ie my speculation) that it has a high level of trust and cooperation with Singapore. Is it because it is state owned? I have no idea.

Over the years, it does seem like, Singapore has provided its operational requirement or some locally developed tech to Rafael, and Rafael will provide the end solutions with development and testing facilities. This looks like a win-win arrangement. For example, SPIKE LR, one of the most successful ATGM in the market today, was (likely) developed based on SPIKE MR to meet Singapore's requirements in the late 90s. During that time, Singapore wanted something better than Milan with improved range, hence the birth of spike LR with the extension of spike MR's range. Similar arrangement was also noted for SPIKE SR, it was also customized for Singapore, as it was the launched customer. Beside developing SPIKE ATGMs to meet Singapore's requirement, Rafael also helped to build SPIKE assembly plant with ToT to support its futures upgrades.

Another interesting project was the Matador. It was initially a project between Singapore and Dynamit Nobel, Rafael joint the project towards the end of the development via acquisition as Dynamit went into financial difficulty. But why Rafael and not others or ST Eng? IDF was not known to have the requirement then and Singapore was the sole user - it was kinda like a orphan system only meant for Singapore. It don't make financial sense for Rafael. It just don't click, unless Rafael and Singapore have a special relationship, something more than normal, more than an arm's length commercial relationship?

If one take a close look at Matador, it has a special capability, it is the first system to have both anti-armour and structure capabilities, this is to meet the unique requirement of the SAF. Since than, all of Singapore infantry's ATGMs have incorporated this dual capabilities, like SPIKE SR and LR2. Another SAF influence on Rafael's products development?

Lastly, SAMSON 30 RCWS All-in One, the development starts after Singapore awarded the development contract in late May 2017, and now this is Rafael's top-of-the-range product.. Subsequently after that. in 2019, IDF announced its carmel project and Rafael with its NGCVS. This time line does makes one think a little bite more...
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Sorry for the side track. I have recently realized Rafael did a lot of customization projects for Singapore but I won't say this is common among Israeli defense companies, as I don't see Elbit doing it. More often than not, Singapore will get systems off-the-shelf from Elbit - no customization or customization will be done locally in Singapore. However, for Rafael, it does seem to me (ie my speculation) that it has a high level of trust and cooperation with Singapore. Is it because it is state owned? I have no idea.

Over the years, it does seem like, Singapore has provided its operational requirement or some locally developed tech to Rafael, and Rafael will provide the end solutions with development and testing facilities. This looks like a win-win arrangement. For example, SPIKE LR, one of the most successful ATGM in the market today, was (likely) developed based on SPIKE MR to meet Singapore's requirements in the late 90s. During that time, Singapore wanted something better than Milan with improved range, hence the birth of spike LR with the extension of spike MR's range. Similar arrangement was also noted for SPIKE SR, it was also customized for Singapore, as it was the launched customer. Beside developing SPIKE ATGMs to meet Singapore's requirement, Rafael also helped to build SPIKE assembly plant with ToT to support its futures upgrades.

Another interesting project was the Matador. It was initially a project between Singapore and Dynamit Nobel, Rafael joint the project towards the end of the development via acquisition as Dynamit went into financial difficulty. But why Rafael and not others or ST Eng? IDF was not known to have the requirement then and Singapore was the sole user - it was kinda like a orphan system only meant for Singapore. It don't make financial sense for Rafael. It just don't click, unless Rafael and Singapore have a special relationship, something more than normal, more than an arm's length commercial relationship?

If one take a close look at Matador, it has a special capability, it is the first system to have both anti-armour and structure capabilities, this is to meet the unique requirement of the SAF. Since than, all of Singapore infantry's ATGMs have incorporated this dual capabilities, like SPIKE SR and LR2. Another SAF influence on Rafael's products development?

Lastly, SAMSON 30 RCWS All-in One, the development starts after Singapore awarded the development contract in late May 2017, and now this is Rafael's top-of-the-range product.. Subsequently after that. in 2019, IDF announced its carmel project and Rafael with its NGCVS. This time line does makes one think a little bite more...
I think you got the cause and effect a bit wrong here. Rafael, like almost every competent company, uses launch customers to fund projects before it begins aggressive marketing. Singapore just appears to be one good candidate, but it's neither the only one, nor is it always the case. Most of Rafael's products, including all those you've mentioned, were launched by the IDF in different forms, because Rafael is a government owned company and therefore most of its R&D money comes from the government - by request of the army. But most, not all.

I'll address each example you've given separately:
1)Spike MR/LR - The niche of each variant was very clear. NLOS is artillery. ER is vehicles. MR is for infantry AT units.
Over the years, each variant evolved, and that meant the ranges increased. I'll skip the NLOS and ER and go straight to saying the MR's natural range hike is the LR, not a separate product. Their form factor is practically identical across the variants. I don't know if Singapore was the launch customer but the IDF adopted every variant of the Spike, and is the current launch customer of the LR2 with over a thousand missiles on order. Its acquisition of the LR was in the late 90's.

2)MATADOR was based on a Singaporean-German design, and was promptly adopted by the IDF following Rafael's acquisition of DND Nobel. It currently serves in 2 variants in the IDF - the original, and an improved variant with undisclosed changes. The first operational use of the MATADOR was in 2008 in operation Cast Lead, and the requirement was very clear - a weapon that can effectively knock down a wall with a single shot, and be fired from within an enclosure. Simultaneously the IDF acquired Simon door breaching weapons as a lighter, less destructive, more expendable alternative.

3)The influence to incorporate dual purpose warheads was not Singaporean requirements, but rather a global trend as armies needed something that was less of an AT weapon and more of a precision weapon.

4)The Samson all in one is also not really related to any customer's requirements. It was merely a convergence of multiple projects, and if anything was motivated by trends that were cultivated in the IDF and US Army a long time before its unveiling, certainly before 2017.
Rafael's development of medium caliber turrets dates back decades ago. It had successfully marketed its 30mm Samson turrets a very long time ago, and proceeded to develop them with more features introduced by Rafael specifically for the AFV market.
As its Trophy was shrinked for the American market and the FireWeaver was readied for presentation to the IDF, it was only natural they were integrated into Rafael's turret, with or without launch customers.

5)The Carmel is not a Rafael product, and certainly not one originating in 2019. Keep in mind that Rafael, Elbit, and IAI already presented fully functional prototypes of the modular architecture the IDF wants to stick on an independently developed platform.
The Carmel project was really announced in late 2012, and the Eitan which was presented in 2016 was one of its many products.
 

Lone Ranger

Member
I think you got the cause and effect a bit wrong here. Rafael, like almost every competent company, uses launch customers to fund projects before it begins aggressive marketing. Singapore just appears to be one good candidate, but it's neither the only one, nor is it always the case. Most of Rafael's products, including all those you've mentioned, were launched by the IDF in different forms, because Rafael is a government owned company and therefore most of its R&D money comes from the government - by request of the army. But most, not all.
Agrees with you that Rafael is a capable company. The question is why Singapore works more with Rafael and not any others, such as Elbit, which is equally successful if not more? This likely lies with 2 factors - Singapore-Israel relationship @ political level and Defence matter is not a Commercial matter (in Singapore context). Rafael being a government owned company, this status might enable more and easier G2G cooperation in defence matter compared to others.

This same article also mentioned, Singapore revealed that the Gil (SPIKE LR?) antitank missile, which is manufactured by Raphael/Rafael, was developed in cooperation between the two countries.

I don't know if Singapore was the launch customer but the IDF adopted every variant of the Spike, and is the current launch customer of the LR2 with over a thousand missiles on order. Its acquisition of the LR was in the late 90's.
Based on the above, both IDF and SAF co-developed SPIKE LR, adopted it since the late 90s, however it was not available for others and was kept under wraps till some years later.

Question - why SPIKE LR was available for Singapore but not others if Singapore was just a normal customer who shopped around with money?

For SPIKE LR2, it was noted that IDF ordered them in 2017 while SAF fired it around the same month that year down under in Australia. Again, both were having it roughly around the same time??
(*Officially SAF called SPIKE LR as SPIKE ATGM, hence instead of calling SPIKE LR2, within the SAF, they just called it SPIKE 2 - prior to the introduction of SPIKE SR in the SAF.)

2)MATADOR was based on a Singaporean-German design, and was promptly adopted by the IDF following Rafael's acquisition of DND Nobel. It currently serves in 2 variants in the IDF - the original, and an improved variant with undisclosed changes. The first operational use of the MATADOR was in 2008 in operation Cast Lead, and the requirement was very clear - a weapon that can effectively knock down a wall with a single shot, and be fired from within an enclosure. Simultaneously the IDF acquired Simon door breaching weapons as a lighter, less destructive, more expendable alternative.
Sorry for not been clear when I said "IDF was not known to have the requirement". I was referring to the need for dual roles capability of MATADOR. As you have noted, the MATADOR was based on a Singaporean-German design, and adopted by the IDF. This has pretty much reflects that the dual roles capability of the MATADOR was never conceptualized by the IDF/Rafael with a need. IDF does has the need for door and wall breaching capability but that does not necessary means they need MATADOR's dual roles capability, ie they did not go purely for this "dual roles capability", unlike the SAF. Beside, IDF also has specialized weapons for door and wall breaching - Simon & modified MATADOR.

3)The influence to incorporate dual purpose warheads was not Singaporean requirements, but rather a global trend as armies needed something that was less of an AT weapon and more of a precision weapon.
You can't deny MATADOR was the first to have this dual roles capability and it was an initiative from Singapore, others may follows if they find it relevant.

By the way, current SAF anti armour systems, namely MATADOR, SPIKE SR & LR2, all have this dual roles capability. They can't be coincident. Some deliberate efforts has to put in to ensure these systems has similar capability needed by the SAF.

The Samson all in one is also not really related to any customer's requirements.
I have to say, you are wrong on this. @ 9:22-9:27 he said, a specific country (Singapore is the only one using it as of now) took the turret to the maximum.

As its Trophy was shrinked for the American market and the FireWeaver was readied for presentation to the IDF, it was only natural they were integrated into Rafael's turret, with or without launch customers.
It is not quite true that "it was only natural they were integrated into Rafael's turret", someone needs to initiate (fund) it with their requirements and in this case it isn't Rafael.

As per this article, it says "..signed late May 2017 with an undisclosed customer, provides for a Samson Mk II RWS solution furnished for, but not equipped with, a lighter weight variant of the Trophy APS, which will be mounted on an unspecified tracked platform. " This clearly shown, Trophy APS was integrated into Samson all in one, on request, after the contract was awarded.

The Carmel is not a Rafael product, and certainly not one originating in 2019. Keep in mind that Rafael, Elbit, and IAI already presented fully functional prototypes of the modular architecture the IDF wants to stick on an independently developed platform.
The Carmel project was really announced in late 2012, and the Eitan which was presented in 2016 was one of its many products.
No one is saying Carmel is a Rafael product. I simply said Carmel project and Rafael's NGCVS was announced post 2017. Again, as per this, Israel’s MoD Research and Development Directorate (DRDD) had revealed Carmel project's requirements in Aug 2019, and this program only started 3 years prior to that, while Hunter started as early as 2006.

To be honest, be it Carmel, Hunter, Ajax, or OMFV, all these projects have their root from US Army's FCS program. It is all about how one can crystallized requirement and make room for future developments. They are all evolving and I am curious if there is any cooperation or connection between Rafael's NGCVS and Singapore's Hunter project, due to their similar operating concept and capabilities.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Agrees with you that Rafael is a competent company, it uses launch customers to fund projects. The question is why Singapore works more with Rafael and not any others, such as Elbit, which is equally successful if not more? This likely lies with 2 factors - Singapore-Israel relationship @ political level and Defence matter is not a Commercial matter (in Singapore context). Rafael being a government owned company, this might enable more and easier G2G cooperation in defence matter, however, I have no firm idea on this.
Every company, government, or organized consumer, has the option to diversify suppliers as much as they want, but it usually comes down to one supplier, aka single source buy, because the supplier and consumer usually have a relationship beyond the mere buyer and seller.
If the consumer trusts a certain supplier as it knows its products and policies very well, it may still choose it over another less known supplier even if their product is more expensive.

All Israeli defense companies can either talk to a customer on their own, or through SIBAT, a government agency for the control and marketing of defense products.
For Rafael, independently communicating outside the scope of SIBAT is more difficult than Elbit. So it boils down to the reputation that Rafael has in Singapore and its familiarity there.
Similarly, Elbit is very successful in places where Rafael's business footprint is scarce.

This same article also mentioned, Singapore revealed that the Gil (SPIKE LR?) antitank missile, which is manufactured by Raphael/Rafael, was developed in cooperation between the two countries.
And you can also find countless articles saying it was developed in cooperation with any country that eventually bought it.
Rafael, being a well established company, does not sell binary products - it adapts them to the customer's needs (requires extra resources for the company) to make the product more appealing.
For example a customer needs a unique communications protocol between the CLU and missile, or it needs weaker (and cheaper) optics, or use the CLU's remote user application to a different tablet or whatever. That all means Rafael will be working with that customer, together, to adapt their product to them.


Again if not mistaken, it was not commercially available till some years later. Hence SAF and IDF were the initial users for SPIKE LR for a couple of years. As for SPIKE MR, it was never in service with the SAF, but was with IDF prior to the launch of SPIKE LR.

Question - why restricts SPIKE LR's availability to others during the late 90s till early 2000s?
It don't make sense for Rafael but it does for Singapore.
The Spike is operated by, what, 34 countries? I don't know when exactly each one acquired one variant. But Rafael's not restricting their products like that.
Most buyers only use one or two variants - does it mean they're restricted in any way from buying other variants? No. And despite the 5th gen Spikes entering production a couple years ago, it's still used only by a select few, despite demonstrations to many. Does it mean anyone's restricted from buying it? No.
Keep in mind the Spike was only first developed around the 80's. Its worldwide success was exponential, not linear. It was always accelerating in its acquisition by others.


For SPIKE LR2, it was likely a project to replace SPIKE LR, as SPIKE LR has reached its end of shelf life (initial batch). Moreover SPIKE LR2 seeks to be an economical replacement solution by using as many existing systems as possible - very SAF style (but of course not unique to the SAF) of reuse strategy to lower replacement cost.
Just because Singapore had certain requirements that were very logical and straightforward, does not mean those were concepts that anyone had to pioneer and were unique to the SAF.
The LR2 and ER2 variants were a new generation of ATGMs. The new features they added, were necessary for a full integration with new technologies that Rafael began to aggressively market at the same time, like the BNET SDR and FireWeaver.
Additionally, the Spike LR had many customers worldwide, a sizable portion of which do not have particularly large defense budgets, and so reuse was very important.
Rafael wanted to market this missile as an upgrade that was intuitive to buy and use, not as a whole new system.

You can't deny MATADOR was the first to have this dual capability/roles and it was an initiative from Singapore. Singapore role here is much like a path finder, due to its own needs, and the rest follows if they find it relevant.
The MATADOR used the German-Singaporean Armbrust as a basis, but the Armbrust was not a dual purpose weapon - it had distinct warheads for each type.
We do not know the exact share of work that Rafael had in the project, or why it bought DND Nobel for the MATADOR. So we cannot make such conclusions.

Now SAF anti armour systems, namely MATADOR, SPIKE SR & LR2, all have this dual capability/roles. If they don't come as part of the SAF requirements, where do they come from? Which Army has this stringent requirement?
Practically the entire customer base of Spike, and more. Even our adversaries have clear needs for such warhead selection tech.
The Spike SR and LR2 and MATADOR were not developed for Singapore. They were developed for a very wide range of customers, with the IDF as launch customer.
If the IDF had no such requirements, and Rafael's main customers also had no requirements for dual purpose warheads, Rafael would not make it an integral part of the system, but rather an option per customer, because dual purpose warheads cost more and are a compromise of capabilities.
The need for multipurpose medium to high caliber rounds was realized a very long time ago. Not the 90's. The need for the same capability for ATGMs appeared when some countries created sufficient stockpiles of them to start lobbing them at infantry as well.
You have to understand that Rafael does not develop products that the IDF has not placed a requirement for - at least 90% of the time.

I have to say, you are wrong on this. @ 9:22-9:27 he said, a specific country (Singapore is the only one using it as of now) took the turret to the maximum.
Yeah, because Singapore is the only customer for the FULL system. But the full system was in development long before the SAF selected Rafael as a supplier. I've already explained in full why the Samson's development is independent of the SAF.
The most capable variant of the turret is currently tested on the Namer, but Rafael is not referring to it as its own product because it's a joint project with other companies, primarily Elbit, and is not listed for export.
The Samson and its subsystems have been a market success long before the Hunter, and outside Singapore, and the all-in-one is just them sticking multiple big systems in one package.

As Singapore provide its requirement, Rafael being an system integrator, it has to be familiar with Hunter's operating concept. How has this influence Rafael's NGCVS? This is something I'm curious about.
Conceptually? This is something talked about in international defense forums and shows, where industry also give their input, and listen to others. This predates the Hunter.
As for Rafael's ability to provide full solutions for the NGCV, it has a lot to do with its past work on full solutions it created, not integrated.
It has been making BMS for many years, so it has experience with big data management.
It has been making resilient aerial weapons for god knows how long, so it has experience with automation in target recognition, acquisition, and engagement.
And of course more niche systems like ground based missile tech and APS for decades as well.
It is true that the systems are available but the capabilities are not, unless someone integrate it, someone initiate it with their requirements. For this, Singapore took the opportunity and initiated the development for All-in-one turret.
No it did not.
It was initiated by a resurgent market for medium caliber turret systems.

I simply said Carmel project and Rafael's NGCVS was announced post 2017. Again, as per this, Israel’s MoD Research and Development Directorate (DRDD) had revealed Carmel project's requirements in Aug 2019, and this program only started 3 years prior to that, while Hunter started as early as 2006.
Then you do not understand what the Carmel program is. It's simply a demonstration program that ended more than a year ago. It has no strict requirements.
It is part of a larger program called Kaliyah (Future Land Combat Group) first published in 2012, and which is set to be finalized around the early 30's. There will be more demonstrations similar to the Carmel under a different name.

Can you provide material on this? Thanks in advance.
That's still classified.
 

Lone Ranger

Member
I had made some amendment (above) before your reply, hence there are some differences in respond/reply, but the general context is still the same.

Rafael, being a well established company, does not sell binary products - it adapts them to the customer's needs (requires extra resources for the company) to make the product more appealing.
For example a customer needs a unique communications protocol between the CLU and missile, or it needs weaker (and cheaper) optics, or use the CLU's remote user application to a different tablet or whatever. That all means Rafael will be working with that customer, together, to adapt their product to them.
So this is how SPIKE LR came about - Rafael adapting existing SPIKE (MR?) with Singapore's requirements? And IDF adopted it?
Nonsense.
By the way, Rafael was undergoing restructuring during the 90s due to massive losses and it was only completed in 2002. Than Rafael was known as Rephael - Hebrew acronym for "Authority for the Development of Armaments", part of Israel's National R&D Defense Laboratory.

Rafael's not restricting their products like that.
Not Rafael. Why would Rafael do it? Someone must have put in the clause to ensure its interest is protected.

Spike was only first developed around the 80's
Source?

the Spike LR had many customers worldwide, a sizable portion of which do not have particularly large defense budgets, and so reuse was very important.
Who has the need now? I will name them, IDF & SAF for SPIKE LR.
Strange, why isn't there a SPIKE MR2? SPIKE MR was introduced much earlier.

The Spike SR and LR2 and MATADOR were not developed for Singapore. They were developed for a very wide range of customers, with the IDF as launch customer.
Spike SR and MATADOR were not developed for Singapore?
Since when is IDF a launch customer for Spike SR and MATADOR?
Disappointed with this reply.

full system was in development long before the SAF selected Rafael as a supplier
Source? Classified?
Anyway, I believed the video is clear enough for people to comprehend.


Conceptually? This is something talked about in international defense forums and shows, where industry also give their input, and listen to others. This predates the Hunter.
As for Rafael's ability to provide full solutions for the NGCV, it has a lot to do with its past work on full solutions it created, not integrated.
It has been making BMS for many years, so it has experience with big data management.
It has been making resilient aerial weapons for god knows how long, so it has experience with automation in target recognition, acquisition, and engagement.
And of course more niche systems like ground based missile tech and APS for decades as well.
It is not what you have but how you use, that make the different.
And it is precisely how similar Rafael's and Hunter's systems works that make one wonder.

No it did not.
It was initiated by a resurgent market for medium caliber turret systems.
And this market is Singapore, the only current user.

Then you do not understand what the Carmel program is. It's simply a demonstration program that ended more than a year ago. It has no strict requirements.
It is part of a larger program called Kaliyah (Future Land Combat Group) first published in 2012, and which is set to be finalized around the early 30's. There will be more demonstrations similar to the Carmel under a different name.
There can always be a bigger project supported by multiple smaller projects and Carmel seem to be one of those supporting the bigger efforts. And this does not mean it was started as early as 2012. The Carmel project began with the announcement of its requirements which only took place in 2019.

That's still classified.
Serious? But they are introducing and market it using mass media !?

Since there is no verifiable source on your claim, this could also mean that Rafael was chosen by DSO as their technology partner - DSO has this intention of looking for partner since 2017.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Guys, can both parties chill? Both of you have deep subject matter knowledge and we can all learn much from each other — instead of bashing each other.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
And this is how SPIKE LR came about with Singapore's requirements and IDF adopted it.
Cherrypicking one sentence from a whole paragraph and then replying to it does not make it correct. Your assertion is wrong.

Not Rafael. Why would Rafael do it? Someone must have put in the clause to ensure its interest is protected.
YOU said it was restricting customer access to certain Spike variants. Not me. And it never has restricted access. Singapore certainly could never restrict anyone's access to Rafael's proprietary technology.


My source is my frequent visits to Rafael's museum which is comfortably located in their northern development center. I'm not familiar with written literature on the subject. But if it's really important for you to get technical then the conception was shortly after the Yom Kippur War, and development formally began in late 70's.

Who has the need now? I will name them, IDF & SAF for SPIKE LR.
Strange, why isn't there a SPIKE MR2? SPIKE MR was introduced much earlier.
And every other user of the Spike LR. It is the most widely used variant, and Singapore is one country out of over 30.
There isn't an MR2 version because I've already explained that the LR succeeded it. With the same form factor, the LR 1 reached 4km, and the LR 2 reaches 5.5km. So it makes no sense to go for a lower range MR.
The SR version fills the short ranged gap much more efficiently with a 2km range.

Spike SR and MATADOR were not developed for Singapore?
Since when is IDF a launch customer for Spike SR and MATADOR?
Disappointed with this reply.
They were not. The MATADOR was developed for the needs of multiple armies, with development finalized when Rafael acquired full rights over it. Immediately upon launch, it was acquired by multiple armed forces, particularly Germany, Israel, and Singapore - all wishing to buy it early on.
The MATADOR was later modified for a 60mm wahread instead of 90mm, also immediately adopted by Israel, but AFAIK not Singapore though I could be wrong on this one.

The Spike SR has gone through many iterations and its development started a very long time ago. Well over a decade ago I believe. It was presented first as Mini-Spike, and then Spike SR with different looking variants but they were all eventually rejected by the IDF. Later on the IDF accepted its current iteration, and that's what was later marketed and Singapore bought.


Source? Classified?
Anyway, I believed the video is clear enough for people to comprehend.
Google Samson 30mm RCWS and you'll find plenty of examples. The first non-IDF variant I believe was widely adopted by the Czech for their Pandur IFVs.
The video is clear but apparently you're drawing wild conclusions unrelated to what's said. The products offered by Rafael are scalable. So is the turret. You can request it in a manned variant, or an unmanned one. Or even optionally manned. You can request different sensors.
So far, the one that's requested for the fullest package was Singapore in an operational vehicle. But that does not mean Singapore is responsible in any way for this product. Rafael develops products by request of the IDF, not any other customer.
Of course, the Singapore-bought Samson is not exactly the All-in-one. It does not yet have the Trophy system, even its sensor package, and as far as I know it also doesn't have the FireWeaver, which is central for its operation.

It is not what you have but how you use, that make the different.
And it is precisely how similar Rafael's and Hunter's systems works that make one wonder.
I don't see much similarity. The Hunter is clearly made for a lot of future growth and to first utilize what's available right now.
But Rafael's technologies for the NGCV are much more comprehensive.
For the Carmel, it demonstrated a seamless cockpit, which is currently missing on the Hunter. Those are a large array of screens shared by both crewmembers where they can easily interact, instead of having separate screens for everything.

It has also demonstrated greater integration of the APS and other sensors like mast mounted optics and radar, a LIDAR, etc into the BMS, and a full operation of the fire tender concept.

Additionally it demonstrated advanced signature management technologies, active role switching between the vehicle's crew and AI, automatic target engagement, and finally the feasibility of operating the vehicle with only 2 men, with the option to go fully unmanned.
All of these are within the scope of what CAN be achieved with the Hunter's digital architecture, but not what it achieves right now, nor what Rafael is contracted to do for the SAF.

And this market came from Singapore, the only current user.
No. The global market is full of requests for new IFVs including turret systems. In recent years Elbit has largely dominated the market so we haven't seen Rafael particularly active. It did win the Lithuanian tender but it was requested to offer the Mark 2 turret even though the All-in-one existed at the time.

The Carmel project began with the announcement of its requirements which only took place in 2019.
If you're going to be adamant about the timeline, at least be correct. The announcement of requirements was made in 2017.

The existence of the Carmel program was revealed in 2015.

Serious? How do you get to know on your claim?
I am a member of the IDF intelligence community. That is as far as I'm at liberty to talk.
I have no doubt DSO would want to work with Rafael on this, if there is a need.
But Rafael's indoor mapping technologies are developed for domestic needs and to make them workable they buy American hardware to which they apply proprietary algorithms.
 
Top