Israeli Army News & Discussion

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
Some photos:
You can see here how small the Merkava 4's turret actually is relative to how it's usually seen.


The hull side armor has the writing "Explosive series 01 11, Ramta"
Ramta is a division of IAI. It seems to confirm that all major Israeli defense companies are involved in armor production for AFVs of the IDF - IAI, Elbit, Rafael.
You can also see here how the turret sort of sinks into the hull, showing the hull is perceived as taller than it really is because the side armor panels extend upward.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
A fellow member of an Israeli defense forum, posted a video of events from the 2014 Operation Protective Edge.
It's all Hebrew of course, with no translation options, but I still want to discuss a small part of it that is visualized.


During one of the most intensive battles of that operation, in the Hamas stronghold Shujaiyah (a neighborhood in which Hamas holds the largest concentration of fighters, and highest quality ones), a tank commander was hit by shrapnel from a mortar shell - crewmen frequently fought with open hatches, manning their respective MGs, but mostly to scan for targets.

When it became apparent his injury was serious, he ordered the loader to replace him (standard procedure is gunner). In the meantime, his injury was reported and he was due to receive first aid, examination, and later medevac. He was laid in the tank's rear corridor to give him proper rest.

A while later, a 2nd tank arrived and drove to meet his tank back to back. A medic came out of the 2nd tank and examined him in the cover of the two tanks' armor. He reported the injury as serious.

A medevac APC (M113) came and picked him up in time to save him.

This reminded me of an often forgotten perspective on how AFVs operate in general. You see how people talk about tanks for example, and they talk about how powerful the gun is, or how thick the armor is, or the top speed of this alleged race car.
But this man was not injured by an APFSDS, RPG, or ATGM. He was hit by a mortar shell while he was scanning with his Mk 1 eyeball for targets in an urban environment.
And it was thanks to the construction of his unit's tanks that allowed his closest comrades to apply first aid and save him in safe conditions.

So many seemingly random challenges are present for combat soldiers, and the weapons, gear, and vehicles we give them are merely tools - we need to accept that they are creative people, and make their tools not as armored or as powerful as possible, but as diverse and flexible as possible.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
Rafael has showcased its Armor Shield KE, or ASPRO-KE.
An Israeli defense website published an interview with a Rafael official, so I'll post the main points:

1. The only system said to fully deal with KEPs is Iron Fist, an active system. But Rafael takes a different approach, saying even a deflected penetrator would inflict damage. They prefer using the APS for anything other than KE, and absorb the KEP with reactive armor.

2. Rafael's main competitor is the US Army which develops for itself, but considers itself a global leader in this field.

3. The weight is still prohibitive and suitable for MBTs, at up to 750kg/m2 for turret front, 400kg/m2 for turret side, and 375kg/m2 for hull front.


4. The effect versus APFSDS is tremendous - up to 54% in simulations, and roughly 50% reduction in penetration power in live tests.

5. Defeats existing 125mm APFSDS and said to work against KEPs of any caliber.

6. The ERA shatters the KEP into fragments and prevents penetration of the outer layer of the armor.

7. The KEP activates the ERA with its heat and friction, triggering it when a real threat is identified, preventing false activation.

8. Hundreds of tests were made, and the blast does not endanger nearby troops.

9. The ERA module will work on multiple threats so long as two different shells are not hitting the exact same point, as in "shoot through a hole", which is true for any type of armor ever. This is indeed a very significant development.

10. The IDF has yet to purchase this armor, and Rafael is marketing it abroad for now.





I cannot exaggerate the importance of this. In the past, an entire module that was shot through, was gone. Here, you have an ERA module with the weight of conventional ERA and its single hit effectiveness, with the multi-shot survivability of completely passive armor.
This is the best of both worlds, so to speak, and a lightweight, survivable ERA against KE will give western tanks a protection capability against the most advanced Russian and Chinese APFSDS.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
Elbit releases a rendering of its 155mm L/52 howitzer - Sigma.



Those who know the ATMOS, know Elbit has been offering a 155mm howitzer on a wheeled platform for a long time, and even has a good number of customers.
The ATMOS has manual or semi automatic loading capabilities, and had to deploy its crew of 3-6 to operate the gun outside the cabin.

The turreted variant was made especially by request of the IDF, and naturally Elbit wants more customers. The IDF will begin operating it in 2023.
The only competitors I can think of, also using a turret, are the Archer which has recently been renewed, and the AGM.
 

krumholzMax

New Member
Sorry where is no T14 all European receive Trophy Challenger 3 - Abrams - Leo2 and all not five-generation Merkava 4 only one with like you show can change all armor all time and have armor on top against Javelin and so so it's the only Fifth generation in the world
 

krumholzMax

New Member
Also, i wait for this machine
Elbit Systems Demonstrates an Innovative Armored Fighting Vehicle Operated by a Helmet Mounted Display Elbit Systems has concluded extensive testing and carried out a series of successful capability demonstrations of its innovative Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV), as part of the CARMEL Future Combat Vehicle project of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The innovative AFV introduces a step-change in the operational capability of combat vehicles. This is underpinned by applying autonomous capabilities and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to accelerate decision making and facilitate target engagement with dramatically increased rapidity and accuracy. Using a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) a crew of two warriors operates the AFV under closed hatches, further enhancing capabilities and survivability. The AFV successfully demonstrated its capacity to function as an independent high fire-power strike cell, as a networked station for multi-spectral sensing and information fusion, as well as a base platform for operating additional unmanned systems. The capabilities were exhibited by a technology demonstrator integrating a range of the Company’s systems, among them: UT30 unmanned turret, Iron Vision HMD, a land robotic suite, TORCH Command & Control (C2) system, E-LynX software-defined radios, SupervisIR terrain dominance system, MAY acoustic situational awareness system, AI applications, THOR Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) and Pioneer fighting Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV). The AFV is capable of performing key combat tasks with a high level of autonomy - off-road driving, rapid target acquisition, and prioritization, as well as fast, high precision fire missions, in day and night. The AFV is networked allowing it to carry out missions ordered by Headquarters and other fighting platforms as well as to transmit missions and intelligence to other forces. Additionally, the AFV is capable of operating other unmanned platforms such as a VTOL to feed intelligence into the crew’s operational picture or a fighting UGV to perform high-risk missions. Using the Iron Vision ‘See-Through’ HMD, a crew of two is capable of operating the AFV entirely under closed hatches. The system transmits real-time, high-resolution video to the crew’s helmet-mounted display, providing them with a 360° view of the surroundings, together with relevant symbology and C4I data. In addition, Iron Vision enables the crew to acquire targets, conduct line-of-sight (LOS) driving and navigation, and enslave the AFV’s weapons systems to their LOS. date Aug 4, 2019,
 
Last edited:

krumholzMax

New Member
About Atmos
As the premier artillery supplier to the Israel Defense Forces, Elbit Systems offers a comprehensive array of fully integrated artillery solutions that incorporate smart technology, automatic laying and loading capacity, Fire Control Systems (FCS), and modular weapon products. Outfitted with enhanced ballistic computers, along with navigation and target acquisition equipment ‒ including Battery and Battalion Command Posts ‒ our artillery solutions are easily integrated with customers’ C4I systems.
Elbit Systems supplies a wide spectrum of artillery systems, including the world-renowned 155mm ATMOS truck-mounted howitzer These combat-proven solutions have seen extensive use by the US Army, NATO countries, the Israel Defense Forces, and others.
Extensive integration expertise, combined with in-house development, enables Elbit Systems’ hardware components and communications systems to adapt to a wide range of platforms. All products can be tailored to customer specifications.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@krumholzMax Welcome to the Forum. I can see that you have been busy posting which is great, however we have some rules that all posters are required to follow. So please read them. We are a professionally run defence forum and we have many defence professionals from many countries active on here.

Your video links look interesting but we require at least 2 lines of text with your thoughts about what the videos are discussing / showing.

We look forward to your further contributions to the ongoing discussions, and it's nice to see another Israeli citizen on here. It broadens our knowledge base.
 

krumholzMax

New Member
Sorry about what - about Atmos, I can write a lot but becuse you show a rendering of Sigma I was thinking just to show it in action and first one version of the interesting machine but no information at all only this video from Elbit even on the site of Elbit land-systems/ only release date Aug 4, 2019, and no other information. Only what say in the description if needed I will add. Even when link after just to the site no information from this date I try to find it to look very interesting AFV maybe it is just a demonstrator of technology maybe no. I really try to find something and w\o luck. I have a lot of information But I don't want to new tread - just do a test live-fire of Spike NLOS in Estonia in the latest of whey video. Do new tread about Spike Family Missile? I have a lot of information so I think it is wise to take the news of Israel Products from all companies in different tread Like where to put new night vision to Uk and else...I will try my best but find only this tread I have a lot to offer from Israel I am the First Sergeant of 7 Armor Brigade retired with the specialty of Mortar division but familiar with a lot of sources in Israel from first hand. Thanks for understanding this is two of my pictures back in my service so you know I am a real person. On the second I am still Sergeant.
 

Attachments

STURM

Well-Known Member
Zucchini,

Would it accurate to say that the case majority of Merkavas “knocked out” in 2006 in Lebanon were not complete write offs and were eventually returned to service? That only a handful were actually destroyed per see; including a couple hit by massive IEDs?

Also; percentage wise has the IDF ever released casualty figures for tank crewmen in relation to casualties suffered by other combat arms in 1967, 1973 and 1982?

Also, were you aware that the first instance of a IDF MBT being targeted by a Sagger was not in the 1973 war but a few years before; along the common border with Egypt? Apparently what came as a surprise to the IDF in the 1973 war was not the fact that the Egyptians had Saggers but how they deployed/employed them in mass. For some reason there is little or no mention of Saggers being used by the Syrians in 1973.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
Would it accurate to say that the case majority of Merkavas “knocked out” in 2006 in Lebanon were not complete write offs and were eventually returned to service? That only a handful were actually destroyed per see; including a couple hit by massive IEDs?
Indeed.
370 tanks were used in total (not all at the same time).
52 tanks have suffered some form of damage.
21 have suffered some form of armor penetration.
5 were destroyed, of which 2 are Mark 4, 1 is Mark 3, and 2 are Mark 2.
23 crewmen were killed during the war with an average of 1 KIA per armor penetration into the crew compartment versus 2 in the 1973 war (IIRC).

Of the two Merkava 4 tanks that were destroyed, one returned to service. The other was restored and put in a museum.

Hezbollah fired in excess of 1,000 ATGMs, and a significant enough number of casualties was actually caused by heavy IEDs.

Also; percentage wise has the IDF ever released casualty figures for tank crewmen in relation to casualties suffered by other combat arms in 1967, 1973 and 1982?
Yes, but those statistics are hard to find. I'm not resourceful enough right at this moment to search, sorry.


Also, were you aware that the first instance of a IDF MBT being targeted by a Sagger was not in the 1973 war but a few years before; along the common border with Egypt? Apparently what came as a surprise to the IDF in the 1973 war was not the fact that the Egyptians had Saggers but how they deployed/employed them in mass. For some reason there is little or no mention of Saggers being used by the Syrians in 1973.
I probably knew that but had forgotten, so thanks for the reminder.
Yes, the surprise was as you said, but Saggers still did not play a significant enough role. Egyptian tanks were still the largest threat by a huge margin. At least that I remember.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
In “King Of The Killing Zone “(Kelly) the author mentions a U.S. army team which visits the Sinai after the war. They discovered that the bulk of IDF MBT losses were not by Saggers.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
IAI selected as prime contractor for Carmel technologies, will use systems from competing Rafael and Elbit.
Demonstration will proceed on Eitan 8x8 AFVs instead of M113, which will enter mass production this year if state budget passes.

I personally like IAI's concept most, but it does not bode well for the US OMFV program where Elbit and Rafael are better positioned.

 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
Model of Ro'em (brand name Sigma) prepared for an exhibition:


Notice the gun is still the L52, however the platform is built for a larger gun that could be mounted in the future (the L52 is an old standard already).
 

mrrosenthal

Member
Why was IAI chosen as the Carmel Integrator? I’m more impressed by Rafaels suite of technologies and video presentation, I thought they would win.
Below is speculation based upon possibly faulty assumptions, please correct my assumptions or speculations-

Did IAI win because of-
-Better experience with incorporating systems and physical platform creation, IE drones?
-IAI’s deeper connections with India and that Carmel might incorporate an Indian partner.
-Strategic choice of resource investment to have IAI focused purely on Carmel. Whereas if Elbit /Rafael were selected for OMFV and Carmel, that firm would be strained to deliver both products well. By having IAI on carmel and Elbit/Rafel on OMFV, more can be learned all around?

Other Questions
--Any thoughts on the rumor Carmel was looking for an American and Indian partner and the strategy/tacitcs behind this?
--IDF statement said Carmel final version would still incorporate technologies/strategies from Elbit and Rafael. So what exactly are they producing themselves if they are integrating Elbit/Rafael technologies? If Rafael fireweaver is the ‘brain’ , Elbit has the Torch and Iron Vision, what is IAI doing? The flight controls and design specs for a specific vehicle? Or streamlining the Future Vehicle Concept to be a kind fo SAAS for other vehicles. What exactly will the Carmel contract turn into, a physical and specific mass produced vehicle, or a solution for other vehicles.
--Do you know what Elbit is providing BAE for the OMFV? What is Rafael providing Oshkosh for the OMFV? In my mind, Rafael and Elbit have already created full solution prototypes for the OMFV, as sampled during their demonstration. All that’s lacking is the physical vehicle and gun choice. Considering US Army has probably already seen Carmel data, is OMFV basically a requirement for a US version of Carmel, is that a fair assumption?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36
Did IAI win because of-
1) Better experience with incorporating systems and physical platform creation, IE drones?
2) IAI’s deeper connections with India and that Carmel might incorporate an Indian partner.
3) Strategic choice of resource investment to have IAI focused purely on Carmel. Whereas if Elbit /Rafael were selected for OMFV and Carmel, that firm would be strained to deliver both products well. By having IAI on carmel and Elbit/Rafel on OMFV, more can be learned all around?
1) All companies involved are very much capable as prime contractors, as they all have some OEM-level capabilities. Rafael perhaps the least, as I'm aware, but certainly Elbit has the biggest edge here. By acquiring IMI, it has gained the capability to do OEM-level work on any platform it chooses, which is an exceptional capability.
(OEM - Original Equipment Manufacturer. It means they can work on it as if they designed and built it).

Yet it doesn't seem to be a significant factor here. The winner basically delivers the systems, but the integration, physically, on the platforms, is done in tandem with the IDF's own units, so if the company cannot deliver on that part, the IDF will.

2) The desired partnership with India is not for the R&D of the system, but merely a desire for them to purchase the product and commit early on to it, to induce a cash flow into the project so the IDF can save money and buy it sooner than planned. Similarly a partnership with the US is desired, but in that one it would be a fierce competition.
If anything, IAI is least well positioned company to compete in the US, because Rafael and Elbit already found powerful partners, while IAI is forced to go the G2G route.
Regardless of the winner, Israel would at least pitch it the G2G route to India.

3) Involvement in the competition and a win in Israel is actually a major advantage for the winner. It allows it to leverage work it has already done for one to accelerate the schedule for the other, making its proposal more economical in the competition phase, and better on the schedule, thus overall more attractive.
As I've said here before, IAI's system may have been my favorite, but their victory is strategically wrong because other companies are better positioned to win in the US and elsewhere.

Any thoughts on the rumor Carmel was looking for an American and Indian partner and the strategy/tacitcs behind this?
It's not a rumor. The Carmel is supposed to enter service in a very limited way in 2023 (delayed from 2021) on the Merkava, Eitan, and perhaps the Namer. And fully on a new platform around 2029 (delayed from 2027).
R&D projects of this scale are expensive and not very easy financially for Israel to handle, as it already outspends basically the entire west in defense (per capita) and maintains a huge army. It could use outsourcing some of the financing.
It's only natural to find partners to share the costs.

The US did it in the JSF program. Russia does it with much of its modern equipment.

IDF statement said Carmel final version would still incorporate technologies/strategies from Elbit and Rafael. So what exactly are they producing themselves if they are integrating Elbit/Rafael technologies?
All these companies share many of the same strengths. They all have vast experience in autonomy tech, AI-enabled processes, sensory, battle management, APS and so on. They can all independently provide all the systems necessary for the Carmel to work as intended. However the best approach is mix and match if possible.
What if Rafael offers the best BMS but IAI offers the best autonomous driving algorithms and computing architecture, while Elbit provides the best sensors? You take the best from each one.

IAI can build it entirely from its own products if it wants to, as I said, but the competition is more for who has the best concept. Whose design is more ergonomic, easier to train with and operate, and produces the best effects. The actual products are an afterthought because they'll take extra development either way.

What perhaps matters most is not what products are added to it now, but rather how you design the digital architecture that will be at the very core of this vehicle and to which new products will connect over the next 40-50 years.

What exactly will the Carmel contract turn into, a physical and specific mass produced vehicle, or a solution for other vehicles.
Both. There isn't an AFV called Carmel. It's the system of systems, the concept. It is being implemented on existing AFVs, and in the future will be incorporated in a new family of AFVs that is part of the Kaliyah project.

Do you know what Elbit is providing BAE for the OMFV? What is Rafael providing Oshkosh for the OMFV? In my mind, Rafael and Elbit have already created full solution prototypes for the OMFV, as sampled during their demonstration
IAI has a working prototype on an M113 as well. As for what they are all offering on the OMFV prototypes is anyone's guess. They could be showing a sort of semi working example based on current products but the final product will be quite far from that.
I don't know how the OMFV program is structured, but it does involve a demonstration of feasibility first, in which companies will show an operation with 2 crewmen or even just a solid vehicle architecture concept.
How they do it is something still undisclosed.
As for having prototypes, they don't really.

Considering US Army has probably already seen Carmel data, is OMFV basically a requirement for a US version of Carmel, is that a fair assumption?
That's a fair assumption, yes. However shifts in American doctrine will likely mean it will be physically structured quite differently.
For example, the US is considering 3 different notional designs for its next MBT (which draws tech from OMFV) with crews ranging from 2 to 4.

Regardless of the winner in Carmel, all Israeli companies involved in it are developing its tech as one of the future revenue sources.
 

mrrosenthal

Member
Why did you like IAI's Concept the best?

Can you elaborate on if/will IDF uses the Torch X BMS from Elbit, and fire weaver as a solution within the BMS? How does Rafaels BNET radio play a part. Are these the 3 core technologies that are the base of the future AFV and future unit? Is there anything else?

It seems to that Carmel is the integration of these 3 main technologies in a vehicle. However, everything else, from vehicle configuration, weapon systems, UAVs, controllers is swappable, upgradable and not a critical decision.

What is IAI doing to increase its partnerships? i haven't read anything about local US subsidaries. However, they have produced subsidiaries in India I believe.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #38
Why did you like IAI's Concept the best?
It seems to be the most intuitive interface, displaying everything on a shared curved screen setup, large individual screens, and a more intuitive simple commercial controller rather than the large military standard joysticks.

I personally advocate for a mouse-like approach to increase percision and lower reaction time. If we look at civilian tech, i.e video games, games which require very fast responses like first person shooters, are much better played with a mouse as the movement is more intuitive than a joystick. Movement that involves the entire palm will be more precise and intuitive than one involving a single finger.

IAI's demonstration also showed less cluttered screens and fewer input-requiring actions. Rafael's which was 2nd best IMO could be quite disorienting at times.


Can you elaborate on if/will IDF uses the Torch X BMS from Elbit, and fire weaver as a solution within the BMS?
The FireWeaver is a BMS in itself. It and the Torch-X are application-level solution that basically do the same thing. I am not familiar with how the Torch-X works and looks like, but it seems the IDF has chosen the FireWeaver to be its next BMS, while the last few years the IDF has been completing acquisition of an Elbit BMS dubbed "Torch 750" , which I cannot associate with any existing Elbit product because it is an internal IDF designation. That is, I do not know what generation it is and how it compares to Elbit's latest Torch-X generation.

It's important to remember Elbit has been leading the IDF's Digital Army program for about 2 decades.


How does Rafaels BNET radio play a part. Are these the 3 core technologies that are the base of the future AFV and future unit? Is there anything else?
The BNET is an SDR, a Software Defined Radio. It is part of the datalink system. An SDR is usually a radio designed on an FPGA or any other programmable hardware, that can be reconfigured via software changes and therefore remain highly adaptable and relevant even after many years of use, even decades, with no physical modifications required.
Elbit and IAI have their own series of SDR for multiple tactical levels (soldier to AFV and above), and it's an enabling technology for many of their other products either way.

All in all, these technologies by themselves are not really guaranteed to take a part in the Carmel as any specific company's product. As I said, any of the 3 can provide at least almost any key component of the Carmel by itself.

The only products that are almost guaranteed are IronVision for existing AFVs, i.e early Carmel stages, and FireWeaver as the future BMS.

It seems to that Carmel is the integration of these 3 main technologies in a vehicle. However, everything else, from vehicle configuration, weapon systems, UAVs, controllers is swappable, upgradable and not a critical decision.
The core of the Carmel and OMFV and others like them, is the ability to reduce the crew significantly, afford them much better situational awareness and decision making tools, and to make a leap in the physical characteristics of the vehicle.
To achieve that, the first most basic tools are cameras around the vehicle, an autonomous driving algorithm, and automatic target recognition algorithm.

But make no mistake, a hybrid or electric drive for silent operation, active camouflage, improved APS, cyber immunity, and kinetic overmatch are all very much integral to these programs.


What is IAI doing to increase its partnerships? i haven't read anything about local US subsidaries. However, they have produced subsidiaries in India I believe.
As I said, IAI has no partner yet, at least officially. Much of its revenue comes from deals scored on a G2G basis (Government to Government negotiations).
The reason is that IAI's marketing capabilities are very limited, and it is more bound by government bureaucracy than others. It and Rafael are government-owned, but Rafael conducts much more like a private company than IAI does.
 

mrrosenthal

Member
I read an article that said fireweaver is like Uber, choosing the best solution, whereas the underlying software I thought was Elbits Torch, the BMS, aka google android which connects the different software.

Has the US chosen a BMS. From what I read ,the US system is still in government development, and no where near the 2nd level of fireweaver BMS + Algorithms. I haven't found out if they even chose a supplier for this technology and are still in pre-proposal process

Besides Germany, who in 2019 selected Atos+Rafael for its glass battlefield, is there any other military out there that is has a working fully digitized BMS?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #40
I read an article that said fireweaver is like Uber, choosing the best solution, whereas the underlying software I thought was Elbits Torch, the BMS, aka google android which connects the different software.
They are basically entirely parallel products. You can substitute one for another.


Has the US chosen a BMS. From what I read ,the US system is still in government development, and no where near the 2nd level of fireweaver BMS + Algorithms. I haven't found out if they even chose a supplier for this technology and are still in pre-proposal process
I don't know what type of BMS the US has multiple programs that may merge, like the ABMS that started out as an air force BMS, the CEC for Navy, IBCS for army and so on.
I know some vehicles do have some form of tactical level BMS.

Besides Germany, who in 2019 selected Atos+Rafael for its glass battlefield, is there any other military out there that is has a working fully digitized BMS?
Perhaps the UK and France, but I really don't know. I haven't been following this topic.
 
Top