Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Merkava to undergo updates.. then stop production?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Merkava to undergo updates.. then stop production?

    Originally posted here.

    Heavyweights are Adapting to LIC
    IDF Continues Merkava Mk 4 Evolution

    Merkava tanks of all types, and particularly the new Merkava Mk4 are facing a serious challenge in the recent war between Israel and Lebanese Hezbolla. The tanks are operating in rocky and mountainous terrain, facing advanced anti-tank weapons, from improvised IEDs and heavy belly charges and RPGs to the latest generations ATGWs, including the Russian Metis-M and Kornet E. Some 10 tanks have been hit in the two weeks of fighting, most of them are expected to be repaired soon and return to operational status. While the prolonged and escalating asymmetric conflict took a significant toll from these tanks, in general, the Merkava clearly demonstrated its effectiveness and flexibility in carrying out various combat and support missions, while maintaining effective protection for the crew, even under extensive enemy fire.

    As a product of the late 20th century, the Merkava tank was designed for the high intensity battlefield, where tanks are confronted by enemy tanks and long range anti-tank missile mostly in frontal engagements and at long ranges. During recent asymmetric conflicts, tanks are facing new threats characterized by RPGs, missiles, land mines and IEDs as well as small arms and sniper fire. These threats can appear at extreme close ranges and from any direction, including the rear, top and sides. Operating with open hatches in this type of combat becomes highly dangerous to crews, especially to vehicle commanders who must maintain situational awareness for safety as well as operational effectiveness.

    Utilizing its highly adaptable, modular design and ‘telescopic evolution’ the Merkava is transforming from a Main Battle Tank (MBT) into a Multi-Purpose Fighting Vehicle (MPFV), characterized by a dynamically balanced blend of protection, mobility, firepower and information systems. Utilizing modular armor design, the armor protective suite of the Merkava tank has been continuously upgraded to face evolving threats. Design changes have included the addition of armored belly plates to protect the bottom and lower sides of the hull against heavy improvised ground mines after three Merkavas suffered fatal attacks by this type of mine. The hull armor has also been augmented with advanced materials, and the modular design allows quick optimization to protect against specific newly perceived threats.

    Many Merkavas have suffered repeated hits in combat engagements with Hezbolla and Palestinian forces with no casualties to the crew. All tanks were rapidly repaired and sent back into service, including one Merkava Mk 2 tank that was hit by seven different missiles in one attack (Ghajar, November 2005). In the near future, active protection systems are expected to be integrated into the tank's armor, offering improved protection against shaped charge threats and, potentially, kinetic threats.

    Further improving the crew and commander's operational capability under armor protection, the commander's position has been augmented by a ring of panoramic vision blocks that provide a wide field of view. The addition of an independent commander's sight fitted with a thermal imaging system, and its own full capability fire control computer, enables the commander and gunner to simultaneously and independently engage two disparate targets, thus multiplying the tank's observation and fire coverage capabilities.

    Further protection for the crew was considered by employing Autoflug safety seat systems, to protect the crew from side and bottom mine and IED blasts as well as reducing stress and fatigue during long duration missions. Several types of seats were tested in Merkava Mk4. The driver's and commander's seats utilized elevated designs, while the loader and gunner's seat positions were fixed. However, seats are not used in serial production tanks. Autoflug safety seats are also being considered for use with the new Namer and various wheeled APCs under development by the IDF.

    A remotely controlled weapon station mounting a 7.62 machine gun and a coaxial M2 heavy 12.7 mm machine gun above the main gun are also fully integrated into, and controlled through, the existing fire control system, enabling the Merkava crew to use either machine gun as a high powered sniper rifle for optimal pinpoint effect and accuracy at medium and short range.

    The 60mm ‘under armor mortar’ will also be linked into the fire control system in order to provide automatic aiming and the use of extended range ammunition as part of the telescopic development spiral.

    Introduction of the new IMI Kalanit 120mm Anti-Personnel-Anti-Material (APAM) round for the main gun will further enhance the tank's ability to engage dispersed infantry, buildings, and fortified structures as well as helicopters.

    A new addition, specifically designed for urban warfare, is the sniper's position located at the rear access door. Firing through the protected porthole window a sniper can engage approaching tank killer teams advancing towards the vehicle's most vulnerable area. Other improvements, designed specifically for urban combat include a rammer, which enables the tank to safely knock down obstructions, avoiding damage to the gun or optronics. A pre-installed tow chain harness is also used, to facilitates extraction and recovery of a disabled tank by another tank or a bulldozer, without exposing the crew.

    In addition to the machine guns, all weapons and sensors are linked to the Battle Management System (BMS) and can thus be operated and monitored from any crew station, providing flexibility through crew task assignments.

    The tank is equipped with dual range thermal imaging optics to cover both 3-5 micron and 8-12 micron channels in order to provide improved performance and redundancy under all visibility conditions, day and night. The imagery resolution and performance of the tanks optronics matches the most sophisticated systems currently in service, offering exceptionally clear visibility under all weather conditions. Further enhancements of the optronic capability include an improved target tracker that is designed to effectively combat low-flying helicopters, as well as image processing software that can detect human ground activity. The tank is also equipped fixed video cameras covering the rear and sides of the vehicle.

    The tank is designed as a net-centric system with four redundant networks, which use standard TCP/IP Ethernet protocol. The network is managed by dedicated servers for the turret and hull. It also has a digitally controlled power distribution system for the turret and all weapon and observation systems. The crewmembers use common workstations, which connect to the tank’s ‘intranet’, to operate and display specific information.

    In a typical situation, the tank commander views BMS, his independent sight display and monitors the gunner's view. The gunner monitors his sight display, orientation, and target data. The loader monitors ammunition count, communications and perimeter views, and the driver monitors engine controls, thermal forward view and rear camera. All crewmembers can view emergency information, such as threat indications, fire alerts etc., and share resources such as communications, video etc.

    According to Lt. Colonel Nissim Nissim, Systems manager at the Merkava Program Office, These networks were recently enhanced with external wireless connectivity, enabling the latest Merkava 4 tanks to share sensor data, situational displays and other information with nearby tanks or other units. He told Defense Update that the current Merkava was designed with sufficient power, processing, communications and interfaces to enable future growth, including adding crewmembers, sensors and processors.

    Based on the lessons learned in Lebanon since 1982, the IDF has pursued the development of heavy armored personnel carriers capable of keeping pace with the Merkava tanks while withstanding the same levels of threats. Initially, the IDF converted turretless T-55 and Centurion hulls into heavy APCs. These vehicles were produced in limited numbers and used extensively during the later years of the Israeli – South Lebanese conflict. The IDF has also used these heavy APCs in Gaza, supporting operations around and inside heavily populated areas, and patrolling the border areas around the Gaza strip.

    However, according to initial analysis done by the Merkava Program Office (MPO, also called Mantak in Hebrew), the Merkava chassis is far more suitable for this task than the T-55 or Centurion hulls. The Merkava’s forward mounted engine leaves room for a large rear access ramp, and provides a spacious internal configuration for the fighting compartment. The flat roof provides effective observation from closed hatches, and flexible and efficient installations for payloads and remotely controlled weapon stations. The superior base armor and the availability of add-on armor modules provides a Merkava based APC with a protection level unprecedented among contemporary AIFVs.

    As part of the evolution of the Merkava family, this main battle tank chassis will further evolve into a family of heavily armored vehicles, designed for multi-mission operations in high and low-intensity warfare. MPO produced several versions of Merkava based APCs, called Namer (Leopard in Hebrew), utilizing existing chassis of various Merkava models. Two armored infantry carriers were produced fitted with advanced modular Merkava armor and providing accommodation for 12 men: commander, driver, weapon station operator and eight fully equipped troops. The hatch for the driver’s station has been removed and that area provided with additional armor to the top and sides of the vehicle. The underside is reinforced by a belly plate to protect against mines. Remotely controlled weapon stations mounting 7.62mm and M2 heavy machineguns were installed with associated optronics and fire control systems. As in the Merkava Mk 3 LIC, the Namer will have a sniper port located in the rear access door ramp.

    The new vehicles will enable effective operation in "buttoned up" conditions over extended durations, offering spacious interiors and rapid access and dismounting of troops. For medical evacuation under fire, every Namer will be fitted for collapsible stretcher carriage to facilitate rapid and efficient battlefield MEDEVAC operations. Safety equipment includes blast-absorbing seats for the crew and an internal fire suppression system. Another version with an elevated, remotely controlled mount carrying a 30mm gun has also been tested.

    Other configurations include an armored recovery vehicle, and a company support vehicle, fitted with all tools required for the combat maintenance and support team. Future configurations could include a multi-purpose missile launcher enabling engagement of targets beyond line of sight.

    According to Amir Nir, IDF Merkava Project Manager (MPO), the Namer could enter production by 2010, to be followed as early as 2015 with a new platform based on an evolutionary Merkava chassis. General Nir told Defense Update that he foresees a versatile ground platform that would be lighter than the current Merkava, weighing around 35-40 tons, but retaining the Merkava’s excellent protection from all types of threats including kinetic projectiles, belly charges, shaped charges and IEDs. The weight saving will be achieved primarily through replacement of the turret with a remotely controlled, integrated gun and missile station. The use of active protection armor instead of conventional armor could result in further weight reductions. The vehicle could also deploy unmanned systems and missiles to allow Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) as well as direct fire engagements.

    The Merkava tank program started in 1970 after the IDF was forced to consider an alternative to the cancelled project for producing British Chieftain tanks under license, which had been cancelled by the UK at the start of the 1967 War.

    To support development and future production, the Israel Ministry of Defense invested significant resources to expand existing military depot facilities as well as local defense industries. These included significant investments in IMI's Slavin plant and Urdan Metal Industries.

    Although the Merkava tank is produced at a final assembly plant managed by the IDF logistics and support corps, only 11% of the program's work is actually performed by the military. "75% of the vehicle is provided by the local defense industries. An additional 14% is imported. Only 11% of the work is done here,” says General Amir Nir.

    According to the PMO, the development of the tank was significantly less expensive than any of the alternatives. According to Nir, over 200 industries and 3,000 employees directly support the program. Furthermore, the income from the export of technologies derived directly from the program have already exceeded the development costs, and have consistently covered the annual production costs of the tank.

    "We pursue a telescopic process in the development and production of the tank. We field the early models and use the feedback from the field to improve the product throughout its life cycle," General Nir told Defense Update. "This telescopic method has consistently proven to yield the shortest development cycle in the industry. In specific cases it takes only days, compared to years, to provide a quick fix for an urgent operational requirement. We then prepare for a more comprehensive solution to be introduced on the production line for subsequent production lots.”

    An example of the telescopic development process is the status of the current Merkava Mk 4. The design of this tank actually began some 15 years ago with small investments in ‘seed’ projects supporting developments such as the MTU/GD 833 1,500 hp powerpack in Germany, the transfer of its production to the USA and the development of improved armor and firepower. When the Merkava Mk 4 tank entered production, it was already fitted with the load capacity, electrical, and computational power to support many systems which are currently still on the drawing board. As the tank entered production in the year 2000, it met only 60% of its planned development goals. "We found that it would take us about eight years to stabilize a program and bring it to its full capability," says Nir. Yet, the first unit was operational in 2003, and full scale production is currently underway with many improvements received from the field and implemented as retrofits and on the production line.
    http://www.economicthought.net

  • #2
    Merkava tank production to stop within four years.

    The IDF has decided that the Merkava tank production line will be shut down within four years. "Globes" reports that the decision to stop production of the tank, one of the most expensive projects in the history of Israel's military industries and the pride of the army, was made shortly before the outbreak of the war in Lebanon. Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.

    During the fighting in Lebanon, the Merkava tanks sustained serious damage from antitank rockets fired by Hizbullah militants. The tank, which has been boasted as having the best protection in the world, and which was designed for classic tank on tank battles, was not impervious to the rockets. 500 rockets were fired at Israeli tanks, 47 Merkava tanks were hit (two more were hit by roadside bombs) and 33 IDF soldiers were killed.

    Senior officials both inside and out of the military are critical of the tank's function in the war and of its economic necessity over the years. They question whether Israel should continue to invest in tanks as the central ground forces player. Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.

    The prestigious project, which began in 1969 as an idea by Major General Israel Tal and has continued ever since, has cost about $7.5 billion dollars according to an IDF assessment while Ministry of Finance officials estimate its cost closer to $10 billion. Thousands of workers across the country are employed in production of the tank and its systems, and are liable to be hurt by the cessation of the project.
    http://www.economicthought.net

    Comment


    • #3
      Sources are:

      http://www.defense-update.com/featur...re-merkava.htm

      http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/glob...137768&fid=942

      [Respectively]
      http://www.economicthought.net

      Comment


      • #4
        And just to put things into perspective, an article by BBC.

        Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm

        Tough lessons for Israeli armour

        One of the major military surprises of the fighting in Lebanon has been the apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets.

        No detailed figures are available and it is clear that many more tanks may have been hit than actually destroyed.

        But a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews.

        Hezbollah has also used its anti-armour weapons to bring down buildings around sheltering Israeli troops, again causing multiple casualties.

        Hezbollah has fielded some of the most modern Russian-made anti-tank weapons, which the Israelis insist have come via the Syrians.

        Wire Guided
        The potency of infantry anti-armour weapons is nothing new for the Israelis.

        In 1973, after Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal, Israel tank units learned the hard way about what Russian-made missiles could do.

        The Egyptians put across the canal large numbers of soldiers armed with wire-guided Sagger missiles.

        As long as the operator kept the target tank in his sights, signals sent along the unreeling wire would guide the missile to its target.

        As counter-attacking Israeli tanks raced towards the canal, they were met by barrages of these missiles.

        Commanders spoke of vehicles emerging from the fighting festooned with wires from the missiles, and many tanks were destroyed.

        Since then a complex design battle has been underway between the tank and the infantry anti-armour weapon.

        For the foot-soldier the key is penetration but also weight: What can easily be carried into battle?

        Tandem Charge
        For the tank, too, there are weight considerations as more and more armour places heavier strains on engines and running gear and also potentially limits the areas in which a tank can operate.

        In Lebanon Israel has come up against some of Russia's most modern anti-tank weapons.

        The AT-13 Metis or Saxhorn is a modern tube-launched successor to the Sagger.

        Its tandem-shaped warhead can punch through armour of up to 46cm (18 inches) thick.

        The tandem warhead is designed to counter reactive armour as used on many Israeli vehicles.

        Reactive armour is essentially made up of explosive pads or bricks on the outside of the tank which explode outwards when hit by an incoming missile.

        This disrupts the effect of the missile warhead, which needs to impact upon the surface of the tank to achieve its penetrative effect.

        A twin or tandem charge is designed to get around this.

        The first warhead triggers the reactive armour and the second penetrates the tank.

        Hezbollah is also reported to have used the RPG-29; a shoulder-fired weapon, again with a tandem charge.

        Infantry Carriers
        And a journalist from the London-based Daily Telegraph newspaper reports also seeing abandoned Kornet missiles in Lebanon.

        The Kornet was first shown by the Russians in 1994 and represents state-of-the-art technology.

        It has either an optical or a thermal sight - effectively "riding" a laser beam to its target. It again has a tandem warhead.

        It has a range of up to 5km (three miles) and is said to be able to penetrate armour up to 1,200mm thick.

        The Kornet has been exported by the Russians to only a few countries, including Syria.

        And all the evidence suggests that the Syrians have passed them on to Hezbollah.

        Israel is so concerned that it has despatched a team of officials to Moscow to show the Russians the evidence of what they say can only be Syrian weapons transfers.

        In the longer term, the experiences of 1973 played an important part in shaping the philosophy behind Israel's Merkava battle tank.

        The Merkava or Chariot is among the most modern in the world, but its unique feature is the extent to which crew protection figured in its design.

        Quite apart from carrying highly sophisticated armour, it is almost unique in having the engine in the front, affording additional protection to its crew.

        The need for well-armoured infantry carriers that can keep pace with the tanks has led Israel to convert a large number of older tanks to carry troops.

        The Achzarit is a good example. It is based on the Russian T54/T55 tank which Israel captured in large numbers during the 1973 war.

        Its turret and main gun have been removed and various other changes made to allow it to accommodate a crew of three along with seven infantrymen.

        New Armour
        But all of these enhancements have not proved sufficiently effective against the most modern anti-tank systems operated by determined fighters on the ground.

        You can be sure Israeli Defence Forces planners and indeed military observers from around the world will be studying these engagements in detail.

        Part of the answer may be to adopt new kinds of armour.

        But, as ever, part of the answer will be tactical - changes to the way tanks are employed and the way they operate in concert with other elements of ground-power, like infantry and artillery.
        http://www.economicthought.net

        Comment


        • #5
          What's with these people that think MBTs are obsolete? What are they intending to replace it with, something more fragile and vulnerable, because MBTs aren't utterly invulnerable? I would understand if we'd developed and tested land based active defense systems and it had been proven, in combat, that the heavy armor was redundant but it isn't and hasn't been.

          I understand the weights going up, but Titanium manufacturing is coming along. Elementally for the same weight you have about 75% more volume and 25% more energy required to melt, based on some calcs I did assuming a high initial temperature of 50 degrees Celcius. Of course, we use alloys so those numbers don't necessarily mean anything. Add to this improvements in manufacturing of ceramics, and advances in material science and we're really not that bad off though.

          Comment


          • #6
            I was under the impression the Israeli losses were due as much to faulty tactics than any shortcomings the Merkava may have.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FOG3 View Post
              I understand the weights going up, but Titanium manufacturing is coming along. Elementally for the same weight you have about 75% more volume and 25% more energy required to melt, based on some calcs I did assuming a high initial temperature of 50 degrees Celcius. Of course, we use alloys so those numbers don't necessarily mean anything. Add to this improvements in manufacturing of ceramics, and advances in material science and we're really not that bad off though.
              Furthermore, there are titanium composites that can provide near equal resistance in both versus KE and CE than IRHA, and are much lighter, while IIRC someone provided me with a PDF that said that titanium costs could be reduced by as much as ~80%.

              Personally, I think that second article is a bunch of hooey.
              http://www.economicthought.net

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wraith601 View Post
                I was under the impression the Israeli losses were due as much to faulty tactics than any shortcomings the Merkava may have.
                The Merkava is a good tank as i think.
                But Israel tactics was very stupid.

                In first Chechen war we had losses 80 tanks, in second war 2 tanks only.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Of the <50 tanks hit, only 5 were knocked out, mind you.
                  http://www.economicthought.net

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    that must've hurt.
                    Attached Files
                    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      All this cobbled together junk that the Israeli's use to quell the Palestinian ghetto's were blown away by the vampir's, IED's and Kornet's. Its surprising for the IDF to use junk to fight Hezbollah when they should've known better that the Iranians and Syrians would supply their ally with lethal new stuff. Check this out. This pathetic modified Megach 7-C was runnin like hell from a barage of RPG's and hit an ambush IED, which not only blew it sky high, gutted its belly probably killed the entire crew and landed on its side. Its also interesting that the IDF propaganda outfits spurriously hide their real losses, whichj included many other types of armoured vehicles besides the Merkava's. This must've hurt too:

                      Last edited by lulldapull; 12 Nov 06,, 14:40.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here's a kornet:



                        And the famed vampir:



                        The RPG-29 is a tube style rocket launcher designed to be carried and used by a single soldier. On the top of the launch tube is the x 2.7 1P38 optical sight. On the bottom of the tube is a shoulder brace for proper positioning along with a pistol grip trigger mechanism. A 1PN51-2 night sight can be fitted.

                        Two projectiles are available for the weapon; the PG-29V anti-tank / anti-bunker round, and the TBG-29V Thermobaric anti-personnel warhead. The PG-29V round has a tandem-charge HEAT warhead for defeating Explosive reactive armour. Eight fins pop out as the rocket leaves the launch tube and stabilize the missile in flight.

                        The warhead is extremely powerful, and in tests conducted against T-80 and T-90 tanks it penetrated the tanks over their frontal arcs. If these reports are true about frontal penetration, the Russian HEAT (shape charge) weapons engineers have made an astonishing advance as a 105mm warhead is considered inadequate. The French with their ERYX short range antitank weapon stated that a HEAT warhead had to be at least 135mm in diameter to defeat the newer Russian main battle tanks frontally. Its average cost on the weapons market is around 500 US dollars per launcher and 300 US dollars per rocket.
                        Last edited by lulldapull; 12 Nov 06,, 15:00.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lulldapull that tank was not running from RPG's (it's smoke dischargers have not been popped and turret is facing the front not the rear- ie it was advancing) and the IED did not burst it's belly (no scorch marks around the loaders or drivers hatches.

                          In fact the two open hatches make it look like at least 2 crew members survived depsite being hit by a blast powerful enough to crack the composite armor and sheer it away form the hull of the tank (crack along the loaders side of the turret) The relative lack of bloody bandages and paper waste products around the tank (only see three peace sof possible medical detrius) indicates no one needed serious life saving medical care. The TC hatch was probalby jammed shut when the tank hit the far wall (look at the rough scratch marcks and lack of commanders MG)

                          It was hit by an IED, but the IDF contorls the area securly enough for people to walk around with out Body Armor or helmets.

                          Please train your eyes to notice things like that before you pass judgement.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To me this Merkava tanks looks very fine.

                            When we compare them to Iraq's soviet tanks especially with T-72 "pop up turret" tank.
                            F****** turret ring autoloader.
                            Last edited by SRB; 12 Nov 06,, 19:29.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lulldapull View Post
                              The warhead is extremely powerful, and in tests conducted against T-80 and T-90 tanks it penetrated the tanks over their frontal arcs. If these reports are true about frontal penetration, the Russian HEAT (shape charge) weapons engineers have made an astonishing advance as a 105mm warhead is considered inadequate. The French with their ERYX short range antitank weapon stated that a HEAT warhead had to be at least 135mm in diameter to defeat the newer Russian main battle tanks frontally.
                              There is another possibility - that the frontal armour on the T-80 and T-90 tanks is nowhere near as good as the French think it is. After all, this was tested against them while the French don't have any to play with so are guessing.

                              Incidentally, I can barely pick up any problems with that Merkava apart from it being at a funny angle and with a few odds and sods knocked about. But for the crater to the left I'd assume it had been in a traffic accident of some sort (badly driven or similar).
                              Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                              Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X