Posted on 12/22/2003 4:29:13 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Can we for once skip the misleading military jargon about why the Merkava Tank can be replaced by a future FCS (The U.S. Army’s Future Combat System)? The simple fact is that this is an exact replay of the scheme of Caspar Weinberger which successfully eliminated Israel’s Lavi aircraft. The Lavi was a superb Israeli creation of a needed operation ground support and air superiority fighter aircraft.
The Lavi would have cost $17 Million, as opposed to at least twice that for any current fighting jet from any country, inclusive of spare parts. The Lavi was lighter than the F16, 10% faster ‘on the deck’, had a smaller radar cross section and could carry a heavy load of armaments. It was also designated as a hot trainer that became combat operational at the flip of a switch. America could have used a U.S. Lavi as a complement to its air-stack of F15s and F16s. Having been briefed about the superior capabilities of the Lavi and the fact that its development would create hundreds of American jobs, the American Congress had voted the needed appropriations. Almost immediately after that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin twisted his Cabinet into voting 12 to 11 to kill the Lavi project, virtually compromising Israel’s strategic relationship with the American Congress as well as destroying thousands of man-hours of strenuous R&D and torpedoing hundreds of jobs of high level Israelis.
Now the Merkava, like the Lavi, is to be eliminated probably because Boeing needs a customer for a grouping of light-weight vehicles which, collectively, are supposed to equal the Merkava. Although the U.S. does need armor like the lightweight ‘Stryker’ that can be easily transported via air, Israel does NOT have that requirement. All of Israel’s enemies can bring troops and equipment to her nearby borders. The 70 ton Merkava Battle Tank was designed specifically to face this threat.
Of course, the M1A2 Abrams Tank (now America’s Main Battle Tank) will be part of the package at twice the price of what a Merkava costs. The Merkava was designed in the 1970s for desert warfare, the rocky terrain of the Golan Heights and with its primary goal, to protect its crew. The Abrams still has major problems with sand sucked up by its engine, too few tank miles between maintenance for suspension, tracks, engine, firing systems, etc. The Abrams was primarily designed for battle in the European theater and NOT the sands of the Middle East.
The Merkava has seen action in every military campaign of the last 20 years and is the combat weapon of choice for IDF commanders confronting organized Terrorist resistance in the PLO-controlled territories. No other system affords soldiers better protection from small-arms attack, roadside bombs and shoulder-fired missiles. Strangely, the U.S. would have had a better tank to fight with (especially in the desert) while securing better protection for its crews had it adopted the Merkava but, the NIH (Not Invented Here) factor dominated. Merkava 5 is the latest version which incorporates battle-tested systems making it the most advanced tank in the world.
Some of the Merkava’s many innovations are improved reactive armor (that absorbs the kinetic energy of an incoming shell, explodes it before it can penetrate the tank and hurt the crew). The Merkava also has a 120mm. smooth-bore gun capable of firing guided munitions, an enhanced gun stabilization system, state-of-the-art night-fighting and fire-control sensors, a positive pressure crew compartment that allows the vehicle to fight in a biological or chemical environment, and even air conditioning. The Merkava is also designed for rear entry, enabling it to double as an infantry transporter.(2) But, if certain U.S. business interests prevail, it will never be produced.
What hasn’t been published (yet) were results of the Joint Operations (Military Games) where American forces with M1A1s faced off against Israelis in their Merkavas. The results were so one-sided and embarrassing that they were never discussed in military journals. Maj. Gen. Israel Tal, the developer of the Merkava, instructed all involved Israeli personnel to remain silent on these exercises. (It happened more than once.)
Currently, Israel fields 3,900 armored vehicles. This is less than 50% of those fielded by Israel’s enemies who continue to build up their armor arsenal, among them Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These countries have field over 8,700 tanks among them. Egypt’s force is the most menacing. Over the last dozen years Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak has undertaken a massive upgrade of Egypt’s tank fleet, acquiring more than 880 M1A1 tanks. These vehicles are provided to Egypt as ‘kits’ and assembled in a billion-dollar plant (2) built by "guess who" Caspar Weinberger just outside Cairo. (8)
Weinberger exceeded his authority as Sec. of Defense to build this plant without securing an approved budget from Congress. Weinberger’s original intention was to have Egypt build its own M1A1 Tank out of sight of Congressional overview. Egypt would not only supply tanks for its own use but, then to use excess production to become the supplier of other Arab nations as a side benefit. But, Egypt was not capable of manufacturing the Tank which is why finished components were sent as kits and only ‘assembled’ in Egypt with U.S. technical overview.
Recently, the U.S. government has given the go-ahead for the upgrading of some Egyptian tanks to the more potent M1A2 configuration. With no country threatening its borders, only Israel appears to be the likely target of the Egyptian build-up.
On top of that, Washington approved the sale of new, more lethal 120 mm. Armor-piercing rounds to Egypt for its M1 tanks. This is a deal worth $54 million, is for 10,040 non-standard APFSDS-T shells.(2) The Pentagon and State Department have a standard line for these sales: "It will not alter the military balance in the region" - although, of course, it always does.
Egypt has made no secret of its aim to achieve military parity with the Jewish State and to have a regional military projection capability. Cairo has acquired new and more powerful weapons’ systems, including surface-to-surface missiles with from China and North Korea, WMD capability, fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, naval vessels and, of course, tanks.(2)
Some may recall during the prior Administration while Secretary of Defense William Cohen was observing Operation "Bright Star" (Joint Military Games between U.S. and Egyptian troops) a high ranking Egyptian General said: "We are preparing for war with Israel".
Dr. Yuval Steinitz, Chairman of Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset made this point: "Israel has no strategic depth." (6) (Israel is 50 miles wide at its maximum and only 9 miles where President Bush insists another Arab Palestinian State is to be located.) He also spoke of Israel’s diminishing qualitative edge which numerous American Presidents have ‘pledged’ to maintain. That pledge has diminished along with the unkept promised ‘qualitative’ edge as ARAB NATIONS HAVE THE SAME EQUIPMENT AS IS BEING SOLD TO ISRAEL.
Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is under severe pressure to close down more than 220 Israeli firms, contractors and sub-contractors in order to transfer Israel’s tank manufacturing jobs to Boeing and their sub-contractors. Israel would lose an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 jobs. Many of these are engineers, scientists and skilled factory workers. This would lead to an acceleration of the overseas migration of Israel’s intellectual capital and bring ruin to a key component of Israel’s research and technological base. It would also further erode Israel’s deterrent posture and another vital element of military self-sufficiency.(2)
Effects of this possible shutdown would also be felt in the U.S. where 22% of the Merkava’s content is fabricated. General Dynamics Land Systems, the largest U.S.-based Merkava contractor, is slated to produce 400 engines for the tank at a cost of just under $200 million. Cancelling that contract requires Israel to forfeit 90% of this amount in compensation.
Rumors are circulating that the U.S. has offered to provide Israel with used Abrams tanks that were withdrawn from the Iraqi theater of operations. The U.S. no longer maintains an assembly line for new M1 tanks. In the highly unlikely event the line were to be restarted, the unit cost of an M1 would probably be in excess of its original $9 million cost - which is millions more than the cost of a comparable Merkava. Relying on spare parts from an overseas supplier, even (especially) the U.S. reduces Israel’s military flexibility and control in wartime which can place great strains on an all-important strategic relationship.(2)
Regrettably, Israel will likely be short-changed into buying the M1A2 at twice the cost of the Merkava. It’s a direct replay of the killing off of the Lavi at its cost of $17 million to take on the F16 at a cost of (then) $23 to $26 million in addition to multi-millions in spare parts. Add this to the cost of re-employing all those who were then making the Merkava.
Israel has invested approximately $6.5 Billion in the Merkava. The Merkava R&D served as a test-bed for innovations in not only land combat, but air combat as well. Many of the technologies now appear in the IAF fighter jets, including some of the most advanced systems for battle management, multiple target acquisition, platform survivability, the deployment of active and passive counter-measures, command and control as well as situational management.(2)
The survival of the Merkava is integral to the maintenance of Israel’s qualitative military edge. Terminate the Merkava and the Jewish State loses an essential part of her military readiness. It takes about 40 months to field a Merkava tank from the day the first steel is cut and the first welds are drawn. The Israel Defense Ministry has sub components on order for production roll-out through 2007, new contracts must be signed now to ensure the continuity of production past 2007.
Merkava components and technologies amount to over $200 million in annual export sales by Israel. Add to this the $800 million that Israel is to receive for the upgrade of 170 Turkish M60A1 tanks and the millions more it expects for future Merkava sales. All of this would be lost if the Merkava is cancelled. Without producing the Merkava, according to Brig. Gen. (Res.) Ze’ev Bar-Gil, "Israel will lose its status as one of the leaders of the world in tank technology and will, therefore, lose projects of co-development and co-production of armored systems with other nations." (2)
(Excerpt) Read more at gamla.org.il ...
What works for us may not work for Israel.
December 22, 2003: Egypt is assembling another 125 M-1A1 Abrams tanks, at a cost to the United States of $277 million (the parts of the tank, which are shipped to Egypt for assembly there.) This will increase the Egyptian M-1 fleet to 880 tanks. Because of this, and 1,600 U.S. M-60 tanks, Egypt is taking most of its Russian tanks out of service. The 1979 peace deal between Egypt and Israel, brokered by the United States, included an agreement to provide Egypt with new weapons and this led to a 1984 agreement to provide 500 M-1 tanks, although Egypt wanted 1,500. Production did not begin in Egypt until 1992. The Egyptians were quite pleased with the M-1s. However, the expense of training with the M-1s (which consume three gallons of fuel per kilometers traveled) and the reliance on conscripts for tank crews, has made the M-1s less effective than those used by the United States. However, the Egyptians to put their best recruits into M-1 crews and spend a lot of time doing drills in stationary tanks and with simulators.
You and me both. That's politics I guess, but I don't have to like it.
This surprises me. Is their reactive armor better than the M1's DU? Do they have better range? Are their targeting systems better? How did they beat our M1's?
Not necessarily. During the 1973 war, the Israeli M48 crew I spent most of the war with consisted of two German reservist Jews, driver and rookie loader, with a *Swiss* commander. Who had a very thick French accent, and a Legio Patria Nostra tattoo. My Hebrew is really bad, and that of the loader was pretty spotty. We all got along fine in German.
The important point is that the desperately needed vehicles were already in country, everyone knew where to go to hook up with their particular unit/vehicles, and the first personnel to show up got things ready for those others who followed on within a day or so. Once we had one guy per vehicle, the company commander I was working for [oops! I mean *observing*...] was breathing MUCH easier.
But supplies of American 105mm ammunition were critically needed, and were flown in by the USAF, as well as some replacement M60A1s. The 90mm gun ammunition we had for the M48 [Israeli designation *E-48*] I was in was not of American origin, however. Happily, the forces we might have been used against never entered the war, and I never fired a main gun round in anger.
-archy-/-
It isn't. It's slow.
Since no live ammunition was fired, or any actual maneuvers conducted, only computerized simulations, it's easy: the IDF assumed that the Merkava could survive anything short of a nuclear detonation, and that the Abrams armor was made out of cardboard.
High probability first kill.
Training. Americans jopin up, attend basic training/OSUT, then learn to be all-purpose Abrams crewman, learning to be a loader, then driver, and gunner. And that's a good way to train, because many will move up a job or two, as others in their crew have their enlistments expire and leave the military, trying to hold their families together.
The Israelis only have 20,000 tankers, they really are one of the elite forces of the Israeli armed forces, and there are plenty of third-generation tank crewmen in the IDF. And they train only to be a driver, or loader, or gunner, and usually, get their job based on a detailed examination and evaluation in the crew selection process, followed by training, training, training. They're trained only on a single model of vehicle, to which their reserve assignment will also be made. They've grown up in the areas their vehicles will be fighting in, and they vacation in other likely areas where they might be used. The approach the tasks and duties of being a tanker with the motivation of one of his country's best, in vehicles custom-tuned for their circumstances, and as seriously- or more so- than olympic-level athletes.
In Americam their counterparts are busier with more important classes on racial harmony, drug abuse, and sexual harassment. And personnel in the crews come and go, but not- usually- as complete crews, ready to plug into a first-class vehicle, and do a first class job.
Now, in Iraq, the tank crewmen have been taken out of ther vehicles, and sent on raids and other footsoldier jobs, sometimes having to use captured Iraqi AK47s since there aren't but two M4 carbines issued per tank. In Israel, the tankers evaluated every weapon possibly suited to their duties, then got a special run of shorty *MAR* tanker models of the Galil rifle tailored to their needs as their special issue weapon, replacing old worn-out Uzis and battered M16s knocked around inside their vehicles.
That's the difference. Part of it, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.