Posted on 07/17/2011 8:48:51 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
IDF considering replacements for heavy Merkava tank
By YAAKOV KATZ
14/07/2011
IDF is continuing to deploy the Guardium unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) – developed by G-NIUS Ground Systems – along the Gaza border.
What will the IDF Armored Corps look like in 2020? Will the Merkava Mk 4 tank still serve as the backbone of the IDF’s ground forces or will we see a smaller, lightweight tank, possibly on wheels, plowing through the battlefield? These questions are at the core of ongoing deliberations that are being held in the IDF and Defense Ministry as they begin to consider a potential successor for the Merkava.
Development and construction of the Merkava began in the 1970s with the most advanced model, called the Merkava Mk 4, entering service in 2003 in the 401st Armored Brigade. The tank is purported to be one of the most protected in the world capable of superior speeds and maneuverability.
The review was sparked by the entry of active-protection systems like the Trophy system, which has been installed on an entire battalion of tanks and successfully intercepted a rocket- propelled grenade (RPG) along the Gaza border in March.
The thinking in the defense establishment is that tanks may no longer require thick layers of armor, which slow down the vehicle, and raise fuel and production costs and could suffice with less armor and more systems like Trophy.
The team set up to review potential successors to the Merkava is led by the Weapons Development Branch in the Ground Forces Command and includes representatives from the Armored Corps as well as from the Defense Ministry’s Merkava Program Office, known by its Hebrew acronym “Mantak.”
“We are thinking ahead and considering a wide range of possibilities,” a senior IDF officer said on Tuesday. “We might decide to continue with the Merkava Mk 4 forever or to develop something completely new.”
RELATED: General Dynamics signs $150m. reciprocal procurements deal IDF tank comes under missile fire in northern Gaza
In related news, the IDF is continuing to deploy the Guardium unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) – developed by G-NIUS Ground Systems – along the Gaza border.
The UGV had been deployed so far just along one section of the border but due to its success in patrolling the border and preventing infiltrations, the IDF has decided to expand the project to additional sections of the security fence.
The Guardium is equipped with sensors for unmanned navigation and can be outfitted with grenade launchers, machine guns and other operational means.
Terrifying laughter included at no extra charge?
They need something to take out our Abrams. Obama is arming the Arabs with them.
Thanks sukhoi-30mki.
“They need something to take out our Abrams. Obama is arming the Arabs with them.”
I was, until recently, employed by GD on the ongoing Abrams’ tank projects. The Army has moved from the 70 ton tanks and 26 ton Strykers to trucks as neither the Abrams nor the Stryker can be used in Afghanistan’s rugged terrain. I thought it was a shortsighted decision until I spoke with a company commander just back from Afghanistan. He said, “If I have a target worthy of a tank’s gun, I call in air. I don’t know if it will be killed by the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines or and RPV. I don’t care. In seconds that target is gone. I can load five trucks on (I think C140) with their logistics and have them anywhere in the world in 24 hours. The tanks and Strykers take months to deploy. The heavy armor of yesterday is obsolete.”
Okay, so long as you have air superiority, you don’t need heavy armor.
Incidentally, GD is pushing Congress to make the Abrams sale to Egypt. What the US will be selling is the entire TDP, technical data package. GD will set up co-production and help Egyptians learn to build every component. This is short sighted on numerous levels. Egypt will undercut the costs of spares to other Arab nations. Egypt will get technology, capability and software that they can easily adapt to other battlefield applications. Worst of all, the American taxpayer will loan the 1.25 billion dollars Egypt needs to gain all this technology. Do we really think they’ll pay it back? They’ve already asked for the loan to be forgiven, along with their current debt.
I don’t think Israel has as much to fear from Egyptian tanks as the Egyptian people do.
I was thinking the same thing. I don’t really know a lot about it though. Seems Air Power and Missiles are the future. But even our Carriers are open to the new ChiCom Slick Willie systems. I wonder what the future of Naval Warfare is. Maybe Huge Missile Subs with high explosive non-nuke missiles.
and how good is armor without air superiority ?
“I wonder what the future of Naval Warfare is. Maybe Huge Missile Subs with high explosive non-nuke missiles.”
George H. Bush wanted a new class of submersible ship (barrage boats, I think) that could fire massive amounts of cruise missiles. They were to replace carriers and could submerge to 200 feet. They’d be almost entirely automated with a crew of 18 or so. They were to be the mass of a WW2 aircraft carrier. The idea was to project as much air power as a carrier group at a fraction of the cost. The admirals dutifully briefed Congress and then sabotaged the effort by sending senior captains to see each Congressman personally and try to discourage the idea. The Navy killed the idea.
The problem, according to the article I read was that a much smaller Navy would require many fewer men and many, many fewer officers and many, many, many fewer admirals. Also, admirals are supposed to have huge staffs and servants, much of which would have vanished under the new order. Gates tried to undo some of this customary privilege of each Admiral/General having x number of lower officers as “staff.” Gates wanted Admirals and Generals to do their own fetching and carrying.
I suspect the next wave will be mostly automated ships and planes that are cranked off an assembly line like toys. They’ll be a fraction of the cost of current systems. Much of the current costs are corporate welfare. We’ll lose a lot of men when some tiny country uses massively automated, disposable asymmetric systems against us. Unfortunately, we’re always ready to fight the last war. Or, in the case of Crusader (the gun) three wars back.
Oh, dang, you pinged it already. Oops!
Waitaminutehere, it’s not Tuesday and I’m not wearing my FReeper Treadhead t-shirt!
At some level, what you describe in your discussion with the company commander is Just In Time logistics applied to warfare. Note that this system only works well if you have COMPLETE air superiority.
I sure wish we were building more F-22s, or that UAVs were further along than I perceive . . .
If we ever get in to it with China and One of our carriers is looking at 300 inbound Slick Willies that might do it. That Sub sounds great. How many missiles could it hold?
“If we ever get in to it with China and One of our carriers is looking at 300 inbound Slick Willies that might do it. That Sub sounds great. How many missiles could it hold?”
If I recall, the submergible barrage boat was roughly the volume of a WW2 aircraft carrier, but I have no idea what class carrier. It could launch and recover RPV’s for air cover and surveillance. It could launch, if I recall, several thousand cruise missiles, some undetermined number of RPV’s and many smaller missiles. It was intended to be automated, cheap, stealthy and (let’s face it) disposable. But politics killed it and I don’t see that changing. If Bush1 couldn’t pull this off, who could?
I wonder how a cruise missile compares to a carrier plane as far as payload on the Target? A carrier can sortie a lot but it must be protected by a whole fleet of support. One way trips are a lot cheeper.
The Army has gotten overweight (again). They need to lighten the vehicles and increase mobility vs trying to uparmor every vehicle against every type of munition.
My concern is that, while the active systems can take care of the ATGMs and the RPGs, they cannot take care of high caliber bullets (e.g. a bushmaster type cannon at full auto). For that matter, an attack that has taken out American Abrams, Israeli Merkavas and Russian T-whatevers ....where the jihadis mass attack the tank from several directions (including a top down attack where, in urban warfare, there is a dude in the upper floors firing straight down). An active protection system would simply be overwhelmed (and due to the fact that the active defense would be firing projectiles to intercept the incoming RPGs/ATGMs that means that supporting infantry would have to keep their distance ...same reason why infantry may not want to be close to tanks equipped with ERAs).
I believe that the best solution is a mix of passive armor (e.g. chobham and its various cousins and analogues) with active armor (e.g. the Israeli and Russian anti-missile/RPGs solutions). That way, the active defenses will take out (at least some of) the crap coming in, and if things are so hot that some stuff leaks through there will still be very strong armor waiting to play catch.
However, if I was an enemy combatant and I am being invaded with star-trek tanks that have electrified thin-armor (the British approach that I hear can deflect the molten copper jet of a shaped warhead) and an active defense system to shoot down incoming projectiles, I would be VERY happy. All I would do is just send in more men to attack the star-trek buggy from different directions (such as the attack on the Israeli Merkavas by Hezbollah at some valley I cannot recall at the present, the attack on Russian tanks in Grozny, or on American Abrams). I do not even need to use expensive ATGMs (such as the more advanced Kornets available to enterprising jihadis with some money to send to Syria) ....RPGs will be more than sufficient. Or you know what's even better ...improvised landmines, however in this case I do not even need to use the huge jobs they employ to take out Abrams (where they simply rig together several artillery shells) ...for the star-trek buggy I am sure several grenades linked to a remote detonator can mess up one of those (really pretty) wheels. You can be certain that our enemies also follow all these new developments (I once saw a YouTube video of some Hezbollah chaps stating how, for years, they had been following Israeli announcements of the capabilities and particulars of the Merkava, of how they downloaded endless information of it, and from that worked out strategies for facing off against one of the more formidable tanks in the world ...and to do so with success. Sure, their measure of 'success' is different from ours, but each Merkava taken out, even if there were not that many, was still a blow ...particularly in terms of propaganda).
If we are moving to star-trek buggies, then we better hope that we have more anti-ATGM/RPG projectiles than the enemy has ATGMs and/or RPGs. Especially when one considers that, compared to anti-ship warfare (where the American solution is AEGIS and the foe solution is anti-ship missiles), that the navy has it FAR easier considering that to develop a missile that can overcome the AEGIS defense requires a lot of money (either to go through the advanced high-supersonic, and new developments into hypersonic, cruise missiles that is being done by the Russians, Indians, Chinese, and now the Brits with an innovative 3-in-1 supersonic missile design and even the US with naval research into supersonic ASMs; or the more rare stealthy approach that the Swedes have done) ...and even then you need a LOT of missiles to have even the slightest chance of penetrating an AEGIS screen (and even then you are not assured of success). But against tanks, even the most expensive Western ATGMs (such as the Javelin and Spike) are quite affordable, and when we come to RPGs the cost ratio gets almost ludicrous. Thus, what I would do, is have my (expendable) guys launch 6 RPGs from different angles simultaneously, followed a second later by two Kornets. I guarantee the death of any star-trek buggy. Or maybe just save the expense and get the folks that make the rockets that Hamas/Hezbollah use to attack Israel to make some 'ok' automatic grenade launchers ...nothing as advanced or sophisticated as the Western auto grenade launchers ....just something that is cheap and replaceable that can, remotely, send off 10 grenades at the star-trek buggy. I am sure even if one goes through it will damage either the advanced targeting, communications, or wheels of the star-buggy. Against a Merkava (or any modern tank) the crew would only be aware of soft thuds against the exterior of the vehicle, but against the klingon-go-kart I am sure I would muck something up.
I can guarantee Israel that Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc have NOT replaced THEIR heavy tanks...
It was only by chance that I beat you to it. I'm not on here nearly as much as I used to be when we had the FReeper Foxhole running daily. I'm a drive-by poster now. :-)
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.