Jump to content


Photo

Future Israeli Tank Unveiled


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 09 September 2017 - 0518 AM

Sort of:

https://www.algemein...ons-of-the-idf/

"One of the most significant pieces revealed on Tuesday was the lightweight and cost-effective Carmel armored vehicle, slated to replace Israels current Merkava tank."

I hope the results match their ambitions.

#2 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,138 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2017 - 0547 AM

Fi. That sorts of thing was tried few times, particularly with FWS program. Nothing good in result. I doubt that Israelis, with their experience, will shift Merk to that.

#3 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2017 - 0604 AM

It says "revolutionary two-man crew operation" but shows a three-man crew? It speaks of "Full AFV capabillities in a lighter vehicle" and "Balanced firepower for close and urban terrain" while the vehicle sports "a medium caliber gun" and some missiles. If this is to be a Merkava replacement, they apparently no longer think a 120mm gun is required or that they need this type of firepower for fighting in something other than "close and urban terrain"?

 

But I like the look of the thing - it has a sort of diesel-punk, retrofuturistic look about it.



#4 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 09 September 2017 - 0817 AM

The usual mixed up and distorted write-up by the experts in everything and anything aka journalists. *shrug*

 

 

 relevant tank net thread: http://www.tank-net....showtopic=42498



#5 Marsh

Marsh

    Miserable old git

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sadly, no longer in God's own county...Yorkshire!.
  • Interests:Tanks. S.F. Photography.Wine, Women and Celtic folk music.

Posted 09 September 2017 - 1040 AM

It says "revolutionary two-man crew operation" but shows a three-man crew? It speaks of "Full AFV capabillities in a lighter vehicle" and "Balanced firepower for close and urban terrain" while the vehicle sports "a medium caliber gun" and some missiles. If this is to be a Merkava replacement, they apparently no longer think a 120mm gun is required or that they need this type of firepower for fighting in something other than "close and urban terrain"?

 

But I like the look of the thing - it has a sort of diesel-punk, retrofuturistic look about it.

Hi,

 

The British armour analyst, Robin Fletcher, (sadly no longer with us) had been advocating that in the case of moving to a two man crew, a third crewman should be carried to share with the work load and to relieve a crew member when required. I could well be wrong, but wasn't the S tank capable of operating with only two crew members and the third carried for more or less the same reason? It probably is just a crap CGI presentation of the Carmel, but I do wonder.

 

Cheers

Marsh



#6 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 09 September 2017 - 1136 AM

From article:


 

 

Other notable technologies unveiled by ADW include three new unmanned aerial vehicles — one equipped with a “smart rifle” — 

Smart rifle? 



#7 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 09 September 2017 - 1543 PM

 

It says "revolutionary two-man crew operation" but shows a three-man crew? It speaks of "Full AFV capabillities in a lighter vehicle" and "Balanced firepower for close and urban terrain" while the vehicle sports "a medium caliber gun" and some missiles. If this is to be a Merkava replacement, they apparently no longer think a 120mm gun is required or that they need this type of firepower for fighting in something other than "close and urban terrain"?

 

But I like the look of the thing - it has a sort of diesel-punk, retrofuturistic look about it.

Hi,

 

The British armour analyst, Robin Fletcher, (sadly no longer with us) had been advocating that in the case of moving to a two man crew, a third crewman should be carried to share with the work load and to relieve a crew member when required. I could well be wrong, but wasn't the S tank capable of operating with only two crew members and the third carried for more or less the same reason? It probably is just a crap CGI presentation of the Carmel, but I do wonder.

 

Cheers

Marsh

 

 

Stridsvagn 103 has a three man crew, but the rear driver/radio operator is a bit superflous. Probabaly you could run an S-tank with only the driver, because he is also the gunner and the gun functions fully automaitcally.



#8 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted 09 September 2017 - 1715 PM

Who ever was doing the marketing for the US Army FCS moved to Israel and made that video. 



#9 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 September 2017 - 0518 AM

The big screens inside make little sense  considering that by the time any all-new tank arrives in numbers see-through-armour helmet mounted displays should be established.

 

And what's up with the huge back up panoramic windows? They don't look like mirrors to me. Some American design had something similar. I wonder what's driving this. Is it the plastic that was reported to absorb projectiles without shattering?



#10 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,712 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the sun doth shine!
  • Interests:Totally uninteresting.

Posted 10 September 2017 - 1653 PM

Stridsvagn 103 has a three man crew, but the rear driver/radio operator is a bit superflous. Probabaly you could run an S-tank with only the driver, because he is also the gunner and the gun functions fully automaitcally.

 

With only the driver? Were you thinking of this? And being 3rd crewman in an S-103 is quite a load, besides being driver / radio he also has to fire the main gun in retrograde movement.



#11 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,972 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 10 September 2017 - 1725 PM

The rear facing crewman has gunnery controls?

#12 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 11 September 2017 - 0224 AM

The third man can drive only, but do not firing/aiming. He has no fcs or gun controls.



#13 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 11 September 2017 - 0701 AM

I meant the forward driver/gunner. ;) The rear driver can only do that and operate the radio.

#14 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 12 September 2017 - 0520 AM

 

It says "revolutionary two-man crew operation" but shows a three-man crew? It speaks of "Full AFV capabillities in a lighter vehicle" and "Balanced firepower for close and urban terrain" while the vehicle sports "a medium caliber gun" and some missiles. If this is to be a Merkava replacement, they apparently no longer think a 120mm gun is required or that they need this type of firepower for fighting in something other than "close and urban terrain"?

 

But I like the look of the thing - it has a sort of diesel-punk, retrofuturistic look about it.

Hi,

 

The British armour analyst, Robin Fletcher, (sadly no longer with us) had been advocating that in the case of moving to a two man crew, a third crewman should be carried to share with the work load and to relieve a crew member when required. I could well be wrong, but wasn't the S tank capable of operating with only two crew members and the third carried for more or less the same reason? It probably is just a crap CGI presentation of the Carmel, but I do wonder.

 

Cheers

Marsh

 

 

Hans Engström and me discussed just that point this past weekend. Seems the Swedes solved the issue of lack of manpower for maintenance and the like by adding a 20-man truckborne platoon to every S-103 company. Usually the company commander and his XO rode with that platoon, but the CO could go to a tank, send its commander to the trucks, then command that tank.



#15 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 September 2017 - 0652 AM

 

 

It says "revolutionary two-man crew operation" but shows a three-man crew? It speaks of "Full AFV capabillities in a lighter vehicle" and "Balanced firepower for close and urban terrain" while the vehicle sports "a medium caliber gun" and some missiles. If this is to be a Merkava replacement, they apparently no longer think a 120mm gun is required or that they need this type of firepower for fighting in something other than "close and urban terrain"?

 

But I like the look of the thing - it has a sort of diesel-punk, retrofuturistic look about it.

Hi,

 

The British armour analyst, Robin Fletcher, (sadly no longer with us) had been advocating that in the case of moving to a two man crew, a third crewman should be carried to share with the work load and to relieve a crew member when required. I could well be wrong, but wasn't the S tank capable of operating with only two crew members and the third carried for more or less the same reason? It probably is just a crap CGI presentation of the Carmel, but I do wonder.

 

Cheers

Marsh

 

 

Hans Engström and me discussed just that point this past weekend. Seems the Swedes solved the issue of lack of manpower for maintenance and the like by adding a 20-man truckborne platoon to every S-103 company. Usually the company commander and his XO rode with that platoon, but the CO could go to a tank, send its commander to the trucks, then command that tank.

 

 

I have always thought that with small crews of three or two men, the numbers should be doubled per tank and you can exchange crews in shifts for 24/7 operations.



#16 AETiglathPZ

AETiglathPZ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 12 September 2017 - 1004 AM

So, basically this is the Israeli take on the FV107 Scimitar but with current technology?



#17 Marsh

Marsh

    Miserable old git

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sadly, no longer in God's own county...Yorkshire!.
  • Interests:Tanks. S.F. Photography.Wine, Women and Celtic folk music.

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0344 AM

Hi, I was asked to post the following text by a contributor, "Mighty Zuk" who currently can't get on Tanknet. (Neither can I, most of the time, thanks to Virgin Media, as they have decided Tanknet is a Phishing site again).
"Good evening.
In the 'Future Israeli Tank Unveiled' thread in tank-net forum, there is a lot of misconception about the Carmel demonstrator. This stems from a poorly written article and a poorly made video, both failing to convey the full intentions of MAFAT (Israel's equivalent of DARPA).
So, if you may, I would appreciate it if you reply on the topic with the following information (as I cannot register to tank-net due to a long-existing error):

The Carmel was never intended, nor is intended now, to replace the Merkava. However, interestingly enough, Baruch Matzliach (head of MANTAK, the Merkava Tank Directorate) has also said that there will probably never be a Merkava 5.
The most likely outcome is a new MBT that is neither a Merkava nor a Carmel, but will utilize technologies and concepts from the Carmel to some extent.
Baruch Matzliach said this in the 2nd International Land Warfare Conference held in May this year:
Quote
"At the moment we do not consider it necessary to develop a new tank. We have the 'Carmel' project that focuses on technologies that may be implemented on existing platforms or those currently on the production line. The IDF Ground Arm should provide the characteristics and specifications for what they want the new tank to be like. At the moment, there is no such characterization to justify a new development effort."

Course of action for every platform is as following:
1)Merkava 4 - Upgrade to the 'Barak' standard explained here, and here. Barak will enter service presumably in 2021, and will continue to serve for decades to come.
2)Merkava 3 - Will be fitted with Trophy APS, and probably other mid-life upgrades that weren't yet mentioned. Not slated to be replaced either.
3)Namer - At the moment, production will proceed until at least 2027. Likely to be replaced by the Carmel or its derivative when every other obsolete APC has been replaced (M113, Achzarit etc).
4)Eitan - untouched.
5)New unnamed howitzer - Elbit still has a veil over the future howitzer, but it will definitely not be based on the Carmel for now. However when the Carmel is ready for deployment, it's likely that it will become the basis for the new artillery in the following batches.

As the Carmel is first and foremost a technology demonstrator, key technologies developed for it will eventually find their way into each of the above-mentioned vehicles, in some way.

Currently, the Carmel is a project of MAFAT, not MANTAK. Confusing, yes, but think of a vague announcement of the US's future tank based on just some drawings, which is developed under DARPA instead of TARDEC.
Simply, the Merkava 4 is seen as capable enough to lay the mind off a future MBT program. The cause to this is simple - Modularity. Practically every component can be replaced without too much effort. The FCS is open-architecture, so if you want to replace a single part of it, you save money on some of the software development. You want to replace the armor? It's entirely interchangeable and can adorn any shape. Want a bigger engine for some reason? There is available space. 130mm from Rheinmetall suddenly becomes the standard? The turret was designed for a 140mm gun from the beginning. Need to add more equipment inside? It's already the roomiest tank by a fairly large margin. Need to add weight? The tank itself and its surrounding infrastructure (transporters) are ready.

Now regarding the video; The crew is indeed composed of only 2 men. The third person is a unit commander (platoon/company) and his duty is to control the unit and a wide range of unmanned assets to assist the unit in reconnaissance, surveillance, logistics, tactical traps, decoys and more. He will be present in only a portion of the vehicles, but a third seat will likely be built for every vehicle so he could pop into every vehicle, and to avoid having sub-derivatives.
Every crewman will have dual controls. This means that if one man is injured and unable to operate the vehicle, the other crewman will be able to take complete control over his station without switching place. Whatever one can control, the other will be able to control as well.

The large screens and the panoramic view ports are only some ideas that may or may not find their way into the vehicle.
First, the armored capsule is being developed at the moment by Elbit, IAI, and RAFAEL separately, each with their own concept of how it should look like.
A key requirement is to have a full panoramic view for the crew from their cockpit. The propositions are:
RAFAEL - 'Transparent Cockpit' through screens. This is the solution seen in the video.
Elbit - HMD (Helmet Mounted Display) that will incorporate both VR and AR technologies and lay the footage and all info on the helmet screen, with adjustable transparency.
IAI - A mixture of both solutions.

The panoramic view ports are there probably as a back-up, but one thing you can notice is that they only exist on some of the vehicles shown in the video, while some simply don't have them. And it's not related to the version itself. The standard version with the medium cannon is shown during the video both with the view ports, and without.

All relevant information released so far to the public has been compiled here:
http://armor-il.blog...rmel-tech.html"

All of the above info is from Mighty Zuk.
Hope this is of interest.
Cheers
Marsh

Edited by Marsh, 13 September 2017 - 1055 AM.


#18 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0355 AM

Sounds like everyone who's talking about 2 or 3 man crews focuses on how much armour surface area you can save if you reduce the size of the crew capsule by reducing the crew.

These Israelis seem to think that 'Oh, less crew? Nice, more roomy!' instead.

This may indicate an emphasis on growth potential or a disregard to passive protection or a huge weight growth margin, or a combination thereof.



#19 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 13 September 2017 - 0434 AM

Thanks as always for that Marsh.

 

Im beginning to think Virgin selling my contract off to another company was a blessing in disguise....



#20 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 14 September 2017 - 1505 PM

Sort of:

https://www.algemein...ons-of-the-idf/

"One of the most significant pieces revealed on Tuesday was the lightweight and cost-effective Carmel armored vehicle, slated to replace Israels current Merkava tank."

I hope the results match their ambitions.


The fools! Don't they realize that putting the words "future" "combat" "network centric" and "family" will result to billions of dollars spent for zero product as exemplified by the FCS program?!?

:ph34r:

:lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users