The Future Armored Vehicles of the IDF
A special interview with Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach, Commander of the Tank Program Administration (MANTAK) at IMOD, about the future concepts in the world of armored fighting vehicles. In anticipation of the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference, to be held May 16-17 in Latrun, Israel
Ami Rojkes Dombe
| 15/05/2017
The Eitan wheeled APC (Photo: IMOD)
"The development of the Merkava tank was initiated mainly because of the Arab boycott on Israel in the 1960s and 1970s," explains Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach, Commander of the Tank Program Administration (MANTAK) at the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD). "Back then, only five countries worldwide manufactured tanks, and none of them wanted to sell (tanks) to Israel owing to the Arab pressure. The objective of the IDF was to acquire a new tank that would replace the old Centurion and Patton tanks opposite the modern Soviet-built tanks the Arab countries had acquired. The British were the only ones who agreed to sell us tanks, so two (British-made) Chieftain tanks with 120mm guns were shipped to Israel for trials, but eventually they changed their mind under the pressure of the Arab countries, mainly Egypt."
As a result, it was decided, in the early 1970s, to establish a team that will review the feasibility of the production of an Israeli tank. The Tank Program Administration was established and Maj. Gen. Israel Tal ('Talik') was appointed to head it. It is important to note that the decision to establish the Administration was also – possibly mainly – economic and not just defense-related. In April 1979, the first Merkava Mark-I tank from serial production was delivered to the IDF.
Sources at IMOD stress that it was also a decision to develop Israeli economy. Today, the Merkava program provides work to some 200 companies in Israel and to about 10,000 individuals directly. The entire project has been privatized, and about 92% of the Merkava tank are manufactured by private industry – only 8% are manufactured overseas or by the IDF. Additionally, over the years the range of developments for the Merkava tank made a substantial contribution to the defense exports of a major part of the companies taking part in the manufacture of the tank.
Brig. Gen. Matzliach explains that IMOD does not have any practical plans for the development of the next tank at the moment. The Merkava Mark-IV is expected to be upgraded, within the next four years, to the 'Barak' version that is expected to remain in IDF service for the following decade (at least). "You build a tank for a period of 40 years," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach. "We currently manufacture the Merkava Mark-IV tank, the Namer APC and soon the wheeled APC Eitan. These three armored platforms jointly will satisfy the needs of the IDF with regard to the ground maneuver.
"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."
As Brig. Gen. Matzliach noted, the 'Carmel' platform is a technology demonstrator. This platform is lighter than the Merkava Mark-IV tank and will incorporate an active protection system fitted to each tank individually in addition to spatial protection for platforms operating within a specific area cell. Its weight is only half of that of the Merkava tank, to enable it to operate with relative flexibility in dense urban areas. The platform may be operated by a crew of two or three troopers as opposed to the standard four men crew of today's tanks.
According to Brig. Gen. Matzliach, there are thoughts of developing an unmanned tank, but in the more distant future. "The first stage is to develop semi-autonomous auxiliary systems, make as many tasks as possible fully automatic in order to close the fire loop faster," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach.
Does the Trophy system live up to the high expectations?
"The Trophy system became operational in 2010. It consists of four antennae and interceptors. The Radar antennae detect the threat and the system blows it up a few dozen meters away from the tank. The Trophy system was designed to intercept projectiles fired from ranges of less than a few hundred meters (radius) from the tank," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach.
"During the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, 800 IDF tanks were hit and 500 were penetrated, namely – 60% of the tanks hit were penetrated. During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, 47 IDF tanks were hit and 21 were penetrated, namely – about 40% penetration. That was before we had the Trophy system. In other words, the objective of the Trophy system is to reduce the 40% penetration.
"Battlefield threats are divided into three categories: short range shaped charge projectiles (antitank missiles) – this is a category of threats that enables an infantry detachment to destroy a tank. The second category consists of antitank armor-piercing cartridges fired by tanks, and the third threat category consists of belly or roadside explosive charges. Active protection systems provide a solution only for the first threat category. The kinetic threat does not have a full-proof solution. The Iron Fist system has the potential of reducing the severity of this threat, but you will still need reactive armor and passive armor to stop it completely.
"The Merkava tank does not have reactive armor boxes. Instead, it is fitted with continuous, semi-reactive armor. If you are hit in the same spot, you will still be protected and will be able to sustain additional hits in the same spot. In order to protect the tank crew, you will need a combination of active protection with semi-reactive/passive armor. Anyone who says that active protection is sufficient fails to take into account all of the threats the tank faces."
Are you considering the concept of a multicopter for each tank?
"We are thinking about it. We also think about how the tank will receive information from multicopters operating over the battlefield. There is a question of who should operate the multicopter. Should the tank crew be assigned yet another task – to control a multicopter, or will it be more appropriate for someone else to operate the multicopter and provide the crew with the information that is relevant to them. We are also thinking about protection against multicopters used as enemy strike weapons," says Brig. Gen. Matzliach.
***
The complete interview can be found in issue 37 of Israel Defense magazine. To subscribe, click here.
Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach is scheduled to address the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference (part of Latrun Week, May 16-18, 2017).
A special interview with Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach, Commander of the Tank Program Administration (MANTAK) at IMOD, about the future concepts in the world of armored fighting vehicles. In anticipation of the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference, to be held May 16-17 in Latrun, Israel
The Eitan wheeled APC (Photo: IMOD)
"The development of the Merkava tank was initiated mainly because of the Arab boycott on Israel in the 1960s and 1970s," explains Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach, Commander of the Tank Program Administration (MANTAK) at the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD). "Back then, only five countries worldwide manufactured tanks, and none of them wanted to sell (tanks) to Israel owing to the Arab pressure. The objective of the IDF was to acquire a new tank that would replace the old Centurion and Patton tanks opposite the modern Soviet-built tanks the Arab countries had acquired. The British were the only ones who agreed to sell us tanks, so two (British-made) Chieftain tanks with 120mm guns were shipped to Israel for trials, but eventually they changed their mind under the pressure of the Arab countries, mainly Egypt."
As a result, it was decided, in the early 1970s, to establish a team that will review the feasibility of the production of an Israeli tank. The Tank Program Administration was established and Maj. Gen. Israel Tal ('Talik') was appointed to head it. It is important to note that the decision to establish the Administration was also – possibly mainly – economic and not just defense-related. In April 1979, the first Merkava Mark-I tank from serial production was delivered to the IDF.
Sources at IMOD stress that it was also a decision to develop Israeli economy. Today, the Merkava program provides work to some 200 companies in Israel and to about 10,000 individuals directly. The entire project has been privatized, and about 92% of the Merkava tank are manufactured by private industry – only 8% are manufactured overseas or by the IDF. Additionally, over the years the range of developments for the Merkava tank made a substantial contribution to the defense exports of a major part of the companies taking part in the manufacture of the tank.
Brig. Gen. Matzliach explains that IMOD does not have any practical plans for the development of the next tank at the moment. The Merkava Mark-IV is expected to be upgraded, within the next four years, to the 'Barak' version that is expected to remain in IDF service for the following decade (at least). "You build a tank for a period of 40 years," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach. "We currently manufacture the Merkava Mark-IV tank, the Namer APC and soon the wheeled APC Eitan. These three armored platforms jointly will satisfy the needs of the IDF with regard to the ground maneuver.
"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."
As Brig. Gen. Matzliach noted, the 'Carmel' platform is a technology demonstrator. This platform is lighter than the Merkava Mark-IV tank and will incorporate an active protection system fitted to each tank individually in addition to spatial protection for platforms operating within a specific area cell. Its weight is only half of that of the Merkava tank, to enable it to operate with relative flexibility in dense urban areas. The platform may be operated by a crew of two or three troopers as opposed to the standard four men crew of today's tanks.
According to Brig. Gen. Matzliach, there are thoughts of developing an unmanned tank, but in the more distant future. "The first stage is to develop semi-autonomous auxiliary systems, make as many tasks as possible fully automatic in order to close the fire loop faster," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach.
Does the Trophy system live up to the high expectations?
"The Trophy system became operational in 2010. It consists of four antennae and interceptors. The Radar antennae detect the threat and the system blows it up a few dozen meters away from the tank. The Trophy system was designed to intercept projectiles fired from ranges of less than a few hundred meters (radius) from the tank," explains Brig. Gen. Matzliach.
"During the Yom-Kippur War of 1973, 800 IDF tanks were hit and 500 were penetrated, namely – 60% of the tanks hit were penetrated. During the Second Lebanon War of 2006, 47 IDF tanks were hit and 21 were penetrated, namely – about 40% penetration. That was before we had the Trophy system. In other words, the objective of the Trophy system is to reduce the 40% penetration.
"Battlefield threats are divided into three categories: short range shaped charge projectiles (antitank missiles) – this is a category of threats that enables an infantry detachment to destroy a tank. The second category consists of antitank armor-piercing cartridges fired by tanks, and the third threat category consists of belly or roadside explosive charges. Active protection systems provide a solution only for the first threat category. The kinetic threat does not have a full-proof solution. The Iron Fist system has the potential of reducing the severity of this threat, but you will still need reactive armor and passive armor to stop it completely.
"The Merkava tank does not have reactive armor boxes. Instead, it is fitted with continuous, semi-reactive armor. If you are hit in the same spot, you will still be protected and will be able to sustain additional hits in the same spot. In order to protect the tank crew, you will need a combination of active protection with semi-reactive/passive armor. Anyone who says that active protection is sufficient fails to take into account all of the threats the tank faces."
Are you considering the concept of a multicopter for each tank?
"We are thinking about it. We also think about how the tank will receive information from multicopters operating over the battlefield. There is a question of who should operate the multicopter. Should the tank crew be assigned yet another task – to control a multicopter, or will it be more appropriate for someone else to operate the multicopter and provide the crew with the information that is relevant to them. We are also thinking about protection against multicopters used as enemy strike weapons," says Brig. Gen. Matzliach.
***
The complete interview can be found in issue 37 of Israel Defense magazine. To subscribe, click here.
Brig. Gen. Baruch Matzliach is scheduled to address the 2nd International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference (part of Latrun Week, May 16-18, 2017).
