And while design features of the new FMCV will depend on operational requirements now wending up the approval chain, military officers said the new vehicles are likely to be wheeled, agile and nearly half the weight of the 65-ton Merkava Mk4. “We don’t yet have an operational requirement, but our people are looking ahead and trying to anticipate future needs,” an Army general officer said. “We’re probably going to need a defended, quick, armored platform that can maneuver decisively in an urban environment and bring sufficient numbers of people and equipment to built-up areas. ... For that, we may not need a tank in the traditional sense,” the officer, a participant in the effort, told Defense News. Sources here insist the FMCVs will not replace 65-ton Merkava Mk4s or Namer heavy troop carriers, which will continue to be built through 2020 and remain in service for decades to come. Rather, the envisioned 35-ton FMCV variants will be integrated with heavy armor into the same digitized command-and-control network, providing war planners with more options that can be tailored to specific scenarios for maneuvering warfare. “It won’t be Merkava-5. The operational requirement will be something entirely different,” another officer said.Read the entire article but that vehicle sounds like a fully digitized Stryker Double Vee Hull.
Funny thing is that the Israeli's tested the Stryker and rejected it. Now they suddenly see a need for a wheeled IFV to fight in urban terrain? It really doesn't make sense but we'll see. Something has changed. Perhaps war gaming a fight in the disputed territories show a need for wheels or maybe these are for internal security. Time will tell but this bears watching.
Maybe it's just that we need a wheeled armored force, and it has to be equipped with vehicles that are more capable than the Stryker.
ReplyDelete"half the weight of a Merkava" is still over 30 tons; the Stryker is overloaded at 20 tons. The only contemporary 8x8 in that class is the Boxer, itself a much more modern design than the Stryker. Rejecting the Stryker is not rejecting wheeled vehicles any more than deciding to not buy any more M113s is rejecting tracked vehicles.
ReplyDeleteThe more interesting question is what features they plan on that will justify a reason to build rather than buy given the glut of good, modern 8x8 designs already around.
double vee hulled strykers are in that weight category as are the Polish AMV's. additionally the Marine Personnel Carrier versions are either in that weight category or approaching it.
DeleteIsrael keeps a lot of military secrets on basic organization. It's not going to be apparent for a long time what they're thinking here or what units get equipped with this new AFV. On one hand it's possible they're just looking for a cost effective M113 replacement and on the other hand they might be more motivated to get into this growing export market?
ReplyDeleteIt's also entirely not clear whether the main focus here is on an infantry carrier or something else? The comments that this is not a Merkava V were rather interesting which sounds less like an infantry carrier.
If Syria and Egypt both fall apart, they will drag Lebanon with them.
ReplyDeleteWhatever rises from the ashes, will be far too poor to support armour, but will have a ready supply of casualty tolerant light infantry.
It'll be back to like it was in the 50's, with units crossing the border and murdering Israeli civillians.
The IDF will be tasked with chasing such fast units back across the border. Armour is entirely too slow, but even arab irregulars would have weapons enough to deal with commercial trucks.
My view anyway