PA Light Tank Acquisition Programme

[LionFlyer]

Earlier discussion: https://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=2194.msg16056#msg16056

Notice of Award: https://www.dnd.gov.ph/transparency/procurement/DND_BAC/2020/NOP/NOA%20-%20PA%20LTAP%20%28Elbit%20Systems%29.pdf

[girder]

Reposting from: http://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=7116.0

Recently released as their entry for the Philippine Army's light tank acquisition requirement:

The Elbit Systems Sabrah light tank is available in two configurations including a tracked variant based on the General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS) ASCOD 2 and a wheeled version based on the Pandur II 8x8 armored vehicle also produced by GDELS.

Elbit Systems’ “Sabrah” configurable light tank solution adds highly effective firepower to Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV’s). Based on the success of our fully combat-proven armored vehicles and turrets in use by numerous armed forces around the world, the “Sabrah” series of solutions is the latest generation AFV system developed by Elbit Systems. The modular design enables using the same 105mm turret for tracked or 8X8 wheeled platforms to deliver reliable, high-performance firepower to the battlefield.

The Sabrah turret design benefits from the reference of Elbit Systems and the IDF “Merkava” Directorate “MANTAK” combat-proven Armored Vehicles. The turrets, Fire Control Systems (FCS), electro-optics, and 105mm tank guns are in use by the IDF as well as numerous other armed forces around the world. The Booth version of the Sabrah light tank is fitted with a two-man turret armed with an Elbit Systems Land 105mm gun and one 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Each side of the turret are equipped with a bank of four smoke grenade dischargers. The turret drive is fully electric with elevation and traverse stabilization

Standard equipment of the turret includes a fire control system, laser range finder, and one panoramic sight with advanced Electro-Optic sensors (Day, Night-Vision, and LRF) for an effective day, night, and all-weather fighting conditions. The panoramic sight is used for observation and target aiming.

The 105 mm gun system is fitted with an automatic loading system with 12 rounds ready to fire. The vehicle carries a total of 36 ammunition, with 24 rounds stored in the hull. The gun can fire a wide range of NATO ammunition including HEP-T (High-explosive), HESH (High-explosive squash head), APFSDS (Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot) as well as advanced ammunition, T-MP-HE M110.

The 105 mm gun has an effective firing range of 3,600m with a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute.

The wheeled variant is based on the Pandur II platform, while the tracked variant is based on the ASCOD platform.

Links:
Brochure
News article @ Army Recognition

[eagle from davao]

INDIRECT FIRE CAPABILITY FOR SABRA LIGHT TANK.

indirect fire capability ( 60mm mortar) is already a proven weapon system installed in merkava tanks and namer IFV. In MOUT scenario, 60mm mortar is indispensable and effective to target enemy combatants hiding behind, walls, behind buildings, hiding inside trenches, firing in reverse slopes and firing on top of buildings or structures. During Marawi siege, 60mm and 81mm mortars were used to hit targets hiding behind walls and buildings. Indirect fire capability (60mm mortar)is an effective weapon for phil. army Sabra light tank.

These are the links as references.

http://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=2882.msg9040#msg9040

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6KG2LoAMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I hope AFP weapons technical committee or its equivalent will consider this additional weapon for new Sabra light tank purchase.

[grail]

INDIRECT FIRE CAPABILITY FOR SABRA LIGHT TANK.

indirect fire capability ( 60mm mortar) is already a proven weapon system installed in merkava tanks and namer IFV. In MOUT scenario, 60mm mortar is indispensable and effective to target enemy combatants hiding behind, walls, behind buildings, hiding inside trenches, firing in reverse slopes and firing on top of buildings or structures. During Marawi siege, 60mm and 81mm mortars were used to hit targets hiding behind walls and buildings. Indirect fire capability (60mm mortar)is an effective weapon for phil. army Sabra light tank.

These are the links as references.

http://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=2882.msg9040#msg9040

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6KG2LoAMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I hope AFP weapons technical committee or its equivalent will consider this additional weapon for new Sabra light tank purchase.

The mortar carrier is already ongoing with Elbit systems using m113 and 120mm mortars. Mortar carrier is a separate project from the light tank.

[eagle from davao]

The mortar carrier is already ongoing with Elbit systems using m113 and 120mm mortars. Mortar carrier is a separate project from the light tank.

The Israeli doctrine and concept of installing 60mm mortar on merkava tanks and namer IFV is to provide indirect fire capability against enemy troops directly engaging their armored vehicles. Hidden enemy troops with PRG-7 or RPG-29 can kill tanks or IFV if not eliminated immediately. 60 mm mortar is tank integral weapon used primarily to target entrenched anti-tank teams , to lobbed smoke bombs to cover infantry advance and to provide point indirect fire support for its dismounted troops in MOUT scenario.
Using tank 105/120 mm main gun to destroy enemy troops behind a building is waste of ammo and destroys the whole building block before it can even hit the enemy troops . Merkava tanks use 60mm mortar to lobbed bombs on hezbollah anti-tank teams hiding behind walls and buildings and crouching in trenches. It was very effective in 2006 lebanon war , in 2014 gaza, 2004 hebron and rafah . IDF installed 60mm mortar for its effectiveness in MOUT operations which are very similar in marawi and zamboanga siege.  60mm mortar is just another tool similar to 105/120mm main gun for different type of target. it complements tank main gun and HMG in MOUT . AFP purchase Sabra tank for MOUT purpose . Indirect fire capability is an extra edge for Sabra Tank.

The doctrine of 81/120mm mortar in M113 vehicle is of different level , intensity and different purpose.  Its an artillery battery with armored protection and all terrain mobility. Its main purpose is to provide artillery support for mechanized and infantry operations.

The 60mm mortar in Sabra tank cannot eliminate , nor surpass nor overlapped the artillery role of 81mm/120mm mortar in M113. Th 60mm mortar in Sabra will complement  the direct fire capability of 105mm main gun but it will not surpass the role of tank's main gun.

in short ,it is another useful weapon with different use in Sabra's whole array of weapons and capabilities.
Just like a wine bottle cork puller in a Swiss knife . Odd but useful.

[girder]

The light tanks are supposed to provide direct fire support when lighter weapons (whether man-portable or vehicle-borne) like the RPG-7, M67 recoilless rifle, M242 Bushmaster or the 76mm cannon aren't enough.

The infantry already have mortars of various calibers if they need to hit a target that warrants indirect fire. Not to mention the Mechanized Infantry's new mortar carriers which can carry either 81mm or 120mm mortars.

An additional turret mortar would be largely superfluous for these vehicles' intended role. There are already other assets that could to the same job.

In addition we are talking about mechanized infantry assets. The armored vehicles do not go in alone. They have accompanying infantry assets and other supporting forces to help them. Direct fire support assets have a specific job within the combined arms doctrine, as do others. If there is a need for indirect fire support, then they can call indirect fire support (that's one of the benefits of the new communications and battle management suites that the Philippine Army has been acquiring from Elbit). As it is, having to carry around more ammunition for another onboard weapons system could detract from the main purpose of the asset.

Lastly, equipment acquisitions should be dependent on needs. The Marawi siege highlighted the need for more powerful mobile direct fire support assets. If the Army ever needs any of its direct fire support vehicles to have mortars, then they would ask for mortars. As it is, they are incorporating them as separate, dedicated assets.

[eagle from davao]

The light tanks are supposed to provide direct fire support when lighter weapons (whether man-portable or vehicle-borne) like the RPG-7, M67 recoilless rifle, M242 Bushmaster or the 76mm cannon aren't enough.

The infantry already have mortars of various calibers if they need to hit a target that warrants indirect fire. Not to mention the Mechanized Infantry's new mortar carriers which can carry either 81mm or 120mm mortars.

An additional turret mortar would be largely superfluous for these vehicles' intended role. There are already other assets that could to the same job.

In addition we are talking about mechanized infantry assets. The armored vehicles do not go in alone. They have accompanying infantry assets and other supporting forces to help them. Direct fire support assets have a specific job within the combined arms doctrine, as do others. If there is a need for indirect fire support, then they can call indirect fire support (that's one of the benefits of the new communications and battle management suites that the Philippine Army has been acquiring from Elbit). As it is, having to carry around more ammunition for another onboard weapons system could detract from the main purpose of the asset.

Lastly, equipment acquisitions should be dependent on needs. The Marawi siege highlighted the need for more powerful mobile direct fire support assets. If the Army ever needs any of its direct fire support vehicles to have mortars, then they would ask for mortars. As it is, they are incorporating them as separate, dedicated assets.

IDF have a lot of experience in MOUT compared to us. They installed 60mm in merkava mark 1 up to mark 4. They knew the value of a 60mm mortar as a complement to the main gun and HMG. They have 81mm/120mm mortar/155mm howitzer batteries mounted in M109 and superior air support  available at their disposal. Merkava tank crew can call anytime for fire support from these artillery teams . They have more advance battlefield communication and real-time information sharing within their combat teams . Why they retain the 60mm mortar despite the availability of 81mm/120mm and 155 howitzer ? merkava tank dont operate alone but fight as a combine team.
 
This video :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6KG2LoAMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

confirms the usefulness of 60mm mortar .  Imagine in this video, the point of impact of mortar bomb is a fox hole occupied by enemy anti-tank team waiting for merkava tank to expose itself for a clear shot. The tank commander expressed his satisfaction when his crew hit the desired mark . This video was taken in IDF live fire exercise. If IDF didnt find 60mm mortar useful , why they toke time to train their tank crews in firing this mortar? The tank crew did not  have to bother calling their 120mm mortar battery to pound one foxhole when it can be done by firing their 60mm mortar.

 It takes time to call to mortar battery team , then time for approval of battalion commander and time to redirect the mortar battery ,then more time to prepare the right mortar bombs and calculate the right charge until the first bomb drops to the desired target plus more adjustment until fire for effect order is given.  We can say five to ten minutes at the best , but probably wait for 20 minutes if the mortar battery is still busy in engaging a more priority target. The worst one hour wait ,probably of other factors beyond control of mortar battery. Let us add pressure to the tank commander ,he is tasked by the battalion commander to arrive in designated area within 10 minutes but cannot go forward because a well entrenched anti tank team waiting at the corner. Tank commander will have to risk exposing his tank to fire direct tank rounds hoping to eliminate it. The enemy anti-tank team now have the chance to fire RPG-29 when the tank is now exposed. This scenario is plausible in MOUT. If the tank have a 60mm mortar , it can destroy the well entrenched anti tank team  without exposing itself ,then it can proceed to its designated area on time.
 
AFP should learn more from IDF on how they used their merkava and namer  in MOUT and what are the valuable lessons of using 60mm mortar(mounted in merkava tank)in MOUT scenario.

[girder]

There are other countries with extensive experience in urban operations (U.S., U.K., Russia, etc.), but none of them have ever decided to mount mortars on their tanks. So it's not a universally desirable solution.

I would compare this to the Russian BMPT "Terminator" armored fighting vehicle concept, which was also borne out of brutal urban fighting experience (the Chechen Wars). It was a concept made up by the Russians for essentially a heavy anti-infantry/fire support platform better suited for urban operations than the standard main battle tanks. However it is a concept that has not been adopted by any of the other countries with extensive UO experience, whether because there was no doctrinal or material need for it based on those other countries' experience.

A tank-based mortar seems like a feature of limited utility given the existence of infantry and vehicle-borne mortars (which would already be operating with the light tanks during operations anyway). And frankly I severely doubt the usefulness of it during urban operations anyway. If an armored vehicle spots enemies at a distance within the engagement envelope of a small 60m mortar, then they are probably easily acquired and fired at by the far more accurate and sophisticated main weapons system. If there is a need for indirect fire, then the target can be conveyed to the appropriate batteries using the battle management system which are already going to be integrated to these light tanks/tank destroyers as part of the project. So what's the point of having to set aside some of the already limited turret space for another weapon and its ammo? 

A more useful feature which has rapidly gained traction internationally in various countries and armed forces has been active protection systems which significantly improve the survivability of armored assets not just during urban operations but in open field as well. The fact that multiple countries are investing in, none but one country is integrating turret mortars should be an indication of what is a better investment.

[eagle from davao]

Sir;
one reality AFP is facing .
1] Accurate and sophisticated weapon system are expensive- JDAM or laser guided small diameter bomb are expensive and needs to invest more on our air force assets . This is okey if we have the budget of US air force and US army. A few 60mm mortar bombs cost less compared to one JDAM or SDB . 

2] active protection system is very expensive - even the US army and IDF needs more budget and more time to install these systems in their M1 abram and merkava tanks. As of per AFP needs, we dont need Trophy active protection system and even for near future . A simple 60mm mortar can fill our  current needs. It is good to have but it is very expensive.

3] Russian BMPT" terminator " is a good system but we cant buy these without facing sanctions by the US. Remember AFP backout in purchasing weapons system and helicopter platform from Russia because of these sanctions. Russian Chenchen campaigns was not a good one. Russian army suffers a lot of casualties and humiliations . Russian make a political compromise in Chencya by installing a leader that is acceptable on both parties which keeps the region " appease" or at least peaceful.

4] Turret Space is not a problem. Sabra turret is spacious enough for 60mm mortar. It is install at the left side wall and the 60mm bombs are small. 15 or 20 rounds wont eat a lot of space.

60mm mortar is very cheap but effective weapon system compared to trophy active protection system and to JDAm or SDB or Excalibur 155mm rounds and other very accurate and sophisticated systems.

[girder]

I think you're seriously overestimating the usefulness of mounting an already existing weapon (Once again, both the infantry and mechanized forces already HAVE mortars.) on a vehicle where it is not typically mounted.

If a mortar were needed then a mortar would be brought to use. (In fact these weapons are far more numerous among the various AFP units than there are or will be light tanks.) The light tanks/tank destroyers are only brought in when there is a need for direct fire support. Those are two different jobs. If both are needed then you can bring in both. And it's far more effective to have separate units that can engage independently when needed than having to split the attention of a tank crew between direct and indirect fire missions.

A 60mm mortar does NOT do the same job as an active protection system. It does not even do the same job as passive applique armor. My point is that APS are a far more useful investment of limited budgetary resources than tank mortars because they have not only proven their effectiveness, but because they have become a general trend in tank development thus indicating their universally-recognized usefulness. As opposed to light tank mortars which remain a mere curiosity. Whether the AFP eventually acquires them or not is besides the point.
 
Once again, you're completely missing my point with regard to the BMPT vehicle. At no point am I suggesting we acquire it. I'm saying that different countries come up with different solutions based on their differing experience and doctrine. Both needs and doctrine drive procurement. So far no other country besides Israel has sought to mount mortars on main battle tanks. Likely because while there are certain needs similar to different countries' experiences, doctrine (the way those militaries tackle problems) differ. The AFP does not face the same types of threats profiles or geography as the IDF, it's procurement and equipment therefore will different substantially. Despite the recently prominent urban combat faces by the AFP, 90% of all of its engagements happen in rural areas and involve jungle warfare. Urban engagements are typically in small rural towns. The Israelis put mortars on their MBTs in the first place was to deal with entrenched anti-tank infantry armed with ATGMs, based on their experiences during the 1973 war (not the urban fighting of their recent wars). This is NOT a threat in the Philippines, or ever has been. In fact armor losses for the AFP in combat over the past several decades can be counted on one hand.

And on that note, one should bear in mind that the Israeli Merkava was designed for the very specific circumstances faced by the IDF. It has a number of design peculiarities because of this, and as such it is not necessarily suitable for other countries' needs. Not everything that they put into it will translate into an effective solution for other countries' needs. If it were don't you think they would have been able to market and sell it internationally already?

[adroth]

The Israeli doctrine and concept of installing 60mm mortar on merkava tanks and namer IFV is to provide indirect fire capability against enemy troops directly engaging their armored vehicles. Hidden enemy troops with PRG-7 or RPG-29 can kill tanks or IFV if not eliminated immediately. 60 mm mortar is tank integral weapon used primarily to target entrenched anti-tank teams , to lobbed smoke bombs to cover infantry advance and to provide point indirect fire support for its dismounted troops in MOUT scenario.

The viability of mounting a 60mm mortar in whatever light tank the PA acquires is a function of available space within the turret of the selected tank. The Merkava has a sizeable turret.

[girder]

In any case, there is more useful equipment that is coming as a freebie with this contract: sniper detection systems.

You have to detect enemies before you engage them, regardless of what weapon you pick for the job.

[eagle from davao]

One reason, why im pushing for these.
I interviewed the simba units attached to 10th ID , they welcome the idea of installing 60mm mortar inside the turret. They welcome the idea of indirect fire capability. These simba crews are veteran in maguindanao against MILF since 2000. The common problem why they cant move fast into MILF position because of RPG-2 threat. When they fire their 0.50 cal HMG, MILF simply hide in the drainage canals. they have wait for 81mm mortar and 105mm fire and even air support just get within 200 to 300 meters distance. These crews need to have a indirect fire capability so they can use it anytime they need one. They dont have to wait for mortar battery or 105 battery for them to move. Fire support are delayed most of the time. These are frustrating for them . They have to wait before they can move forward to retrieve and rescue their wounded because of RPG-2 threat. According to them,they wait for 30 minutes to one hour the most before fire support comes. Troops speaks freely when no senior officers are around. They encourage me to post that idea. For they need it. These crews are senior NCO's with 20 yrs in field experience. They even lamented why Mk 19 was removed from simba. They even have idea how MK-19 can be installed back without exposing the gunner.

A year ago i post it  hoping AFP will catch this idea. The need for indirect fire is real and badly needed, be in the jungle, in the rice paddies, be it in the MOUT. the idea of firing a 60mm mortar inside the turret, protected from sniper fire, machine gun fire and far from rpg-2 range is a game changer for our troops.

From the perspective of ground troops , a quick indirect fire is life -saver and time -saver. for them it is personal when your buddy lying wounded but  you are constrained because of RPG-2 threats. Most them makes unnecessary risk just to rescue wounded troops. Sometimes they are lucky.

for size , if observed carefully, it wont occupy a 500mm wall vertical space and  300mm horizontal space on left side wall. 15 rounds can be stowed by 2 boxes.

[LionFlyer]

One reason, why im pushing for these.
I interviewed the simba units attached to 10th ID , they welcome the idea of installing 60mm mortar inside the turret. They welcome the idea of indirect fire capability. These simba crews are veteran in maguindanao against MILF since 2000. The common problem why they cant move fast into MILF position because of RPG-2 threat. When they fire their 0.50 cal HMG, MILF simply hide in the drainage canals. they have wait for 81mm mortar and 105mm fire and even air support just get within 200 to 300 meters distance. These crews need to have a indirect fire capability so they can use it anytime they need one. They dont have to wait for mortar battery or 105 battery for them to move. Fire support are delayed most of the time. These are frustrating for them . They have to wait before they can move forward to retrieve and rescue their wounded because of RPG-2 threat. According to them,they wait for 30 minutes to one hour the most before fire support comes. Troops speaks freely when no senior officers are around. They encourage me to post that idea. For they need it. These crews are senior NCO's with 20 yrs in field experience. They even lamented why Mk 19 was removed from simba. They even have idea how MK-19 can be installed back without exposing the gunner.

An RPG-2 has an effective range of up to 150m (shorter, for those homemade ones). This is well within the effective range of a 7.62mm. The bad decision being alluded to was the removal of the MK 19 grenade launcher. If you want to put something back, why not the MK 19? Or even a 0.5mm?

Simba crews were operating in known hotspots without infantry support is a matter of poor doctrine and tactical discipline.

You don't fix this by introducing another piece of kit.

A year ago i post it  hoping AFP will catch this idea. The need for indirect fire is real and badly needed, be in the jungle, in the rice paddies, be it in the MOUT. the idea of firing a 60mm mortar inside the turret, protected from sniper fire, machine gun fire and far from rpg-2 range is a game changer for our troops.

From the perspective of ground troops , a quick indirect fire is life -saver and time -saver. for them it is personal when your buddy lying wounded but  you are constrained because of RPG-2 threats. Most them makes unnecessary risk just to rescue wounded troops. Sometimes they are lucky.

for size , if observed carefully, it wont occupy a 500mm wall vertical space and  300mm horizontal space on left side wall. 15 rounds can be stowed by 2 boxes.

Now you are changing the purpose from protecting the crew to being an indirect support element for infantry. This is not the intention behind those vehicle mounted mortar.

In any case, a Simba crew is not a mortar crew. Under those enclosed condition with poor visibility, you are not gonna get much in terms of sight and elevation to get accuracy. Since the Simba operates with a 3 man crew, the gunner will have to bear the brunt of the work, which I suspect will not be ideal in an operational situation.

Which goes back to one reason why they are not popular. As a means of "self protection", it can be a potential danger to friendlies operating together.

[eagle from davao]

Consider these options;

1] sabra tank with 105mm main gun and 60mm mortar (7.62mm and 0.50cal HMG included)  both has direct and indirect capabilities in one platform. 60mm mortar is located on the left most side of the turret. or loader side. It can hit targets inside trenches, in ditches, in irrigation canal, foxholes or behind building , behind walls and rooftops. It can lay smoke screens for infantry advance . A combination of firepower from 105mm and 60mm mortar plus HMG and GPMG within the direct control and discretion of one tank commander without time delays is a big factor.
it is no longer constrained on using o.50 HMG to hit rooftop targets possiblity of stray 0.50 slugs hitting populated area 1km or 2km behind the target. It can lobbed 60mm mortar on the rooftop. 60mm mortar can add another dimension for tank capabilities.

2] For tank with direct fire only. There will be Delays in fire support.- this is a battlefield reality. Indirect fire support from 81mm/ 120mm mortar and   105mm howitzers needs higher ups approval. Needs to prep the rounds and calculations need double checking ,these preps and checking consumes time. According to tank crews i interviewed, it takes time, 30 minutes or even an hour. Maybe they exaggerate a bit, but delays can kill. Try to observe the procedures followed by artillery team before sending rounds down range and compare the attached video (showing IDF crew firing 60mm mortar). It is faster. Procedures are followed for the safety of the troops down range and assurance those rounds will not cause collateral damage.

Let me qualify, i am not against active protection system, sniper detection system, or bmpt terminator. Im with it.

adding a 60mm mortar in the sabra turret will not cost much(they might even put it as free add-ons). with one small weapon, you add another capability for one tank.
An indirect fire capability for tank is an asset not a burden.

 the 81mm/120mm mortar team might appreciate that sabra tank wont call often for fire support bcoz it can handle small anti-tank teams hiding behind walls or ditches . It can handle some small targets . It might bridge some of that capabilities in limited scope.

Let me summarize my points. An added Indirect fire capability for a tank is real asset not a burden. There is always time delay from artillery support (81mm mortar is classified artillery)for it  needs BATCOM approval(at the least). Delays can cause lives.

If there an issue on space inside sabra turret, let Elbit confirm it and ask them how they can do about it. If Elbit says no-cannot put for space constrain, then the discussion is closed .But if Elbit says, they can do it, why limit the capability of sabra tank .
And if Elbit ,can offer sniper detection system with minimal cost. Im with it.

Jokingly aside, it Elbit can make sabra swim and fly at the same time, im with it.