Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Active Protection System (APS) for tanks


asaf

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I've been meaning to ask for a while, is the Arena APS effective against top attack weapons like Javelin?  Conventional wisdom in the west says no, but the fragmentation rings appear to extend over the upper surfaces of the vehicle to me.

Depends on the angle. 

T-80_Arena_KAZT_Active_Protection_System.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Any plans to change that? Or as long as russian doesnt has top-attack missiles no point in doing it?

 

Could you put some AMAP ADS on top of the roof?
Also would it make sense against bomblets or bombs?

Bomblets can be countered by NERA/MERA/ERA on turret roof. I think Trophy can engage targets at rather high angles relatively to many other APS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the current launcher-based active protection system with the highest elevation is SAAB's LEDS-150 (up to 65°). Italy developed an APS similar to AWiSS/AVePS and Iron Fist during the early 2000s, which was called Scudo. It was limited to 30° elevation in the current mock-ups, although they wanted to extend the elevation to 45°.

 

The MUSS softkill APS used on the Puma has an elevation of up to 70°. Iron Fist uses RADA's CHR radar panels, which have a tracking cone of 90° in elevation and 120° in azumith from the radar's axis. This means it is limited to +45° elevation (slightly more if the radar panels are mounted on a sloped surface).

 

This makes modern vehicles with APS still vulnerable to top-attack ammunitions like SMArt 155, KSTAM, BONUS or other weapons fired by artillery or mortars; they cannot be defeated by most/all APS types.

 

SMArt155_function.jpg

 

The ADS active protection system has special up-wards facing countermeasures and sensor units, although the elevation will also be limited. It would in theory be possible to fit additional ones onto the roof...

JUkaixE.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Systems like Trophy, Iron Fist, AVePS etc. also cannot shot straight upwards.

Rotating systems can defeat top attack munitions and for that they dont need to shoot straight up.

Even in the extreme case that a certain missile will fly a few dozen meters above the target and will sharply turn 90°, and head straight downwards (note: only the Spike II so far is marketed as capable of countering APS, yet has a dive angle of "only" 70°), the launchers don't need to aim straight up. They can just rotate so that they face the center of the vehicle, and shoot when the missile enters their range. This effectively leaves no dead zone, and is a merit of APS with rotating launchers.

 

The only requirement for that is to either have the radars cover the top (which is definitely possible), or develop algorithms that would allow estimating the point of interception in the absence of continuous tracking.

 

So with sufficient top armor, the Abrams can defeat intercepted artillery shells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Rotating systems can defeat top attack munitions and for that they dont need to shoot straight up.

Even in the extreme case that a certain missile will fly a few dozen meters above the target and will sharply turn 90°, and head straight downwards (note: only the Spike II so far is marketed as capable of countering APS, yet has a dive angle of "only" 70°), the launchers don't need to aim straight up. They can just rotate so that they face the center of the vehicle, and shoot when the missile enters their range. This effectively leaves no dead zone, and is a merit of APS with rotating launchers.

 

The only requirement for that is to either have the radars cover the top (which is definitely possible), or develop algorithms that would allow estimating the point of interception in the absence of continuous tracking.

 

So with sufficient top armor, the Abrams can defeat intercepted artillery shells.

 

This is just a typical comment from you... "current systems are perfect!!!".

 

Weapons like SMArt 155, BONUS, etc. will strike the tank's roof armor from a nearly vertical angle; the EFP warhead will detonate 50 to 150 metres above the vehicle and strike downwards. There is no way for Trophy or other APS to deal with that. Even dumb artillery/mortar sheels can be easily fitted witha  nose section for course-correction/guidance and strike tanks from nearly vertical angles, way above the maximum elevation of current APS.

 

c9a1579cf9a84ea3b1d247740e6f73407c50864.

 

Javelin and Hellfire (and pretty much all top-attack ATGMs launched from helicopters) will most likely have no issue with currently existing systems.

figf-6.gif

(FM 3-21.71 Appendix F, Javelin Employment).

 

400px-Javelin_flight_profiles.jpg

 

hellfire-trajectory1.gif

AGM-114A Hellfire trajectories.

 

Then there is a big question in functionality of sensors and software. APS are designed to ignore ATGMs/RPGs which would not impact on the vehicle, because otherwise valuable countermeasures are lost. This is a general problem of APS vs top-attack weapons, but it could also mean overfly top-attack systems such as TOW-2B and BILL-2 won't be engaged by them.

 

Your theory about "rotating systems defeat[ing] top attack munitions" because "they dont need to shoot straight up" is wrong for a multitude of reasons. First of all, these system don't know where the top-attack weapons are, because the radar coverage of current system doesn't include the upper sections of the hemisphere. How should the APS intercept a threat that it cannot see? Aside of this issue, not all launchers can be elevated so far, because the

There are also issues with the detection range required to spot most types of top-attack missiles and the interception distance required for the APS to properly work. Trophy's launchers cannot be turned enough to cover the roof (thanks to their location and the fixed blast shields), while Iron Fist/AVePS and similar systems require greater standoff to not damage the system when the HE warhead explodes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

This is just a typical comment from you... "current systems are perfect!!!".

 

Lesson #1 kids, if you want to be absolutely sure you win an argument, dismiss the other person's argument by saying his comment was "typical". It eliminates all validity he had.

Ad Hominem beats all.

Yeah, seriously though, if you want to have a civilized discussion based on mutual respect, that is NOT the way to do it. I'll agree to forget about this if you also agree to stop throwing this sort of comments into every post you make.

 

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Weapons like SMArt 155, BONUS, etc. will strike the tank's roof armor from a nearly vertical angle; the EFP warhead will detonate 50 to 150 metres above the vehicle and strike downwards. There is no way for Trophy or other APS to deal with that. Even dumb artillery/mortar sheels can be easily fitted witha  nose section for course-correction/guidance and strike tanks from nearly vertical angles, way above the maximum elevation of current APS.

 

SMArt 155 and BONUS are unique in a way that they can detonate far above the target as they do not utilize a HEAT warhead (unlike, say, the M712 Copperhead for example). They are not the subject of my argument of the ability to defeat artillery shells. I spoke of conventionally armed artillery shells (HE filler). I also don't think, however, that APS should evolve to defeat this specific threat. Instead, have multiple layers of APS, one of which would be destined to defeat primarily artillery threats (laser based, which within a few years will be feasible).

Against simple HE shells, ordinary APS, if programmed correctly, should be effective to at least a certain extent. 

 

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Then there is a big question in functionality of sensors and software. APS are designed to ignore ATGMs/RPGs which would not impact on the vehicle, because otherwise valuable countermeasures are lost. This is a general problem of APS vs top-attack weapons, but it could also mean overfly top-attack systems such as TOW-2B and BILL-2 won't be engaged by them.

 

Yes, they are designed to ignore certain non-threatening things, but it's not that simple. APS, through the 3D identification function of their respective radar systems, can classify the type of missile, and possibly sub-type based on trajectory for example. This is all the work of programming, and not limited by the physical attributes of the whole APS system. 

If, for example, an APS detects and identifies a Fagot type missile, and see it veers off course and misses the vehicle, info it has in a possible database may prevent it from perceiving it as a possible threat (of top-attack). It will just perceive it as a missed projectile since it cannot possibly dive for a top attack. But if it identifies a Javelin, for example, it will know it is capable of top-attack engagement. Same goes for BGM-71F Tow-2B. The shape of the missile, as well as its trajectory and speed allow for classification of it and thus notion of whether it is capable of top-attack.

 

And if it is capable of top-attack, the APS could be programmed to engage if the missile passes at a certain point/area. Intentionally missing to merely deplete the APS would be idiotic to say the least. 

 

And classification of missiles is nothing fictional. It exists, and it's in use in operational APS, and other types of missile defense systems. 

 

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Your theory about "rotating systems defeat[ing] top attack munitions" because "they dont need to shoot straight up" is wrong for a multitude of reasons. First of all, these system don't know where the top-attack weapons are, because the radar coverage of current system doesn't include the upper sections of the hemisphere. How should the APS intercept a threat that it cannot see?

 

They can, or at least some systems can. Here's an excerpt from the EL/M-2133 radar from IAI in use on the Trophy system. Seems pretty clear to me that it can. And if they can, other radar manufacturing defense companies can. And if everyone relevant can, then it's just a matter of requirements from the user. 

6wGN4eQvTGmoQn6VqLtlWw.png

 

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Aside of this issue, not all launchers can be elevated so far, because the There are also issues with the detection range required to spot most types of top-attack missiles and the interception distance required for the APS to properly work. Trophy's launchers cannot be turned enough to cover the roof (thanks to their location and the fixed blast shields), while Iron Fist/AVePS and similar systems require greater standoff to not damage the system when the HE warhead explodes.

 

I don't know whether the AVePS uses a fragment-free warhead or not, but I know the Iron Fist doesn't, and has a directed blast. Other similar systems who use fragmentation grenades should also have directed blasts. So when firing at a top-attack missile, the blast and fragmentation should go sideways, and not cause any harm to the vehicle. And to shield of residual damage, all that is required is some light physical protection. Most if not all external equipment should be ruggedized to protect from bullets and fragments. That's not much different than when firing horizontally or close to horizontal (though if the warhead uses fragments, it may well pose a serious threat to nearby infantry). Regarding the Trophy, last time I got a tour in Rafael's museum and saw the internals of the autoloader, I got the impression that its elevation capabilities are quite extensive. Extensive enough to perhaps fire over the blast shield if required. Now, unless we're talking about a very extreme case of a missile taking a VERY steep dive at considerable height, such operation shouldn't even be required. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Quote

 

Challenger 2 trialled with ROSY, Iron Fist APS

James Bingham - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
16 November 2017

Rheinmetall’s ROSY rapid obscurant system has been demonstrated on a British Army Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT), Jane’s has learned, with components of Israeli Military Industries’ (IMI) Iron Fist hard-kill active protection system (APS) also understood to have been integrated.

Undergoing live firing trials in June, the ROSY system was used as a demonstrative rapid blooming obscurant for integration assessment and concept development. The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) procured one ROSY system for the purposes of examining how such an obscurant could be integrated onto the Challenger 2 as part of a soft-kill protection system, and potentially as part of the MBT’s Life Extension Project (LEP).ROSY is designed to provide a screen for vehicles. (Rheinmetall Defence Electronics GmbH) ROSY is designed to provide a screen for vehicles. (Rheinmetall Defence Electronics GmbH)

Beyond ROSY, the Medusa Technical Assessment Programme (TAP) is continuing to develop an understanding of how APS technologies could be integrated onto the Challenger 2, with the soft-kill Multifunction Self-Protection System (MUSS), manufactured by Hensoldt, undergoing integration work through the three-year TAP running from May 2016 to May 2019. This cross defence lines of development (DLOD) effort will culminate in live-fire testing and also lead to the development of relevant tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) for the system’s use.

Jane’s understands that a separate hard-kill APS study is also underway, run through a Defence, Equipment, & Support (DE&S) Framework Agreement for Technical Support (FATS) contract seeking to provide evidence for a potential larger procurement of such a system. This programme has seen funds invested from British Army Headquarters and there is collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology (DST) Group. The project will also develop safety case and installation evaluations for the system.

Representatives of IMI, speaking at the SMi Future Armoured Vehicles Survivability conference in London, shared photographs of the Challenger 2 fitted with the company’s heavy version of the Iron Fist, which comprises a pair of pedestal-mounted launchers for hard-kill effectors linked to radar and volumetric infrared sensors.

 

 

http://www.janes.com/article/75743/challenger-2-trialled-with-rosy-iron-fist-aps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

From the FY2017 DOT&E annual report released today.

 

Quote

- The Army selected Rafael Trophy APS to be installed and characterized on the Army Abrams M1A2 and Marine Corps M1A1 tanks.  The Trophy system engages incoming threats with a kinetic projectile intended to destroy the threat or cause early initiation.  The Abrams base armor is expected to be able to absorb threat residuals.  The Trophy APS adds approximately 5,000 pounds to the platform.  In addition to the installation of the Trophy system onto the tank, the Army has incorporated limited integration of the Trophy system into the tank’s situational awareness system.  
- The Army selected the IMI Systems Iron Fist to be installed and characterized on the Bradley.  The Iron Fist engages incoming threats with an explosive projectile intended to destroy or divert the threat, and adds approximately 450 pounds to the platform.  The fielded Bradley A3 does not generate sufficient power to operate the APS.  The Bradley A4, which is currently under development, does generate sufficient power, so power components from the Bradley A4 must be integrated into the APS test asset.

- The Army selected the Artis Iron Curtain to be installed and characterized on the Stryker.  The Iron Curtain engages incoming threats with a kinetic projectile intended to prevent function of the warhead.  The Iron Curtain adds approximately 5,700 pounds to the Stryker vehicle. 

 

Quote

The Army conducted Phase 1 Trophy live fire testing at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, from April through July 2017.  Live fire testing included a total of 46 test events.
-  Twenty-nine performance characterization tests on Abrams to demonstrate basic, vendor-claimed APS capabilities.  If the APS vendor did not project a successful engagement then the program manager either modified or eliminated the engagement.  These tests included seven collateral damage collection events (in conjunction with live threat-countermunition interaction) to assess the potential injury to dismounted soldiers from fragmentation produced during an APS engagement.
-  Eight tests to demonstrate APS performance in operationally relevant and stressing conditions to include three simultaneous (dual) threat engagement tests, two defilade tests, one elevated foliage test, and two tests with metallic clutter on the ground to assess potential radar interference.  The program manager deferred testing of one threat class, tests in urban environments and tests in rainy conditions, originally planned for Phase 1 to Phase 2.
-  Nine additional characterization tests on a Marine Corps M1A1 tank using inert rounds to determine APS system performance on a moving (vehicle and/or turret) platform.

 

Quote

- The June 2017 user assessment event identified a degradation in turret traverse performance resulting from an imbalance of the turret due to the additional weight of the Trophy system. The crew could not traverse the turret manually on slopes greater than 5 degrees and power traverse capability was degraded on slopes greater than 8 degrees.  Technical analysis indicated a high likelihood of delays between pulling the trigger and the main gun round actually firing.
-  The subsequent user testing in September 2017 identified several mitigations that reduced the degradation in turret traverse performance enough for crews to conduct combat operations with the additional weight, and the potential trigger delay problems were not observed during the event.  The Army has not made a final decision on the final configuration for mitigations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5,000 pounds and 5,700 pounds for the Trophy HV and Iron Curtain respectively?  That's roughly 2.2 tons and 2.5 tons. 

What on earth did they add there that increased the weight so much? Because the Trophy HV, as installed on the Merkava 4, or at least as advertised by RAFAEL, weighs ~800kg. 

But nevermind that. The Stryker, which is the lightest platform and is most weight-sensitive, takes an additional 2.5 tons because of the Iron Curtain?

At least the Iron Fist LC didn't see any platform-related weight increase to its base system weight. Maybe it would have been a better idea to use the Iron Fist on the Stryker as well, and reinvest the weight in a new turret or better armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

5,000 pounds and 5,700 pounds for the Trophy HV and Iron Curtain respectively?  That's roughly 2.2 tons and 2.5 tons. 

What on earth did they add there that increased the weight so much? Because the Trophy HV, as installed on the Merkava 4, or at least as advertised by RAFAEL, weighs ~800kg. 

 

But nevermind that. The Stryker, which is the lightest platform and is most weight-sensitive, takes an additional 2.5 tons because of the Iron Curtain?

At least the Iron Fist LC didn't see any platform-related weight increase to its base system weight. Maybe it would have been a better idea to use the Iron Fist on the Stryker as well, and reinvest the weight in a new turret or better armor.

1) i think armored housing of the system (those 2 big boxes on Abrams turret sides) are the reason of such weight. In Merkava 4 Trophy was installed inside of existing turret components.

 

2) At fist glance yes, Iron Fist looks to be better choice for light weight 8x8 APC. Is Iron Fist more dangerous for infantry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

1) i think armored housing of the system (those 2 big boxes on Abrams turret sides) are the reason of such weight. In Merkava 4 Trophy was installed inside of existing turret components.

 

2) At fist glance yes, Iron Fist looks to be better choice for light weight 8x8 APC. Is Iron Fist more dangerous for infantry?

1)That's not it. The Trophy on the Merkava doesn't cut into the armor modules, and has the exact same big boxes. It's just that because of the slope on the turret side on the Merkava it's more seamless. 

It seems to me at least, that the Trophy module on the Abrams is larger than that of the Merkava.

 

2)Theoretically, yes. Because it has a detonation mechanism at the interception phase, and not prior like the Trophy/Iron Curtain/ADS. But it was chosen for the Bradley, which is also an APC/IFV, so the threat was perhaps seen as small. I also believe that APS are the lesser danger, as an ATGM/RPG detonating on the tank possess a much larger danger to surrounding infantry than an APS that defeats the warhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...