Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
asaf

Active Protection System (APS) for tanks

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't think there will ever be a case where an ATGM will have a longer range than the radar of the launcher-based APS. It's just not economical. I don't know about the radars on the Iron Fist (original one) and Trophy, but there were talks of the Afganit's radar being able to track aircraft because of its high range of 100km or so, and that they wanted to reduce the range by a bit. 

 

I however think that most radar systems used for active protection systems can be outranged by modern ATGMs. Take for example Iron Fist: the system makes use of the RPS-10 radar from RADA. The same company lists in a document the range at which the RPS-42 radar panels  - which are physicially larger and consume more energy, therefore they should have a greater range - can spot "short range missiles" up to a distance of 5 kilometres. Iron Fists' RPS-10 and also the ELM-2133 from ELTa should have a shorter range, simply based on panel size. Even the RPS-42 is too short-ranged to properly spot the launch location of modern ATGMs like Kornet-EM, Spike-ER, Spike-LR 2 etc. fired from the maximum possible distance.

 

Afganits radar might very well be able to track large aircrafts at a distance of 100 kilometres, but ATGMs are much smaller and therefore harder to track. The RPS-42 radar can spot and track heavy transport aircraft at a distance of 50 km and fighter aircraft at a distance of 25 km according to RADA. The smaller the target, the shorter the distance.

 

I think using a radar for tracking the launch location of an ATGM makes sense for the IDF, who frankly are not expecting to fight against enemies with high capacity electronic warfare systems in the near future. So there is really no downside to having larger radar detection ranges. For countries in other geopolitical situations I would suggest a combination of APS with short-ranged radar and other sensor systems, such as optical sensors, acustic sensors and laser warning systems, to detect the location of enemy ATGM squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to recheck some data on the radars but even with a spotting range of 5km, it's still very useful against any 2nd gen ATGM and to a high degree also 3rd gen unless it was fired above an obstacle, which is not usually the case (team still has to visually acquire target).

 

Trying to jam or track such radars (I'll even throw in a cool word "AESA". damn sounds good) is too much of a task to worry about, unless someone can put a jamming system on an ATGM which is a fun idea.

 

Optical sensors are nice but are not too useful in high intensity fighting unless you want them monitoring only a small area (i.e short range).

 

Last but not least, inofficially, the IDF is making strides to counter Russia's local, very advanced EW capabilities. More officially, Iran, Syria, and proxies now have some powerful EW tools to aid them, and overall for the past more than 10 years the main preparations were for a fight in a medium to high intensity warfare.

The days of fighting ragtag militia armed with AKs and at best a couple RPG-7's, are long, long over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radar ranges from manufacturers, unless specified to a greater degree than they normally do, are pretty useless numbers.

 

There is the difference between the range where a radar can detect a target vs. the range that a radar can track a target vs. the range that the radar can give a fire control solution on the target.  There is also a question of what the RCS of the target is, and how much EM interference the radar is operating in, and whether the target is above or below the horizon.

Also, you can't necessarily rule of thumb "tracking range will be x% of detection range, and lock on range will be x% of tracking range."  Doesn't work like that.  You can optimize a radar for excellent detection, but very poor tracking (e.g. early warning radars).  Some early SAM systems had multiple radars, and this is part of why.

Unless they specify, the manufacturer is probably quoting a best-case scenario so their numbers look good because that way politicians and other cretins will be impressed by their high and useless numbers.

That said, if the goal of the system is to neutralize enemy munitions at as long a distance as possible (very important if intercepting APFSDS is a design goal), then radar will outperform passive sensors by a lot.  Radar gives direct range information, IIR, UV and other passive electroptical sensors do not.  Radar sensors can also cover a wider area than IIR sensors, which have to trade off resolution or angular coverage in a way radar does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Denel is testing improved interceptors against heavy ATGMs and KE penetrators. Previously the cooperated with SAAB (delivering the interceptors for the LEDS-150 APS), but it was canceled after nobody wanted to fund it.

Wait, so they're using an APS missile for a C-RAM, or a C-RAM's missile for an APS? Either way, sounds like quite a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese APS "Raptor" (GL-5)

https://dambiev.livejournal.com/1212461.html

7591936egy1fsd05q38vij20ku0sewib.jpg

 

Quote

Active protection complex "Raptor" (GL-5). Destruction of incoming ATGMs and heavier tactical missiles is carried out by specialized small-size missiles of an ultra-short range type that are triggered by the small multifunctional radar operating in the Ka-band of millimeter waves.

 

Module and some stats:

Spoiler

7591936egy1fsd05qi8ydj20ku0sen19.jpg

 

7591936egy1fsd05qxseej20ku0s6n1h.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, and RAFAEL today announced the contract it won, worth $193 million for the supply of an unspecified amount of Trophy systems.

It is understood however that each system costs $300,000 for Israel, I believe in 2012-numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iid=160223#folio=18

 

I think this one puts the last nail in the coffin of the Raytheon-sparked myth that Trophy is dangerous to nearby infantry.

Apparently, the 48 live firing tests included also tests for survivability of nearby infantry, and once again the tests conclude there is no serious threat, and in line with probably in excess of a hundred of tests and live firing by RAFAEL, the IDF, and in actual combat.

 

Not at all less importantly, DTR claims the US's choice of Trophy is basically a guarantee that Australia will be a 2nd happy buyer. And this (my take already) definitely impacts the LAND 400 program in which an APS is one of two (the other is ATGMs) technologies that are reviewed independently of the program and could be selected for use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in one APS take together all the worse parts from Drozd and Arena APS?

 

Hello in Poland and it's military industry!

 

https://www.facebook.com/wojskoitechnika/videos/1749447418443845/

 

http://militarium.net/polski-zintegrowany-automatyczny-system-obrony-pojazdu-koncepcja-aktywnej-obrony-wozow-bojowych/

 

thanks God this project was closed.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

Sorry if it appeared already somewhere in the forums since it's already pre Eurosatory news:

IBD: defeating tandem warhead with SMART-PROTech

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/ibd-defeating-tandem-warhead-with-smart-protech
 

 

Yes it has appeared here but thanks anyway for the additional insight in the article as well as the new photo. Also, I really hoped it would garner more interest in this forum. I found this particular system to be very interesting - Brilliantly simple, yet potentially extremely effective.

It's one of very few things I could look at and be boggled by how I did not think about this, or anything even close to this.

 

What I extracted from the article is that it has a comparable weight as ERA. Not quite sure what they meant by that since ERA can have all sorts of weight classes. It can be really light if you're talking about small bricks like Kontakt-1, or it can be substantially heavier if you talk about ERA rated for STANAG 4569 level 6, which can be quite heavy in order to defeat a tungsten rod.

 

I also wrote about it here, one might say, excessively excitedly. It really does have an amazing potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Yes it has appeared here but thanks anyway for the additional insight in the article as well as the new photo. Also, I really hoped it would garner more interest in this forum. I found this particular system to be very interesting - Brilliantly simple, yet potentially extremely effective.

It's one of very few things I could look at and be boggled by how I did not think about this, or anything even close to this.

 

What I extracted from the article is that it has a comparable weight as ERA. Not quite sure what they meant by that since ERA can have all sorts of weight classes. It can be really light if you're talking about small bricks like Kontakt-1, or it can be substantially heavier if you talk about ERA rated for STANAG 4569 level 6, which can be quite heavy in order to defeat a tungsten rod.

 

I also wrote about it here, one might say, excessively excitedly. It really does have an amazing potential.

My biggest point against it is: If you can initiate the ERA with the impact from the warhead, you can initiate the warhead with the same impact.  And wouldn't that completely negate the whole system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

My biggest point against it is: If you can initiate the ERA with the impact from the warhead, you can initiate the warhead with the same impact.  And wouldn't that completely negate the whole system?

 

I think that with that kind of system, it would mean that this ERA would need to work even faster than an APS.

The ERA tile need to detect that the sensor has been triggered, set off the charge and aggress the incoming warhead even before the jet had the time to form.

 

I don't really know what kind of speed we are talking about put probably way below the ms for the entire chain of events.

In comparison this system would probably have an easier time dealing with kinetic penetrators (even if they are already in contact you could still try to break and tilt them).

 

Finally that kind of system would also probably be quite useless against ATGM setting off on proximity fuse (on way or the other).

 

So it's certainly a good idea as the whole system is passive (which is an advantage in electronic warfare), probably quite cheap and can deal with several type of threats.

It is interesting on it's own, but like Zuk I feel that it is the most interesting when incorporated in a layered defense.

 

However the technological hurdles to make that technology a reality probably weren't small and that may be why we see it appearing only now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

My biggest point against it is: If you can initiate the ERA with the impact from the warhead, you can initiate the warhead with the same impact.  And wouldn't that completely negate the whole system?

If we are a bit nitpicky with the wording of the articles and draw conclusions from it: Only tandem-charges are mentioned and the destruction of the main warheadand furthermore it is mentioned that the system is designed for heavy vehicles ( with a healthy amount of armor beneath it). So: Could the tiny delay between the precursor and the maincharge be enough to defeat the latter? Furthermore is it a viable idea to apply an active armor part that only works against tandem-charges and is the passive (blue) part plus the base armor enough to defeat single-charges (e.g. PzF3 700mm/ Milan 2 880mm)...doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×