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

Active Protection System (APS) for tanks

Recommended Posts

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 was under the impression that the main warhead has a special delay to allow the precursor to initiate the ERA and make sure the flyer plate is gone.

If that is the case, then the charges striking the main warhead should react faster than the time it takes the fuse to activate the warhead.

There is no computer here, no electronics. The ERA has the minimal possible delay, as it uses an impact fuse. 

Warhead gets perforated and thus cannot form a jet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I was under the impression that the main warhead has a special delay to allow the precursor to initiate the ERA and make sure the flyer plate is gone.

If that is the case, then the charges striking the main warhead should react faster than the time it takes the fuse to activate the warhead.

There is no computer here, no electronics. The ERA has the minimal possible delay, as it uses an impact fuse. 

Warhead gets perforated and thus cannot form a jet.

Ninja'd the answer. ;)

 

To the best of my knowledge there's no delay between the precursor and main charge. The space between the precursor and main charge should be enough to get the flyer plates out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 9:45 PM, Ramlaen said:
Someone responded to Damian tweeting that picture I found in a RADA brochure.

 

Ah, this is where that Iron Fist clip came from.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Not really. The domain is still "ADS-something", and they refer to the product as ADS practically everywhere. They only changed the company's name, not the product's. 

 

They just haven't finished replacing ADS with RAP at all places (or they replaced ADS too often). Take a look at the menu titles on the product page: "RAP functional principle", "RAP development" and "RAP series production".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trophy from way back when it was still tested without the autoloader.

Screenshot_1.png

 

An interesting video about Trophy and the US's decision-making, that shows just how little contact even the most relevant bodies may have with the industries they're working with, which I believe could be both very easily fixed, and seriously hampers in my opinion, their capability to plan for the future.

I hope this is something the Futures Command will be able to fix.

 

The video is courtesy of..... Mike Sparks...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Trophy on the Merkava IV (via otvaga forum):

 

QEQPllwEbIk.jpg

 

Note that the APS does indeed replace some of the side armor (which can be seen in the lack of bolts required to hold the NERA panels and also the hatch that is visible at the bottom).

 

On the armor modules, there are normally lots of small bolts in that location:

 

b6b4850f1f53986f3cc306dc88eb50f6.jpg

merkava-22big.jpg

 

I guess that explains to some extend why Trophy on the M1 Abrams seems to be so much larger...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right but the Abrams' Trophy modules are also longer, not just wide, which means there is still a size difference.

 

And I can't tell what that piece behind the launcher is, right before the bustle. It only seems to exist on the right side of the turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's the processing unit? Other APS also make use of only a single central computer system to deal with multiple launchers and sensors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Stryker with the Iron Curtain seriously look like an agricultural vehicle meant to spray insecticide on a farmer's crops. Seriously, I've never seen an APS so ungainly.

 

Speaking of weird APSes, I remember at one point AMRDEC was studying an airbag-type APS (called ABAPS) concept for US AFVs that was only rated for RPGs (ATGMs were understandably too much). Was it ever tested in real life or did the engineers fail to go past the laughing-out-loud phase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Take this my dude:

Spoiler

Fear of going toe-to-toe in a land battle with the Russian military has US Army leaders laying out plans to field a much delayed technology that could protect soldiers inside ground vehicles from incoming rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided weapons. One proposed technology, though, Artis' Iron Curtain is now out of the running. 

 

After months of speculation, Col Glenn Dean — the project manager Stryker Brigade Combat Team and APS acquisition — confirmed that the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) has decided that Iron Curtain will no longer participate in the initiative to rapidly equip ground vehicles with an Active Protection Systems (APS).

 

'We finally received a final decision out of the army in August and that decision was not to move forward with the Iron Curtain,' Dean said on a media call.

 

'Although we observed that the system generally worked in concept and generally was able to hit its targets, it was significantly immature [and] would have required a significant time and investment to get it to maturity level where it was ready to rapidly field none of which was in the scope of our programme,' he added.

 

At press time, Artis' had not immediately responded for a comment. 

 

For nearly a decade-and-a-half, the service has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with various APS for its family of ground vehicles. Now, as the Pentagon zeros in on potential violent contingencies with the Russian and Chinese militaries, service leaders say they are committed to rapidly fielding the capability. 

 

'It is it is a priority for the service,' Army Secretary Mark Esper told Shephard during an 25 April interview. 'We'll  procure any technology that kind of delivers best value whether it's US industry, foreign industry. If the marines invent it, it doesn't matter. We need to get the best the best value for our soldiers.'

 

The service has been testing three APS systems — Artis' Iron Curtain on its Strykers, IMI Systems’ Iron Fist system on the M2 Bradley and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems' Trophy on Abrams.

 

So far, only Trophy has gotten the green flag to proceed and in June Leonardo announced that it has been awarded a $193 million to integrate the capability on Abrams tanks. Dean said that Trophy will begin final qualification testing in September and the service expects to begin deploying it on Abrams by 2020.

 

IMI Systems’ Iron Fist, meanwhile, is still going through live fire and automotive characterisation testing but has experienced some weather-related delays at the range. An Iron Fist decision is slated for Q1 of  FY 2019.

 

As one system moves forward, one is cut and one continues to move through testing, the army is preparing to evaluate other options after lawmakers allocated $25 million for the testing of additional APS technologies.

 

The lawmakers' move could be an avenue to circumvent what's known as an earmark ban by not specifying a specific company, instead it forces the service to consider a range of options such as a solution from a German company ADS, part of the Rheinmetall Group.

 

In addition to the potential Rheinmetall option, Rafael is pushing a light version of its system dubbed Trophy VPS. 

 

Dean said that the modified version could be a contender for the follow on effort and noted that he would send team members to Israel later this month for a demonstration of the capability. 

 

As APS efforts move forward, service leaders are also being told to layout an APS roadmap.

 

In the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act, Army Secretary Mark Esper is required to submit a report to lawmakers detailing APS technology plans for armoured combat and tactical vehicles. 

 

More specifically, lawmakers want an assessment of the APS 'effectiveness' on all three vehicles, as well as plans to 'further' test the systems, future development plans and a fielding timeline. Looking down the road, they also want to hear about army plans to incorporate APS into new armoured combat and tactical vehicle designs, like Mobile Protection Firepower, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the Next Generation Combat Vehicle.

 

This is not the first time lawmakers have waded into the APS arena.

Back in the mid-2000s, in fact, the service had duelling efforts to field a system capable of shooting down incoming RPGs — Trophy under the Full-Spectrum Effects Weapon Systems initiative (nicknamed Project Sheriff) and a Raytheon option under the ill-fated Future Combat System (FCS). 

 

Helmed by the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation, Project Sheriff was an initiative to equip Stryker vehicles with a variety of lethal and non-lethal capabilities. At the time, some military leaders and Raytheon made a public push to block the service from fielding Trophy. 

 

'Some programmes were very threatened, as we found out,' said retired US Marine Corps Col Wade Hall, who at the time was heading up Project Sheriff and is now a consultant backing Trophy.

 

'The FCS programme, in particular, got very threatened by [Trophy] because here we were demonstrating an active protection system on the move and they were…about just a lot of PowerPoint slides,' he explained during a 25 July interview with Shephard.  'Time had a way of you know just proving points, even though you had you know retired army officers going on television trying to discredit Sheriff effort and the APS.'

 

As the Pentagon moved out with Trophy testing under Project Sheriff, Raytheon was developing an APS system, now called Quick Kill, under the army's key modernisation programme, FCS. 

 

During a September 2006 House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, Robert Buhrkuhl, the-then director of the Pentagon's Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell and Maj Gen Jeffrey Sorenson, then the army’s deputy for acquisition and systems management, testified that several factors played into the service’s decision not to field the Trophy APS system. The main reasons were the Trophy's technology readiness level and the two-star said Trophy would not be as efficient as Raytheon's because it would not have 360-degree coverage or an auto loader.

 

At the time, Sorenson also noted that the RPG threat was considerably less than reported. 

 

'Of the 148 killed in action, 63 were RPG only; the remaining KIAs were the result of complex attacks involving an RPG and some other kind of weapon,' Sorenson wrote in his opening statement to the panel.

 

While the wars in Afghanistan and to an extent in Iraq continue to persist in 2018, the Pentagon is now pivoting its focus away from counter insurgency operations and honing preparations for a more conventional fight with Russia and China. The shift has facilitated the push to rapidly equip and field army ground vehicles with APS capabilities. 

 

'The forcing factor of 2018 verses 2007 has been the current global threat that we now have come to face and realise in how we need to have solutions to our capability gaps,' Hall said. 'Real solutions that we can employ as quickly as we can and get them out to the warfighters.' 

 

EDIT:

  1. Seems Trophy was, as shown previously, supposed to enter service more than a decade ago but failed to do so due to Raytheon's lobbying.
  2. Trophy VPS is said to be demonstrated on a Bradley this month (August), according to Defensenews, but is said in the context of the Stryker's Iron Curtain. If we also consider that the Trophy VPS is mounted on a turret that could be integrated to the Stryker as well, plus the fact that Israel already has several Stryker vehicles but no Brandons that we know of, then it is very possible that the demonstration will include a Stryker as well.
  3. ADS may be in a tough spot right now, as the slot for a new APS is being contested by RAFAEL's Trophy VPS for the Bradford and Stryker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2018 at 11:27 PM, SH_MM said:

There was a "Tactical RPG Airbag Protection System" made by Textron. It was tested.

Do you remind of a former system wich was supposed to intercept aggressor with a metallic net ? Maybe, it was called retiarius.

Share this post


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

EDIT:

  1. Seems Trophy was, as shown previously, supposed to enter service more than a decade ago but failed to do so due to Raytheon's lobbying.
  2. Trophy VPS is said to be demonstrated on a Bradley this month (August), according to Defensenews, but is said in the context of the Stryker's Iron Curtain. If we also consider that the Trophy VPS is mounted on a turret that could be integrated to the Stryker as well, plus the fact that Israel already has several Stryker vehicles but no Brandons that we know of, then it is very possible that the demonstration will include a Stryker as well.
  3. ADS may be in a tough spot right now, as the slot for a new APS is being contested by RAFAEL's Trophy VPS for the Bradford and Stryker. 

 

The timing really couldn't be better for Rafael with their Trophy equipped turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In November they plan on testing an APS with KEP defeat capability.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/army-rejects-iron-curtain-aps-for-stryker-launches-new-programs/

 

Quote

Under congressional direction, this November the Army will test some APS against “tank-fired long rod kinetic energy penetrators as well,” Glenn said, but “I’ll be surprised if we find anything that’s ready.”

 

The only companies currently capable of demonstrating anti-KEP capability are Rafael, Elbit, and Rheinmetall.

 

============================================================================================================================

 

In the same demonstration they also want to see alternatives to the Iron Curtain for the Stryker.

Quote

The Army announced this morning that it has rejected Artis LLC’s Iron Curtain active protection system but will test alternatives in November on its 8×8 Stryker armored vehicle.

Pretty much same contenders as above, only in lighter versions.

 

============================================================================================================================

 

And new armor tiles, laser warning system, and camouflage.

Quote

The Army also will launch three new programs to develop additional types of protection for its armored vehicles, all of which should be fielded by 2022:

  • New advanced reactive armor tiles that layer on top of a vehicle’s hull armor and explode outward when hit to neutralize impacting warheads.
  • A laser early warning system to warn a vehicle crew when they’ve been marked by a laser rangefinder or laser beam guidance used by anti-tank weapons.
  • A signature management effort to reduce the heat, noise, electromagnetic energy, and radar signature that armored vehicles create so they’ll be harder to detect and target in the first place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This dude (which is such a bore to hear) said something a little interesting at 3:23:

"We are looking at the future APS of the US Army as well, it's going to be installed on IDF vehicles, and we have 2 other launch customers around the world that have already decided on this system".

 

So, the fact that it's going to be installed on future IDF vehicles should be no surprise to ya'll. It's not going to be the full system, only the interceptors. They'll be used on the Merkava 4 Barak first, and will intercept KEPs, and the rest of the stuff will be Rafael and IAI.

It's dubbed 'Trophy 2' by some, though I believe it will only be a real progress if they manage to install an auto-loading system for it as well, plus a larger ammo capacity, because a total of 4 interceptors per vehicle, with 2 per side, is just abysmal, especially considering the IDF has just reduced the platoon size from 3 to 2.

If they install an auto-loader this will appease the Zucc.

 

But he talks about it in a way that suggest they're pushing for that same APS for the US Army as well. Not for the current competition, but definitely something for the overall MAPS effort.

 

Plus, two customers now? I only know of the Netherlands. Wonder who's the other dude. My bet would be..... Norway.

Share this post


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

Plus, two customers now? I only know of the Netherlands. Wonder who's the other dude. My bet would be..... Norway.

 

Czechs.

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  

×