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

Active Protection System (APS) for tanks

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I don't understand. Wasn't the total $193 mil just a couple months ago? Is $200 mil the new total or is it added for a total of $393 mil?

 

EDIT: Seems it's an added number. So it's almost $400 mil worth of contracts.

 

Below the announcement is additional info that says in total Rafael is under contract to produce 1,500 systems, of which 1,000 are for Israel and presumably 500 for the US. Not a bad number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have there been tests using APS to protect against guided bombs and other aerial munitions, or is it just assumed the APS can handle it if it can defeat top-down ATGMs? 

Share this post


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

Have there been tests using APS to protect against guided bombs and other aerial munitions, or is it just assumed the APS can handle it if it can defeat top-down ATGMs? 

   I don't think that any current APS for AFVs can deal with those things reliably as their primary targets are RPGs and ATGMs, which are smaller and easier to damage projectiles than a bomb. Self-guided EFP bomblets usually detonate at way higher ranges than APS interception zone. 

Share this post


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

Have there been tests using APS to protect against guided bombs and other aerial munitions, or is it just assumed the APS can handle it if it can defeat top-down ATGMs? 

If you're talking about typical iron shells, then I guess it's possible for any APS with elevation. But then there's the aspect of artillery shells landing 20 meters or farther from AFVs, in which case no APS can properly defeat them. For that reason I think companies are very careful about marketing their APS when it comes to artillery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-showcases-vehicle-active-protection-system-for-the-us-army



Using its Passive Infrared Cueing Sensors system, Northrop Grumman successfully generated threat warning of inbound ATGMs and provided a cue for the soft kill countermeasure system (SKCM).

The Northrop Grumman SKCM system, known as the Multifunction Electro-Optical System (MEOS), successfully countered the ATGM and defeated it in real-time. The MEOS identified and countered all types of threats fired at its APS system, making this the fourth consecutive time the system has performed well in field tests to defeat threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2018 at 1:13 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe it was reported quite a while ago by Rafael officials in 2017's MSPO (September 2017).

First report was by Shephard.

 

Quote

Rafael to Trial TROPHY APS for LEOPARD 2

Rafael Advanced Defense Systems is expected to trial its TROPHY active protection system (APS) on the LEOPARD 2 main battle tank (MBT) this year, an industry source has confirmed to MONCh.

While details are still scarce owing to sensitivities around the testing, it is understood that Rafael is working in conjunction with LEOPARD 2 manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann for the trials, which are expected to take place this year.

The details were disclosed at the International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) event in Twickenham, London, held on 22 January.

It is not known whether the testing is driven by a particular customer requirement, but it is a sign that Rafael is keen to prove that the increasingly popular APS technology can integrate onto one of the world’s most prolific main battle tanks.

TROPHY has already achieved success in both Israel and US. The US Army will soon equip every M1A2 in four armoured brigades with TROPHY after successful trials of the missile-defeating technology.

The integration of TROPHY onto the LEOPARD 2 will give operators additional choice of APS technologies for the platform. Rheinmetall Active Protection has already sold its Active Defence System to one undisclosed LEOPARD 2 customer. Both companies are also currently competing to provide an APS solution for the US Army’s STRYLER 8x8 fleet.

At this year’s IAV, Rafael also unveiled possible TROPHY configurations for the BOXER 8x8

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4835-rafael-trophy-aps-for-leopard-2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Wouldn't that reduce the protection from sabot rounds?

Along a portion of the sides, yes. But that's an acceptable compromise in return for practically immunity to ATGM.

 

The important bit in that image though, and in the article, is that it's Rafael's demonstration of its key technologies for future combat vehicles, or speficially the Kali'a (or Carmel). You can see a panoramic camera in an armored case that feeds into a set of wide screens.

 

You guys remember that really poorly edited video about the Carmel? Well the Carmel shown there was based on Rafael's proposed technologies, not Elbit's or IAI's.

Share this post


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

You can see a panoramic camera in an armored case that feeds into a set of wide screens.

 

Could it be APS sensors for passive detection?

Share this post


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

 

Could it be APS sensors for passive detection?

Nope. The APS detects threats via the radar. 

The optics are for a 360 degrees vision system, but through image processing technologies are supposed to identify threats, and receive data on threats via BMS.

 

 

Share this post


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

Nope. The APS detects threats via the radar. 

 

Iron Fist has passive sensors for "stealth" mode. It will be good if Rafael integrates them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Trophy stronk, seems to be a replacement for the turret face wedges.

 

This is a 3D rendering from Rafael showing the Leopard 2A7 with UrbOp (urban operations) armor package, which is being offered by KMW. It replaces the original frontal add-on modules with lighter & thinner to allow adopting add-on armor modules to the side of the hull and turret while still remaining relatively low weight.

 

Germany decided against this solution and instead kept the DuelOp (duel operations) armor package for the Leopard 2A7(V), which is focused on protection against KE longrod penetrators and ATGMs along the frontal arc. To this the add-on armor interface was added, allowing to install the same side armor modules (KMW's proposal didn't seem to include this, because they IIRC wanted to sell both UrbOp and DuelOp to Germany). The same armor configuration (DuelOp + add-on interfaces from UrbOp) was also adopted by Qatar and Denmark.

 

X8U6cXj.jpg

Leopard 2A7+ DuelOp prototype

 

Leopard-2-A7-729x486-8b4c1eab315becfa.jp

Leopard 2A7+ UrbOp prototype

 

The UrbOp armor package was however install in parts on the Leopard 2A4M CAN. The frontal armor modules are a lot thinner and hollow (AFAIK they are storing 7.62 mm ammunition inside them), though it has been speculated that they could be filled with armor modules if required.

 

006.jpg

 

The German Leopard 2A6M variant is the most likely to be sent to VJTF 2023, so unless for some reasons the frontal armor is downgraded, Trophy will be installed elsewhere (I'd expect a similar configuration to the M1A2 SEP v2 and Merkava 4M).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting this here.

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018aps.pdf

 

Quote

Iron Curtain APS

• Phase I live fire testing demonstrated an improved ability of the Iron Curtain system to intercept incoming threats compared to prior DOT&E tests (held in 2011) and ground combat vehicle tests (held in 2014). However, damaging effects to the Stryker vehicle base armor occurred regularly even with successful intercepts. An upgrade to the baseline armor will be necessary if this APS is to be employed on a Stryker vehicle. The Army has also observed other limitations regarding performance in low light and simulated rainy conditions. Consequently, the Army is pursuing other systems for Stryker.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Iron Fist APS

 

• Phase I Iron Fist live fire and user testing was completed in 2018. Preliminary assessment by the Army was that the system demonstrated an inconsistent capability to intercept threats. Counter-munition dudding and power failures to the launcher were leading contributors to the low intercept rate. The Program Offi ce has been working with the vendor on design improvements to address the system performance shortcomings. Some prospective solutions have been implemented and will be tested in Phase II.

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018aps.pdf


Now we have a better idea as to why the IDF was reluctant to select IMI Iron Fist and paid for more R&D and improvements themself . Trophy was and still is more mature and efficient. The good news is that the US army kept her faith in the Iron Fist and asked IMI to improve several shortcomings thus benefiting all the other futur operators of this APS

Share this post


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


Now we have a better idea as to why the IDF was reluctant to select IMI Iron Fist and paid for more R&D and improvements themself . Trophy was and still is more mature and efficient. The good news is that the US army kept her faith in the Iron Fist and asked IMI to improve several shortcomings thus benefiting all the other futur operators of this APS

The IDF was not reluctant about the Iron Fist's selection. Trophy met the needs in the given time, and Iron Fist didn't. The competition was thus very short. 

Any future attempt at acquisition did not take into account Iron Fist's maturity because the IDF (probably) were sure of IMI's capability to bring their product to sufficient maturity if given the funding and assurance that the army will buy their product, and support them all the way. 

In fact, despite the revelation of issues about the interceptor unit specifically, the IDF requested that the pairing of the Trophy and Iron Fist be done by pairing the computer, sensors package, and data fusion technologies of the Trophy, with the interceptor unit of the Iron Fist.

 

Additionally, the IDF is now testing the Iron Fist in its IF-LC version for light vehicles.

 

Keep in mind this report talks specifically about the system which was presented to the US Army - the IF-LC, which is not identical to the original Iron Fist, which is now dubbed IF-MBT. The real focus of the changes was the power supply to the entire system, and smaller interceptors. So the described issues may be relevant to the IF-LC alone, not necessarily the entire family.

 

IMI, now Elbit, had to put the IF-LC on the market very quickly in order to compete with the Trophy. Any further delay and Rafael would snatch the entire western APS market. Better have a somewhat faulty system that the world can see and consider, than have a mature and perfected one when everyone has already made their mind. From a marketing point of view at least.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...