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

Active Protection System (APS) for tanks

Recommended Posts

On 2/17/2019 at 4:58 PM, Serge said:

 

 

More details:

Quote
Rheinmetall-Integrated-Protection-800x44

IDEX 2019: Rheinmetall introduces hybrid protection modules for vehicles

17 February 2019

By Paolo Valpolini

In a stand mostly dedicated to protection, “Force Protection is our Mission” was the slogan for the 2019 edition of IDEX, the German Rheinmetall Group unveiled a hybrid protection module that integrates the ADS active protection system elements into a passive armour, the aim being that of reducing the weight impact of the ADS. The traditional way to install the ADS on board vehicles needed a heavy interface system between the vehicle itself and the system, something that Rheinmetall defines as parasitic weight. The Business Unit Protection Systems, part of the Weapons and Munitions Division of Rheinmetall, decided to develop a new configuration where the final sensors of the ADS system as well as its effector were embedded into the passive armour. This is made of an external ballistic plate providing Level 2 protection, which both protects the system sensors as well as the vehicle; a plastic cover hides the effector, as this has to generate its energy blade and cannot thus be installed behind an armour. As it is made of insensitive explosive it does not represents a danger should it be hit by a round, while in most cases even after being hit it would work anyway, even in a degraded mode. Beside the effector, which is lodged in a recess which bottom side is made of armour plate also providing Level 2 protection,  we find two small openings; behind the first one to the right we find the laser emitter the laser emitter, while the receiver is behind the second one. The sensors and the energetic effector all look left, thus protecting the module on that side. Each module is interfaced with one of the radar sensors that provide all round pre-warning, the system assigning the threat to one of the modules. A spacer between the front and back plate provides the space for installing ADS components, these being installed on a light interface structure; the combination of the front and back plates allows to increase protection up to Level 5. This integrated passive/active solution allows to spare around 50% of the ADS weight, the passive armour getting a slight increase, so by the end the overall saving is of about 35% compared to a non-integrated solution. The modules need to be linked to the vehicle power system; however Rheinmetall is already thinking at a self-powered version containing a battery, that should last 24 hours, thus further reducing the integration issues of those modules on a vehicle. The system has been qualified against Level 2 ballistic threats and is considered to be at TRL 6. Rheinmetall intends to bring it to TRL 8 in the next 18 months, so we should probably see some of those modules integrated into real vehicles at Eurosatory 2020.

Photo by Paolo Valpolini

 

- https://www.edrmagazine.eu/idex-2019-rheinmetall-introduces-hybrid-protection-modules-for-vehicles

 

Integrating ADS in the armor saves 50% weight compared to the existing version; some of this weight saving is used for the armor plating providing STANAG level 5 protection (or at least it is possible to reach this level; front and back plate each of the integrated ADS version both provide STANAG level 2 protection and act as spaced armor). When this module does not replace the existing side armor, the addition of the new armor plates reduce the weight saving to about 35%. For operating without a connection to the internal power, an alternative is being planned/developed utilizing a battery for 24 hours of operation.

 

Share this post


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

-video-

 

I don't really get the logic behind using a surrogate turret, if all RPGs and ATGMs aren't aimed at the vehicle. The fragments flying to the side didn't penetrate the simulated turret armor? But what is with the long shaped charge jet created by the MILAN ATGM after interception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

I don't really get the logic behind using a surrogate turret, if all RPGs and ATGMs aren't aimed at the vehicle. The fragments flying to the side didn't penetrate the simulated turret armor? But what is with the long shaped charge jet created by the MILAN ATGM after interception?

I think it's important to show residual damage caused by the defeated warhead, and demonstrate that external and sensitive equipment on the turret will not be damaged, or at least its damage can be prevented with a very minimal level of armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/04/02/us-army-needs-another-year-to-pick-protection-system-for-stryker/

 

US Army needs another year to pick an APS for the Stryker.

The two runners are Rafael's Trophy VPS, and Rheinmetall's StrikeShield, formerly known as ADS. 

Both demonstrated their capabilities in the rodeo, and now what's left is to integrate them on the Stryker for continued demonstrations.

However, neither system appears to be disqualified just yet. The author reiterates they want to test both systems more in depth, but hints again at the budgetary issues behind the decision, and that the army could be forced to make a selection at the demonstration phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=47b5d85208ddd3a9325df2be3442b11c&tab=core&_cview=0



The U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) - New Jersey 07806-5000, in support of the Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center, is conducting a market survey to understand industry capability to provide a vehicle-based tracking and fire control sensor capable of providing fire-control quality data to a hard-kill countermeasure (HKCM) system. This will enable the defeat of threats at a standoff distance that reduces or mitigates collateral damage risk to dismounted soldiers. This requires tracking of small projectiles, RPGs, anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), Kinetic Energy (KE) weapons, small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and/or Sensor-fused Munitions, etc.

 

The tactical fire control sensor (including but not limited to radar, Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR), active/passive) would be vehicle mounted (configurable to be mounted onto Army Ground Combat vehicles including High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), Bradley, Stryker, Abrams, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), and next generation combat vehicles). It must be small, lightweight, affordable, and would be suitable for stationary and on-the-move operations.

 

As a result of issuing this Request for Information (RFI), the Government is requesting to receive white papers describing proposed concepts and technologies. The RFI responses should identify sensor designs that will support the Armaments Center system concept and include a credible development path, with estimates provided on costs and timeline. The subject matter may be considered a "critical technology" and therefore, subject to ITAR restrictions.

 


Threshold Requirements 
-Ability to detect and track multiple inbound and outbound targets while on the move.
-Ability to simultaneously detect and track inbound threats at a range between 50m and 2km, as well as outbound projectiles used for engagements.
-Track accuracy should be sufficient to provide fire control quality data to HKCM enabling the defeat of threats.

 

-Must detect and track target classes to include small-Radar cross-section (RCS) classes of targets, Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (RAM), Rocket propelled grenade (RPG), Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM), and kinetic energy weapons.
-Sensor coverage should be hemispherical (360-degree azimuth coverage, 0-90 degree elevation coverage).
-Must be able to operate with real-time search-quality cues from external sources to the vehicle. Vendors should define or parameterize the external surveillance cue basket required to enable rapid/efficient track acquisition. 
-Must communicate target data to an external system in real-time. 
-Ability to become Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) and Modular APS Framework (MAF) compliant.

 

Objective Requirements
- When operating without an external real-time surveillance cue, solutions should include an independent capability to detect the threat and provide the required cue.
-Ability to provide command guidance to a munition-based or other counter-measures.
-Provide position, velocity, time (PVT), and information to closed loop Fire Control System (FCS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British MoD to acquire an Iron Fist Light Decoupled APS for evaluation:


https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:220932-2019:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0
 

Quote

As part of a wider study of the Armoured Vehicle Active Protection System (APS) concept, UK MOD has a requirement to improve its knowledge and baseline its understanding of an integrated grenade launcher based APS. To satisfy this requirement, the Defence Equipment and Support Technology Office intends to procure an IMI Iron Fist Light Decoupled Hard Kill APS from Elbit Systems UK Ltd for testing and evaluation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

K2's APS (in development)

ezgif.com-crop.gif

 

From what I remember, it's supposed to be a hybrid between something like the Trophy and Iron Fist, in that it uses an MEFP warhead inside a grenade.

XK-2_PROJ2.jpg

 

It's also possible to see in the video that the warhead detonates in front of the approaching projectile, versus beside it in the Iron Fist.

Share this post


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

Great. Maybe that will show them that they need to look at the bigger picture and make a comprehensive and integrated upgrade, and not look for many small incremental upgrades that are completely disconnected from one another and thus complicate integration works.

Rafael offers the Trophy as a standalone system, but it also offers it as an already integrated system on a 30mm turret, in which they can also add their new cockpit design.

 

The key is pairing the turret with an APS. Why is it such a difficult task to combine the efforts?

Share this post


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

The key is pairing the turret with an APS. Why is it such a difficult task to combine the efforts?

 

Why is it so difficult to understand that a solution that requires a turret is not viable?

 

Last I checked the US Army has ~3200 Strykers in active use and only plans on outfitting 3 SBCT worth of A1 Strykers with turrets (about 80 vehicles each). That would leave the vast majority of Strykers without the option of mounting an APS when forward deployed.

Share this post


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

 

Why is it so difficult to understand that a solution that requires a turret is not viable?

 

Last I checked the US Army has ~3200 Strykers in active use and only plans on outfitting 3 SBCT worth of A1 Strykers with turrets (about 80 vehicles each). That would leave the vast majority of Strykers without the option of mounting an APS when forward deployed.

But it would give an APS to those most urgently in need. 

The risk to the platform when given a turret rises because of its reassigned purpose.

 

Maybe not all protected platforms will need a turret, but then we're talking about a 50/50 split that would occur within the SBCT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Iron Fist’ is not suitable for the Stryker? A little surprised by that, as ‘Iron Fist’ doesn’t take up a lot of space (relatively). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Size, weight, power, cost, and integration (including arcs of fire and masking of other systems) are all important considerations, and often conflict. If it were a simple matter they'd be done by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...