• Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Active Protection System (APS) for tanks

Discussion in 'Land Warfare' started by DavidSling, Jan 16, 2016.

  1. DavidSling

    DavidSling SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Ratings:
    +5 / 4,741 / -6
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    An active protection system is a system (usually for a military application) designed to prevent line-of-sight guided anti-tank missiles/projectiles from acquiring and/or destroying a target.

    Electronic countermeasures that alter the electromagnetic, acoustic or other signature(s) of a target thereby altering the tracking and sensing behavior of an incoming threat (e.g., guided missile) are designated softkillmeasures.

    Measures that physically counterattack an incoming threat thereby destroying/altering its payload/warhead in such a way that the intended effect on the target is severely impeded are designated hardkill measures.

    Israel Rafael - Trophy APS (combat proven)

    The Trophy is a situational awareness and active protection hard kill system that operates in three major stages: Threat detection and threat tracking followed by hard kill countermeasure (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators – MEFP) activation and threat neutralization.The neutralization process takes place only if the threat is about to hit the platform.

    [​IMG]

    Trophy-HV
    The Trophy was declared operational by the IDF in August 2009 and is currently in full production. Merkava 4 tanks integrated with Trophy active protection systems are presently being deployed in combat areas along Israel's borders.

    Exceptional Capabilities
    ·360 Degree protection, while permitting sectors of the vehicle-mounted system to be rendered inactive when necessary for the protection of troops on the ground
    ·360 Degree situational awareness by detecting all incoming threats and identifying their launch position
    ·Extremely high elevation protection
    ·Neutralizes threats fired from very short range
    ·Neutralizes simultaneous threats arriving from one or more directions
    ·Minimum collateral damage
    ·Suitable for multiple platforms
    ·High kill probability while static or on the move
    ·Reduces platform weight
    The Trophy system is adaptable to any combat platform.Once a platform is chosen, a short trade study is completed to work out any integration issues that may arise.Numerous elements are taken into consideration for each vehicle variant or type. For vehicles with relatively basic or light armor, e.g. the Stryker, the Trophy provides full protection against all types of RPG (as well as other threats) due to the fact that the Trophy destroys these types of threats without detonation.
    Currently, the full Trophy HV system weighs 800 kg. Since space and weight will continue to be major issues on combat platforms, not only for current forces, but also for new vehicle programs, i.e. FCS / FRES, great efforts to miniaturize the electronics of the Trophy have been made.The result is additional systems for lighter vehicles:

    Trophy-MV
    The Trophy-MV offers the same hard kill capabilities as the Trophy-HV andincludes built-in soft kill capabilities as well. The Trophy-MV (previously Trophy II) is at TRL 7 and the first prototype is currently undergoing enhanced field testing.
    Trophy-MV a 450kg APS, for light- and medium-weight (10-30 ton) vehicles

    Trophy-LV
    This active protection hard kill system for light armored vehicles utilizes the same superior operating principles as the Trophy-HV and Trophy-MV at a fraction of the weight. Trophy-LV’s high kill probability against advanced threats, including the most sophisticated shoulder-launched AT rocket propelled grenades, makes it a significant force-multiplier at shorter ranges on the modern battlefield.
    The Trophy-LV’s dimensions are specially designed for easy integration and installation onto smaller platforms without impairing system performance. This ensures 360 protection including the vehicle’s windows and doors with minimal risk of collateral damage. The Trophy-LV is an all-round efficient, affordable, and cost-effective solution that is currently undergoing field testing in a variety of operational scenarios.

    Operational Concept

    1.Radar identifies and tracks incoming threat/s and delivers the exact threat launching point to a battle management system or weapon station.
    2.The computer identifies the threat, determines whether it will hit the vehicle, and if so:
    3.A ballistic cover opens.
    4.A countermeasure head slews to the proper location.
    5.The computer continues to track, acquire, and plot the best intercept solution.
    6.The countermeasure is launched and neutralizes the threat.
    The Trophy systems have a very high kill probability and testing has shown them to be successful against all known CE threats (RPG, ATGM, tank-fired CE, etc.) The systems’ average collateral damage is estimated at a <1% chance of a dismounted soldier being injured by Trophy or an incoming threat.

    In response to concerns that the RPG-30 had fallen into the hands of Hezbollah fighters, Israel Defense reported that the Rafael weapons development authority developed a defense system called the "Trench Coat" that can counteract the RPG-30, by utilizing a 360-degree radar to detect all threats and, in the case of one, launch 17 projectiles, one of which should strike the incoming missile.


    Rafael commercial

    Trophy live interception

    Israel IMI - Iron Fist APS

    [​IMG]

    IRON FIST provides a combined Soft-and Hard-Kill Active protection System, adaptable to various platforms from light vehicles to heavy AFVs.

    IRON FIST employs a sophisticated, multi-sensor early warning system, utilizing both infrared and radar sensors, providing the crew with enhanced situational awareness and early warning from potential threats. Upon a threat warning, the modular system employs the multi-layered defenses, comprising electro-optical jammers, Instantaneous smoke screens and, if necessary, an interceptor-based hard kill Active Protection System (APS). The IRON FISTeffectively protects against the full spectrum of Anti-Tank (AT) threats including AT Rockets fired at short range, in open area or urban environment, AT Guided Missiles, High Explosive AT and Kinetic Energy rounds.

    The IRON FIST is currently in advanced development at IMI. The company has installed the system for demonstrations in light and heavy armored vehicles, where IRON FIST capability demonstrators underwent full end-to-end interception tests, against all threat types, operating on the move and in urban scenarios. In these installations, IRON FIST proved highly effective, with its wide angle protection, minimal weight penalty and modest integration requirements.

    IRON FIST APS was selected by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as the Active Protection System designed to protect the Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle.



    Russia Kolomna - Arena APS

    The Arena (Russian: Арена) is an active protection system (APS) developed at Russia's Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau for the purpose of protecting armoured fighting vehicles from destruction by light anti-tank weapons, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), and missiles with top attack warheads. It uses a Doppler radar to detect incoming warheads. Upon detection, a defensive rocket is fired that detonates near the inbound threat, destroying it before it hits the vehicle.

    Arena is the successor to Drozd, a Soviet active protection system from the late 1970s, which was installed on several T-55s during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The system improved the vehicle's survivability rate, increasing it by up to 80%. Drozd was followed by Shtora in the late 1980s, which used an electro-magnetic jammer to confuse inbound enemy anti-tank missiles and rockets. In late 1994 the Russian Army deployed a large number of armoured fighting vehicles to Chechnya, where they were ambushed and suffered heavy casualties. The effectiveness of Chechen rocket-propelled grenades against Russian combat vehicles prompted the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau to devise the Arena active protection system in the early and mid-1990s. An export variant, Arena-E, was also developed. The system has been tested on the T-80UM-1, demonstrated at Omsk in 1997, and was considered for use on the South Korean K2 Black Panther main battle tank.

    The Arena system was primarily designed to defeat threats such as the rocket propelled grenade and the anti-tank missile, including newer anti-tank missiles with longer ranges. The active protection system can protect against missiles fired from both infantry carried rocket launchers and from helicopters, which attack the vehicle directly or by overflying it. Modern rocket propelled grenades can penetrate almost 1 metre (39 in) of steel armour, posing a serious threat to tanks operating in environments of asymmetric warfare. Therefore, increased tank protection requires either an increase in armour thickness and weight, or alternatively the use of an active protection system, like Arena.

    [​IMG]



    US Raytheon - Quick Kill

    Raytheon's Quick Kill™ Active Protection System (APS) can intercept and shoot down an extended set number threats, including rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles with surgical accuracy with minimum potential for collateral damage. Quick Kill can provide protection from these threats in many different mission applications, such as combat vehicles, ships or fixed sites.

    Raytheon's approach to this technological breakthrough is equivalent to firing a weapon around a corner and hitting another weapon, while both speed through the air at hundreds of meters per second - literally in the blink of an eye. Raytheon was the first company to develop and then prove this concept of engagement by successfully intercepting an RPG at close range.

    The Quick Kill system consists of a multi-mission, fire-control radar that detects and tracks incoming threats, combined with hard-kill countermeasures that serve as a hit avoidance system, enabling multi-tracking and simultaneous multi-engagement of enemy fire for vehicle and squad protection.

    Raytheon's APS is based on the same radar technology deployed to perform sense and warn operations at active Forward Operating Bases and has been extremely successful in providing timely warning against rocket and mortar attacks.

    the system's vertical launch countermeasure is unique in its ability to engage threats fired from any angle or elevation, providing all weather, full 360 degree hemispherical vehicle and crew protection with each countermeasure.

    Quick Kill is a mature and highly advanced system that provides force protection capability that is essential to the future survivability of combat vehicles.



    US Artis - Iron Curtain

    Iron Curtain is an active protection system (APS) designed by Artis, an American technology development and manufacturing firm headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. The system is designed to protect military vehicles and other assets by intercepting threats such as rocket-propelled grenades and rendering them inert. It has been included as part of the joint services' MRAP program as well as the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle program.

    Iron Curtain uses two independent sensors, radar and optical, high-speed computing, and tightly controlled counter-munitions to minimize the false alarm rate and increase accuracy. The system, which began in 2005 as a DARPA program, is able to defeat threats even if fired from an extremely close range.

    [​IMG]



    Germany Rheinmetall - AMAP-ADS APS

    The ADS-Active Defence-System belongs to a new generation of standoff active protection technologies. It is one of the world's most advanced and effective systems for protecting military vehicles of practically every weight class from operational threats, especially light antitank weapons, guided missiles and certain improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The ADS system is based on the hard-kill principle, in which incoming projectiles are detected and instantly destroyed by directed energy immediately before reaching their target. It is the only high-performance close-in defence system which minimizes collateral damage in the vicinity of the vehicle.

    [​IMG]
    The ADS-Active Defence-System is developed and produced by the ADS Gesellschaft für aktive Schutzsysteme mbH in Lohmar (Germany). A company which was founded by Rheinmetall and IBD Deisenroth in 2007.



    Turkish Aselan - Akkor APS

    [​IMG]

    The Akkor APS includes a centralised control unit and internal display, with the soft-kill system including laser-warning receivers and smoke dispensers; the hard-kill system includes four radar units for 360° coverage and two twin-cell trainable launchers armed with two hard-kill unguided 'smart' munitions.

    Serial production of the Akkor system is envisaged to begin in 2017 so that the system will be available for Turkey's first batch of 250 Altay MBTs. The company says it has been funding the development of Akkor since 2008 and has been conducting field tests of the radar, central computer systems, and the hard-kill munitions since 2010.

    Based on cross-sections of the Akkor 'smart' munitions seen at IDEF, Akkor's kill-mechanism seems to rely on a high-explosive concussive blast effect to defeat incoming threats. The 'smart' element comes from the detonation method, which has variously been reported as being proximity-based or down to an intelligent fuze programmed prior to launch by the Akkor control system.



    Ukraine Microtek - Zaslon APS

    The Zaslon active protection suite was developed by Ukrainmash, a Ukrainian AFV modernization firm that specializes in developing add-on armor, active protection systems and upgrade kits for T-72, T-55 and BMP armored vehicles.

    The Zaslon system consists of a radar based detection module, a guidance module and a customer specified number of static counter-measures modules. Each counter-measure module packs two explosive charges, which are ejected toward the target before detonating and forming a dense fragmentation ring that destroys incoming projectiles on impact. Modules can point forward, sideways or vertically, to protect from top attacks. The system’s response time is 0.1 seconds.

    A typical installation protects 150 – 180 degrees, and is capable of defeating incoming projectiles at speeds between 70 and 1,200 m/sec. It can be used to protect fixed sites or armored vehicles. Depending on the protection level required, the system adds from 50 to 130 kg. per module.



    Swedish Aerospace - Leds 150

    The system is able to counter most known threats against armoured vehicles with soft and hard kill methods.

    LEDS-150 consists of laser warning sensors, an ADC-150 Active Defence Controller, a number of MCTS Munition Confirmation and Tracking Sensors, and High Speed Directed Launchers, HSDL, which allows the combination of soft- and hard-kill countermeasure deployment capability to the platform, optional displays, and interconnecting harnesses.

    This system uses the Denel Dynamics Mongoose-1 missile to destroy the incoming threat in 5 to 15 meters distance from the protected vehicle.LEDS-150 covers all 360 degrees azimuth; its elevation coverage is from -15 to +65 degrees.



    France Thales - Shark APS

    Shark is a ground-breaking solution for vehicle protection, using a revolutionary optopyrotechnic system. It has been awarded by the Prix Chanson this year.

    The Prix Chanson, named after Engineer General Paul Chanson, who created it, is awarded each year by the French defence procurement agency in recognition of an outstanding contribution to progress in the field of land armaments. This year, Thales subsidiary TDA and the Institut Saint Louis have been selected for their work in the field of optopyrotechnic initiation and its application in countermeasures for the active protection of armored vehicles and their occupants. This innovation has been brought to a successful conclusion, with the concrete application SHARK.

    This ground-breaking technology actually utilizes several optopyrotechnic detonators with laser ignition. The SHARK active protection system is designed to protect armored fighting vehicles from shaped charge (Rocket Propelled Grenade and anti-tank missiles) and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) while degrading the potential threat of KE threats. The system provides full 360 degrees hemispherical coverage, with distributed, overlapping sensor-countermeasures modules located all around the vehicle. Each module covers a specific sector, detecting any threat fired toward the vehicle and engaging it by blast effect at close-in range, specifically designed to comply with operational restrictions of specific environments.




    S.Korea - Kaps APS

    The Korean Active Protection System (KAPS) is an indigenously developed hard-kill active protection system designed to protect the K2 from anti-tank threats. It uses a three-dimensional detection and tracking radar and a thermal imager to detect incoming threats. Warheads can be detected out to 150 meters from the tank, and a defensive rocket is fired to destroy them at 10 - 15 meters away. The KAPS can neutralize rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles. The system may be installed on other platforms in the future like warships, helicopters, and buildings. Unit price per system is ₩670 million ($600,000)



    I'd like to say, that some systems may not be mentioned here, cause they're in early stage of development.

    @500 @PARIKRAMA @Khafee @waz @mike2000 is back @Blue Marlin @Archdemon @Adir-M
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2016
    • Thanks Thanks x 11
    • Positive Rating Positive Rating x 1
  2. Water Car Engineer

    Water Car Engineer ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,048
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Ratings:
    +13 / 22,184 / -6
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    India


    S. Korean system
     
  3. waz

    waz MODERATOR

    Messages:
    13,532
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +60 / 31,692 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    This is seriously a nice system. I was impressed with the live fire demonstrations.
     
  4. Blue Marlin

    Blue Marlin SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,741
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Ratings:
    +6 / 6,816 / -0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    which systems in specific did you like?
     
  5. waz

    waz MODERATOR

    Messages:
    13,532
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Ratings:
    +60 / 31,692 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Trophy APS.
     
  6. ultron

    ultron BANNED

    Messages:
    4,999
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,251 / -5
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
  7. Jackal131

    Jackal131 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    175
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 357 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Ireland
    Was waiting to see if anyone would bother pay tribute to not only the worlds first APS, but also the worlds first combat proven APS.

    Many forget or seem to not know the Drozd was the first to see combat, back during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  8. kaykay

    kaykay ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,726
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Ratings:
    +3 / 10,446 / -4
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Any idea about APS which equip Arjun tanks? We know Indian T-90s are equipped with LEDS-150 but Arjun tanks? Years back Trophy APS was considered for Arjun so Is it trophy APS?
     
  9. kaykay

    kaykay ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,726
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Ratings:
    +3 / 10,446 / -4
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
  10. DavidSling

    DavidSling SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Ratings:
    +5 / 4,741 / -6
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    Army Testing Foreign Active Protection Systems For US Combat Vehicles
    WASHINGTON — The US Army is turning to foreign systems for an interim solution for advanced protection for its combat vehicles against rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles and other threats.

    The service’s effort to rapidly integrate already developed solutions is heating up this summer as the Army tests out what will likely be four different solutions on M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker combat vehicles.

    Such threats like RPGs aren’t just resident in one theater, but are problems world-wide for armored combat vehicles and it’s only growing, particularly in the Central and European Command area of operations.

    Partly spurring the effort is the possibility that Russia is ahead of the US Army when it comes to armor protection as evidenced by the reported survivability of its tanks when up against Ukrainian anti-tank and anti-armor weapons in the ongoing conflict along Ukraine’s border with Russia.
    The Army’s laser focus on fighting wars in the Middle East over the last 15 years caused it to prioritize developing other capabilities needed for combat in the CENTCOM arena such as counter-improvised explosive device capabilities like Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected Vehicles.

    Three out of four of the solutions the Army will rapidly put through the paces in demonstrations this summer come from foreign countries — with two from Israel — that have, out of necessity, already developed and fielded or are preparing to field active protection systems. The plan is to integrate these systems, following this year’s demonstrations, onto combat vehicles as an interim solution to first be sent to Europe.

    While the Army has yet to make its fielding plans known, a widely held belief is that the service will field a brigade’s worth of each vehicle with APS, according to Daniel Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, who is familiar with the program.

    “We are always looking for ways to enhance the protection provided in our combat vehicles and recognize Active Protection Systems (APS) as one of our highest priorities towards this end,” according to the Army’s Combat Ground Systems program office spokeswoman Ashley Givens.

    The Army is working with the science and technology community to develop the Modular Active Protection System (MAPS), the Army’s S&T cornerstone APS effort, Givens said.

    But MAPS — the objective capability — is years away and in the interim the Army needs to address urgent operational needs.

    Givens said the Army intends to install and characterize a range of matured and improved commercial APS solutions across the ground combat portfolio.

    “By prototyping these integration activities cooperatively with Army S&T, potential APS vendors and our platform integrators, we will be able to posture the Army with solutions that can be more rapidly integrated and greatly reduce both acquisition and operational risk,” she said.

    Katrina McFarland, the Army’s acquisition chief, told Defense News this month at Eurosatory, a large land warfare conference in Paris, the service was in the final stages of signing — if it had not already signed — an agreement with Israel to figure out how to integrate its Trophy system onto a US Army combat vehicle.

    Trophy — a combined hostile fire detection and active protection system for vehicles — was designed and manufactured by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems for the Israeli government and has performed exceptionally well during border patrols in the Gaza Strip as well as during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, according to Rafael representatives at Eurosatory.

    Rafael showed videos of the system in action at its booth, particularly one of Trophy countering an RPG in the close quarters of an urban environment. After what appears to be a deadly direct hit on a tank, the smoke clears to reveal a completely unblemished vehicle, even with soldiers directly exposed to the blast.

    Additionally, McFarland said the Army is looking at another Israeli offering — Israeli Military Industry’s (IMI) Iron Fist — and one non-foreign offering Artis Corporation’s Iron Curtain, which originally began as a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program.

    McFarland didn’t mention Rheinmetall Defence, a German company, that is also hoping to reach an agreement to test its Active Defense System out on US vehicles.

    Of all the systems being tested, it is widely believed that Trophy will be the easiest to integrate. For one, it has DRS Technologies in the US as a partner.

    “We’ve partnered with Rafael for the last five years to bring Trophy or Trophy-like technology to the US to meet the evolving survivability requirements of the Army and Marine Corps that was born out of some previous attempts by Rafael to get Trophy into the US market dating back to even [Future Combat System] days,” Mike O’Leary, who is in charge of the effort at DRS, told Defense News.

    DRS in turn was able to expand its own survivability technology base, he added.

    Trophy is the only system that has been fielded on approximately 100 vehicles and has been used in combat extensively since 2009.

    Iron Fist was being developed head-to-head with Trophy to be fielded by the Israeli government, but was never integrated.

    Trophy has a unique countermeasure based on multiple miniature explosively formed penetrators in a package sitting on a very fast-acting gimballed launcher, O’Leary said. “That pattern of pellets flies out and intercepts the threat precisely at a certain point on the threat to ensure it defeats away from the platform.”

    A large proportion of Trophy today in support of the Israeli production line is produced in the US and DRS has an agreement with Rafael that production for any US program would be done in the US as well, according to O’Leary.

    Trophy is also integrated on the Israeli Merkava tank, which is most similar to the Abrams.

    “My understanding is that Trophy is going to be probably the easiest, in part because it’s already been done,” Goure said.

    He added that Iron Curtain would most likely be integrated onto the Stryker vehicle while Iron Fist would fit best on the Bradley. “I just don’t know what they are going to do about the Rheinmetall system,” Goure said.

    Rheinmetall said at Eurosatory that its ADS system is designed to be flexible enough to use on a wide range of vehicles from light to heavy. While Rheinmetall officials said they believed Trophy was destined for Abrams, ADS could most likely go on Stryker platforms but also on Bradleys.

    The ADS system has 360-degree, early warning detection and uses redundant electro-optical sensors — which are more effective in multi-hit scenarios — to confirm the threat target which then triggers an optimized effector to disable the incoming warhead, according to Rheinmetall.

    Iron Curtain’s unique attribute is that it can potentially defeat targets within inches of vehicles as opposed to meters further out. Iron Fist — designed for Israel’s Namer heavy infantry fighting vehicle — is a system that uses electro-optical jammers, smoke screens and a hard-kill interceptor.

    While the Army continues to work within the science and technology community on MAPS, Goure warned that if the Army likes a system that works through the interim effort it might want to “just call it a day and buy a bunch and then use the extra research and development money to go figure out the answer to another big problem it’s got.”

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...otection-systems-us-combat-vehicles/86529894/




    US Army selects Israel Military Industries for APC active protection system

    After studying and testing it, the US Army chose IMI’s Iron Fist Light Configuration, designed for light- to medium-weight APCs.
    [​IMG]

    Protection system for its armored personnel carriers.. (photo credit:IMI)

    The US Army has chosen Israel Military Industries to provide it with an active protection system for its armored personnel carriers in a dramatic development for Israel’s defense export market.

    The system will be installed on APC rooftops.

    It will use a combination of a radar and an electro-optical sensor to detect and intercept a range of incoming missiles and rocket-propelled grenades, IMI corporate vice president of marketing Avinoam Zafir told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

    In an official statement, IMI said the US Army “selected our Iron Fist-based Active Protection System technologies,” as part of its “Modular Active Protection Systems.”

    After studying and testing it, the US Army chose IMI’s Iron Fist Light Configuration, designed for light- to medium-weight APCs.

    When the vehicles come under guided missile fire, the system can jam the threats that have advanced guidance systems and cause them to fall harmlessly to the ground. “Dumb” weapons, such as RPGs, are destroyed using interceptors. Small warheads are fired and explode near the incoming threat, destroying it with a shock wave, Zafir explained.

    The interception occurs at a safe distance from the defended platform, he added. The system works in a “very close-range scenario in both open field and urban environments,” an IMI statement said.

    The system’s low weight, lack of shock after it fires its interceptor, and “attractive price” were all factors in the US army’s decision to select it, according to Zafir.

    He hailed its “ability to defend against rockets, RPGs, anti-tank missiles from the entire spectrum, and even against recoilless gun munitions.

    “A boxer can put up both hands to absorb blows – this is passive defense. He can also strike out with a fist and hit before he is punched. This is active defense, and it is what our system offers,” Zafir said.

    The system’s computer enables it to decide when to fire the interceptor, or to jam the threat, within a “split second,” he said. In cases of physical interception, “We create a shock wave around the threat, and it falls as metal pieces to the ground,” he added.

    Iron Fist’s sensors allow personnel inside an APC to see other threats around them, such as gunmen in the vicinity.

    “We believe that the American army will begin acquisition and supply within two years,” Zafir said.

    “We are convinced there is a very big potential here.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/US...tries-for-APC-active-protection-system-456116
     
  11. vizier

    vizier FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    380
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Ratings:
    +0 / 188 / -0
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Turkey
    Ukranian system microtek consists of static charges situated and ejected from vehicle sideways. It seemed to me that it can blend and combine with some longer range aps like arena forming a two layer active defense suite without too much extra weight. If both are breached reactive armor(explosive, non explosive) depending on the possible threats, armor thickness and situational awareness from that angle can be the final layer.
     
  12. DavidSling

    DavidSling SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Ratings:
    +5 / 4,741 / -6
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    I used google translate on this article, hope ull understand

    April 13, 2016: Active Defense armored vehicles - History, Present and Future

    The successes of active defense system in operation a rock, in the summer of 2014 - "windbreaker" tanks and Iron Dome "communities - increased awareness for equipment protection systems. This article focuses on active defense armored vehicles , and displays in the past, what is happening today and the expected future

    Prof. Gil Judelewicz , Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at the Technion

    historical background

    Wrongly it is thought that the development of active defense systems, armored vehicles began three decades ago. The truth is that the attempt to develop these systems as early as the late 40s of the last century, in response to the appearance of anti-tank weapons (anti-tank) in World War II. These two technologies Soviets developed and performed experiments in intercepting tank shells as shown in Figure 1. In 1952 he started OTAC US ( currently TACOM) Project is classified named Dash-Dot Active protection of tanks against anti-tank shells. Although systemic concept, shown in Figure 2, was and still is a valid active defense concept, the project was closed in 1959 for lack of technological maturity. 60s intercept test carried out Russian tanks with shells of technology on fish tank , Based The technologies developed until then, as shown in Figure 3.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 1: An experiment of the Soviets in the late 40s


    [​IMG]

    Figure 2: Concept American system Dash-Dot (1959-1952)


    [​IMG]

    Figure 3: Concept demonstrates the operation of Russian technology in the 60s


    Also entered the field later in other countries, but by the mid '70s was not achieved substantial progress in the field. In the early 60s have been developed and was deployed launchers AR-propelled grenadesRussian (which was an upgrade of the Panzerfaust German) and anti-tank guided missiles of Soviet and Western. It antitank weapons proved effective in the battlefield many, especially the Yom Kippur War, and made for starting and accelerating the development of active defense systems, armored combat vehiclesin the world and in Israel. in this decade developed a number of concepts and active protection technologies armored , and the Soviets also developed two operational systems: DrozdIntercepting threats using explosives spray tank launched confer installed on the front of the armored vehicle , andShtoraDisruption of anti-tank section B , which later exposed and entered operational use in the Soviet Army.

    Apparently the incident which caused the acceleration phase, a further significant development of active protection systems for armored vehicles , is the first Lebanon War in 1982. Shortly before this war army equipped itself with protection systems reactive tanks - " Letten " developed by Raphael. These kits have been installed on tanks ramjet 3 participated in the "Sultan Yaakov." in this battle, in addition to many casualties (including 3 absent), fell into the hands of the Syrians several tanks with kits " Letten ." these tanks were tested by Soviet experts to decipher the technology protection reactive , and offered a solution this protection against the use of warheads double ( tandem warhead) Rockets and anti-tank missiles. Advent of anti-tank threats have tipped dual accelerated the development of active protection systems forarmored vehicles in the country and the world as shown in Figure 4. This effort continues today and includes, among other things, the development of a "windbreaker" Rafael and introduction IDF operations in recent years.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 4: The development history of fortification and anti-tank weapons in the world



    The motivation to use active defense armored vehicles

    70 years ago people realized armored (tanks) the limitations of passive armor. At that time, it was the quality of the steel is relatively low armor efficiency directly depended on the weight. The weight of the largest fortificationCaused the agility and maneuverability of the tank, which is a component of one of the three main capabilities of the tank: protection, traffic and fire power. Since then, the problem of the weight of the protection efficiency, although much improved through the development of effective and armor steel armor reactive , causing limit movement and maneuver the tank.

    Moreover, the armored vehicle of today is nothing like the tanks of World War II. Today, due to changes in the nature of war existing and anticipated and battlefields present and future, it is less tanks and more armored personnel carriers, heavy and lightweight, excavators and loaders, and most cars and soft. Anti-tank weapons also constantly improved both in terms of the lethal nature and in terms of mobility capability and its launch. Today it is no longer a battle armor armor but more and more weapons or antitank guided rocket that could hurt armored vehicles everywhere and from every angle.

    Active Defense armored vehicles have protection efficiency much higher than that of conventional armor (passive or reactive ) in terms of its spatial coverage capacity, close to a hemispherical shell above the armored vehicle and in terms of its small relative weight, which is a small percentage of the weight of conventional reinforcement.


    Active Defense Active Defense and armored

    The concept of active defense is completely different from a concept of passive defense. Passive protection protects the protected platform from relevant threats all the time, even when the threats do not exist. However an active defense is triggered only after the discovery of the threat. This approach differences are illustrated in Figure 5, when people are protected, relevant threats are ballistic threats and protection measures is building. The differences between the two types of protection are clear: to be protected from passive defense and we have to stay protected structure (fortress) all the time, in order to be safe we must stay active protecting the protected structure ( one costing ) only when a threat is detected relevant.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 5: The difference in the characteristics of passive protection and active protection



    The advantages of the concept of active defense led in recent years to gradually convert the approach to the protection of communities and citizens from protecting passive in nature (eg long hours sitting in shelters) for active defense character (taking cover only after the discovery of relevant threat), a well-tested systems that we've been through in recent years. Another important element of this concept is relevant threat interception and location within the margin interception damage. This concept, disposed in Israel and abroad have been in the 80s in protecting ships (systems such as the Vulcan Phalanx Lustre American and Israeli "), is disposed in four layers of air defense for Israel's" Iron Dome "," magic wand "," Arrow 2 "and Arrow 3".

    Functional operation concept of active protection systems for armored vehicles similar in principle to the concept of operation of the above-mentioned interception systems as shown in Figure 6. But there are also a number of significant changes in the approach to these active defense. The main change is due to the large difference time durations of active defense and defense scenarios on settlements or active defense ships and armored vehicles . Protecting the communities and ships it is for a time ranging from several minutes (for example a ballistic missile launched from Iran to Israel) for a few seconds (eg rocket "Qassam" being launched from Gaza into Israel), while the protection of armored vehicles it is for a much shorter time ranging from a few seconds (eg anti-tank rocket you send 2km) second parts (eg R rocket-propelled grenades being launched over 100 M').


    [​IMG]

    Figure 6Description of functional active defense system



    Any active defense systems, threat detection is done automatically through the system sensing radarsand / or electro-optical. Even the neutralization is performed automatically using interception systems or other countermeasures. However, while the active protection system on settlements or on ships, duration the discovery of the threat to neutralize allows to combine the process of calculating the human operator to verify the relevant threat ( "incrimination") and makes the decisions necessary to neutralize, in active defense armored vehicles which attracted scenario very short - you can not incorporate the human factor incrimination of threat and making decisions neutralize . Ie active defense systems, armored vehicles are automatic and completely autonomous.



    Soft protection and hard protection

    Another difference between the active defense of settlements or active defense ships and armored He Protection towns and ships neutralize the threat by destroying or using it to initiating a safe distance intercepts (eg "Iron Dome") or Cannon (eg Vulcan Phalanx). Neutralization protection system using such a defense system known as hard ( Hard Kill). Active defense systems armored first tried to develop Soviets and Americans were badly stated type of protection. But later when they began to appear anti-tank guided missiles, developed another type of active protection systems for armored vehicles called soft protection systems ( Soft Kill). These systems neutralize the threat through the disruption of its guidance system electro-optical means or other, without prejudice to the threat itself.

    The great advantage of the soft defense systems is their low cost neutralization and neutralizing does not involve creating environmental damage. The biggest drawback is their ability to neutralize a limited number of anti-tank guided missiles (Section B) and the inability to neutralize threats are not terms: anti-tank rockets and tank shells. In contrast, hard protection systems are characterized by high cost of neutralization, as for the protection of communities and ships, and in contrast to these systems are usually also create environmental damage resulting from lower operating space of the threats neutralized.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. DavidSling

    DavidSling SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Ratings:
    +5 / 4,741 / -6
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    Neutralization The threat of an active defense system armored vehicles

    The main purpose of active defense armored vehicles is to neutralize the threat - that is, to prevent him from hurting armored vehicles . To understand more about the case of anti-tank threat approaching the protected platform and process required to neutralize it , comparing the situation to that of a hunter leopard attack him and to neutralize it before Tiger hit it. The process of neutralizing Tiger Hunting same as that of an active defense system armored vehicles and executed usually in 5 steps as shown in Figure 7. the event that starts the process is the discovery of the threat (1) . At this stage the main goal of the hunter (Active Defense System armored ) is to understand and decide whether the threat actually relevant. Ie Is required to neutralize it or you could let him go. Stage at which it was decided that the threat is irrelevant, called Verification (2) . Once it referred to all ( or most) Hunting resources (active defense system armored ) for employing the threat and neutralizing. The next stage is the tracking (3) which decides the hunter (active defense armored vehicles ) whether, when, where and how to defuse the looming threat. When it's the right moment (4) , powered countermeasures and starting point of theneutralization end (5) disabled looming threat.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 7Description of typical stages of neutralization of active defense system armored


    The process described in the aforementioned typical process is provided as described in general and concise. This process is also often linked to preliminary processes (such as a search process that brings threats detection), parallel processes (such as giving warnings Team armored ) and complementary processes (such as the return of the eligibility system against other potential threats.) Temporary neutralization described in the aforementioned scenario is also conditional threat ( The launch range and speed of flight) but also on the type of system (soft / hard) and its components.



    The technologies necessary to realize an active defense system armored vehicles

    To implement Active Defense System armored required to implement a rule using appropriate technologies all three functions described in Figure 6, the required level of performance. Detection and tracking can be made anti-tank threat today when launching the threat and after the launch, on the basis of physical phenomena: Reshef launch , launch noise, the smoke trail of the threat and the threat movement. Including use loudly launch is impractical because the threats tank moving at nearly the speed of sound. Even the use of a trail of smoke is not practical because it does not always exist, and when there is a score too late in time. Two other phenomena, Reshef launch and movement threat joins another phenomenon typical a particular type of anti-tank threats, with a fire-control system based on a laser.Sending these threats involves active laser radiation can be determined with relative ease. Hence the sensors used for detecting and tracking threats are: laser detector LWS( Laser Warning System), An electro-optical detector EOS( Electro-Optical Sensor) And Radar Radar.

    The neutralization technologies are varied and depend on the type of threat, a neutralization and neutralization probabilities required. You can use a soft defense and concealment technologies (smokescreen), deception (Score laser), or jamming glare electro-optical guidance system and the threat of electromagnetic disruption of communications used for steering the threat. Defense difficult to neutralize the threat by an explosive device near the warhead his (top and / or spray), by attacking awarhead with a bullet or blade energy or heating warhead laser (if time is available to neutralization allows it) .

    In contrast to previous decades, the calculation technologies today are not at all limit the application. In practice all the technologies required to realize active defense system armored sustainability, availability, and some not even that expensive ( Affordable).


    The process of building the system on the basis of different technologies

    One of the major difficulties faced by developers of active defense systems armored vehicles is the right combination (optimal) of the aforementioned technologies. Of course that is what no solution "school". An optimal solution concept loop process ( iterative ) long and complicated process described schematicallyin Figure 8. The difficulty in finding a suitable combination involves a large number of parameters which is required to adjust the system. Consider, for example only the parameter threats, which includes a huge variety of anti-tank threats very differentiated from each other, starting with rockets R-propelled grenadesthrough the sound of tank shells to anti-tank missiles with homing capabilities and high maneuverability.The requirement to neutralize all these threats creates enormous difficulty in defining the technologies required for detection, tracking and neutralizing and way of integrating them. Add to that the constraints and limitations on the system and get an almost impossible task. This is why most of the systems developed to date can not deal with all the threats and simultaneously adjust all platforms.


    Situational Awareness - Additional capabilities of Active Protection System armored

    Sensory suit of active defense systems armored vehicles have the potential to provide additional capabilities to order the armored vehicle . The first ability, the importance has been discussed earlier, is providing early warning capability to order the armored vehicle . This capability also depends on the performance of the exchange of the sensing elements (such as detection range), but also the performance of threat (launch range and speed of flight). In cases where the interval Verification threat (to prevent false alarms) to the falling armored vehicles or neutralize with a great system response time of the soldier on the battlefield (the order of a second), the team can provide armored warning effectively increases the survival. For example a tank commander in the IDF, fighting even today, in certain circumstances shelf open his head and part of his body out of the turret, upon receiving the alert can get into the turret and close the rack thereby increasing undoubtedly the survival against possible damage of the looming threat. Another capability not less important, active defense system could armored provide staff, is to locate the source of the threat of anti-tank launch. This capability allows the team to respond quickly against the enemy (Launcher threat), to prevent the launching of additional threats and destroy it.Two additional capabilities are increasing their situational awareness ( Situational Awareness) Teamarmored thereby improving both the survival and functioning and offensive abilities in battle.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 8: Description Schematic of process development of active defense system armored



    Soft active defense systems armored

    From the '70s following the emergence of anti-tank guided missiles, were stated in this country to develop systems designed to disrupt the missile guidance. Since then, several dozen have been developed such systems, some of which have become incorporated into the operation and the number of types of armored vehicles in the world. A partial list of these systems can be found in Table 1. In contrast to hard defense systems, defense systems soft lesser importance oncoming threat measuring range. Therefore, manufacturers prefer soft systems used for detection and tracking laser detector ( LWS) And electro-optical sensors ( EOS) Relatively cheap radar. Number of systems developers use only in LWSCheaper, while giving the capability discovery and employment of threats that do not include a laser-based fire control. One countermeasure used soft protection systems are Mdocot smoke, with levels of maneuverability, control and hide different. It is important to note that this technology despite many limitations, is still considered effective depicting various battle and therefore is used in the armies of the world (including the army). Proof of this is that in recent years has developed Riinmtl ( Rheinmetall) German Mdocot smoke modular system named ROSYThat can fit into the system as a means of protection against soft. Soft countermeasures carrier is disrupting electro-optical. Disrupting it works in the field of infrared ( IR) Developed anti-tank section in terms launch position, using the protractor (goniometer) Electro-Optical. Disruptive infrared "disguised" guided missile causing compass send erroneous guidance signals that cause the diversion of armored vehicles . Previously used for this purpose lamps IRBut now it's used for low-power laser jammers ( LP).


    Table 1: Active defense systems soft armored vehicles (partial list)



    [​IMG]


    Active defense systems difficult armored vehicles

    The historical development of active protection systems for armored described above personalities and understanding the limitations soft defense armored described above personalities, led the development of a wide range of active defense systems difficult armored vehicles . These systems are distinguished mainly by their neutralization and ranges of threat neutralization tank as shown in table 2.


    § Unusual-linked systems

    This concept is very similar to that developed by the Russians and Americans in the '50s, but their neutralization mechanisms were different. This concept all system components fixed and installed on the side of the armored vehicle . The threat neutralized very close to the side of the armored vehicle (within 0.2 to 2 meters). These features have earned this system type the name - linked -dofn. Additional features of such systems are the weight and the price is relatively low, but also the inability to neutralize the threat of antitank large (rockets and mortars), mainly due to the distance neutralization short. Table 2 page only 7 systems linked-side leaders, including three Israeli systems: Trophy -LVOf Rafael, TityusOf Elbit Systems and Iron CurtainFelsen's Sasa acquired the American company Artis This system has developed.


    Table 2: Active defense systems difficult armored vehicles (partial list)



    [​IMG]



    § Systems with interceptor

    Interception is the most common concept neutralize threats proactively protect communities and ships as well as active defense difficult armored vehicles , as can be seen in Figure 9. The illustration shown in Table 2, page 4 subgroups of interception systems: fixed launcher, Launcher edged, vertical launcher and the Arena.

    System DrozdSoviet is the most prominent representative of the group of active defense systems,armored with a fixed launcher. This system was also operational service in the Russian army in 1999 and participated in the Second Chechen War battles. These battles exposed the weakness of the system, mainly due to the use of fixed launchers, and gradually public service operations. However the Americans attempted to offer this concept as an active defense armored vehicles and a member of the GD-OTSEven wrote about it patented in 2014.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 9: Illustration of active defense systems armored with interceptors


    The most common interception systems are systems with a launcher edged and short-range interceptor, which requires homing or steering. Table 2 page only seven main systems of this type, all of which are relevant (apart from IAAPSAmerican developed in the 2000s as exemplifying the technology for FCS). In this context we note the system "Iron Fist" of the military industry and two sets revealed recently Russia (Afganit) And Turkey ( AKKOR).

    During the 90 Americans were trying to develop a vertical launching interceptors SLIDWith intercepts domesticated . In 2006 the company was awarded RaytheonTender for the development of active defense system armored vehicles as part of the FCSAnd developed the system of the Quick KillBased on intercepts USAGE. These systems have two major drawbacks: high price and inability to deal with the threats launched at short range. Another important system in a sense belongs to this family is the ArenaSoviet developed in the early 90s. The developers ArenaOvercame two aforementioned disadvantages through the integration of a single-family -dofn (no moving parts and neutralizing close) with vertical intercepts. Intercepts the ArenaLaunched a height of about 1.5 meters above the top of a tank and is capable of steering a certain angle. For over a decade, and with good reason, this system is perceived by potential customers and by anti-tank weapons developers active defense systems, armored combat vehicles in the world.


    § Direct fire systems

    The success of active fire protection systems directly protecting the ships (such as the Vulcan Phalanx) Led the active defense system developers armored consider the use of this neutralization mechanism. In the early '90s, the company MarconiBritish adopted the concept interception through the cannon. This concept is problematic because the rate of fire of the gun (even if it is a 6 nests) is not appropriate balance of time required to neutralize the threat of anti-tank missiles. Later the company BAE American used in developing the system CICMTechnology of firing a barrage of bullets in a multi-multi-barreled developed inMetal StormAustralia. Rafael uses EFP Barrage of bullets required to create a system "windbreaker" IDF entered operational use in 2010.



    Individual protection, spatial framework , modularity and protective suits

    All active defense systems, armored discussed in this article are the kind of system protection individually , ie systems that protect only the armored issue them. Except for linked-side, all the individual systems (hard and soft) volume has protected large-size armored which are Mgnot. Therefore, and because the amount of the armored vehicle in large and high cost of active defense (relative pricearmored ), developers are looking for active defense systems armored vehicles , in Israel and abroad, active protection solutions for spatial and frame .

    A regional defense is a system where the protected platform is not the armored vehicle of the same, but the space where he is staying in. That is the individual active defense system armored should significantly expand its protected volume. Of course not all defense technologies described above enable this expansion. Naturally, but under the restrictions described above, rather soft defense systems have the greatest potential for expansion. Among the hardest defense systems, has the best growth potential for launching interceptor intercepts vertical with domesticated or USAGE. In any case this is a challenge both operationally ( doctrine ) and technically, especially in light of the fact that the protected area is constantly changing geometrically (coverage varies) and in terms of the factors that protected him and location (having lines of sight and lines of defense anywhere in the protected area).

    To try and overcome the aforementioned difficulties concept was proposed protection framework . In this system, all elements of the framework of possible active defense (department, company, task force) are connected to the network to deliver all over the place and time the best protection for all armored setting maneuvering. Ostensibly, this is a great idea that would maximize the frame's defense capability and will reduce significantly the cost. But the realization of this type of system is a huge challenge, because now simultaneously manipulates the protected area (ie changes in the quantity and pace sizes) and because the required command and control technologies and communications reliability and speed greatly from allthe armored vehicle frame.

    Another concept is also related to the above types of protection is a concept of modularity . In other words, instead of developing defense capabilities based on a neutralization technology, it is proposed to develop the building blocks (modules) with whom he will be possible to build a number of different systems of active defense armored vehicles that can be incorporated if required to protection suitindividual armored single (eg integrated protection for hard and soft), or combine the concept of defensein which (for example armored vehicles with radar detection and neutralization systems for armored vehicles to another). This concept was leading Israeli defense system in the '90s until it became clear that it is very difficult to implement. This concept also was (and is?) Concept company SAABThe system implemented a series of LEDSIts ( LEDS-50 - Exchange of sensing, LEDS-100 - Soft protection suit,LEDS-150 - Exchange of tough defense and LEDS-200 - Advanced protection suit?). The problem with this concept is that it completely contradicts the principles necessary to design an optimal system as presented above (see Figure 8), which is probably why these concepts have not been made operational systems.


    Summary, conclusions and what the future holds?

    The main advantages of active defense armored vehicles are weight and volume is very low, most threats neutralization tank and the area of the probability of a large 360-degree protection sideways and down.Active defense systems use armored also allows staff armored receive early warning (threats launched from a distance) and locate the source of the threat of anti-tank launch.

    The main disadvantages of these systems are: high cost, power consumption, operating armored vehicles, necessary maintenance required for the high reliability, and it also raises the cost of use. In addition, maintaining the high level of safety may require a change in doctrine.

    In view of this the question is why does the equipping and more extensive use of active defense systems,armored armies of the world? The answer to that is also the aforementioned shortcomings, but also the number of additional facts. First, history teaches us that armies do not buy defensive weapons except in the case of a clear and immediate need. IDF example, after realizing this need tragically second Lebanon war, armed itself in "windbreaker" protection of tanks. Moreover, following the operation APC event "a rock" the IDF decided to fortify this system the armored vehicle "Shay CIO . Unlike other armies in the IDF apparently not yet internalized this insight. Furthermore Recall active defense systems armored vehiclesare automatic and completely autonomous and it makes legal issues (no human incrimination) some of the world's militaries find it difficult to deal with.

    Although the development of active protection systems, armored vehicles as early as 70 years ago, it is still a concept and innovative technologies and specialized. Thus the trend that characterizes the development of active defense systems, armored outset is expected to continue. Namely, the continued development of concepts, technologies and systems, together with the gradual entry of active defense systems armored vehicles deployed armies of the world.

    http://www.yadlashiryon.com/show_item.asp?levelId=63829&itemId=8398

    @Penguin @PARIKRAMA @500 @Natan @Archdemon @salarsikander @GBU-28 @waz
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  14. DavidSling

    DavidSling SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Ratings:
    +5 / 4,741 / -6
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    2017 Holds Key Army Decisions For Vehicle Active-Protection Kit
    [​IMG]
    By: Jen Judson, December 16, 2016 (Photo Credit: Rafael)

    YORK, Penn. -- The Army is expected to make key decisions on a way forward to integrate Active Protection Systems (APS) onto a variety of combat vehicles next summer, according to the program executive officer for Army combat vehicles.

    The service will characterize APS offerings on Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker combat vehicles starting in January, Maj. Gen. David Bassett told a small group of reporters Thursday at the BAE Systems unveiling of the service's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) at its facility in York, Pennsylvania. Kicking off the activities, the Army will host a VIP day at its Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan, Friday, he said.

    [​IMG]
    Defense News
    BAE Systems Presents First AMPV Prototype to US Army

    The systems are intended to provide advanced protection for the Army’s combat vehicles against rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles and other threats. The Army has already worked on characterization testing on the M1 Abrams tank.

    The Army intends to install a range of matured and improved commercial APS solutions across the ground combat portfolio. By prototyping combinations of systems and vehicles cooperatively with the service’s science and technology branch, the Army hopes to reduce both acquisition and operational risk and get solutions fielded quickly.

    The service plans to wrap up testing of a range of APS systems on various vehicles and will make decisions on the right solutions next summer, Bassett said. The service is keeping an open mind in terms of what represents the best possible solution, he added. While one system may work well on a Bradley, another system may be better suited for Stryker or Abrams, for instance.

    [​IMG]
    Defense News
    Army Testing Foreign Active Protection Systems For US Combat Vehicles

    The Army is looking at four different APS offerings, three of which are foreign, two are from Israel. Trophy -- designed and manufactured by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems – has been battle tested during border patrols in the Gaza Strip as well as during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. DRS Technologies is serving as a partner in the US.

    The other Israeli offering is Israeli Military Industry’s (IMI) Iron Fist. Rheinmetall Defence, a German company, is said to have a candidate – its Active Defense System – in the running. And Artis Corporation’s Iron Curtain is the US-based offering.

    Partly spurring the effort is the possibility that Russia is ahead of the US Army when it comes to armor protection.

    While the Army has yet to make its fielding plans known, a widely held belief is that the service will field a brigade’s worth of each vehicle with APS as it continues to work toward its own program, the Modular Active Protection System.

    @Penguin @500 @Natan @Archdemon @GBU-28 @F-15I @mike2000 is back @Blue Marlin @Mountain Jew @Beny Karachun @Adir-M @Ilay @Desertfalcon @C130 @F-22Raptor

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles...ve-protection-for-combat-vehicles-next-summer
     
  15. DavidSling

    DavidSling SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,458
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Ratings:
    +5 / 4,741 / -6
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel