Comments on: “Active Protection” Speeds Up

By: Andrej

Andrej — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:16:59 +0000

1.Well, for some reason the article does not mention that Russian were the first to develop active protection systems years ago (Drozd 1 and 2 and Arena). (Or copied it, as this site appearently claims for any Russian equipment). Although, there does not seem to be any further development in the past years.
2. Diferentiating “beer cans” (as one reader commented) and ATGM or RPGs is extremly!!! easy. It is much harder to disinguish between hits and near misses (not to mention the difficulty if the vehicle is moving).
3. The problem in defeating such a system is not of guiding a missile to the tank (some of you mention using vehicles radar-pointless since a properly designed system will shoot down the missile be it passive radar guided or whotsever).
However their is always the possibility of destroying sensors/protective munitions with some other type of weapon (AHEAD?)- but anyway this makes an oponent have to overcome another major barrier in defeating the armored vehicle).There is no 100% proetction.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:56:28 +0000

As mentioned, Russians have been playing along with it since the 70s. Drozd sytem was effective in Afganistan but tended to pump the support squads full of ball bearings. The Arena system is suppoused to be even more effective, but the friendly fire problems remain.
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
Description & Videos for Arena

By: James

James — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:49:05 +0000

Well, I guess to be more clear I would say that the Army would be very surprised to hear that are never expected to lay in ambush again. Camouflaging vehicles has been a standard tactic since…forever. If the radar emissions give them away that’s a downside. And my concern would be indirect fire weapons lobbed in the general direction of the vehicles would be able to home in on the radars. Being able to kill flies is good, but not if you attract a swarm of them doing it.
But chasing away the protecting infantry is probably the worst danger. Then you really will be more vulnerable to enemy infantry with short-range rockets.

By: oz

oz — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:19:52 +0000

“And we have to make sure that if someone throws a rock, or a bird flies by, that it doesn’t go off.“
I’d be more worried if someone threw something like a beer can. Being metallic I would assume it would be pretty hard to diferenciate between an incoming RPG and a can of Fourex.
Using munitions that fire out of the AFV is stupid, both in terms of possible friendly casualties (as James pointed out) and civilian casualties.
To me, the British are on the right track.

By: Jombs

Jombs — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:34:08 +0000

Boooo ! I had dibs on this idea back during my freshman year in college (02′). hehe, o’well
“http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jwilliam/persproj/index.htm“
haha, my “detailed abstract” is worded almost exactly the same except for the device name of course. I knew those defense contractors were to interested in my idea during my interviews :
” The Trophy system has three elements providing Threat Detection and Tracking, Launching and Intercept functions. The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including flat-panel radars, placed at strategic locations around the protected vehicle, to provide full hemispherical coverage.”

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:35:16 +0000

The principle is sound enough, the question is if it can be made to work in practice.
Abrams armor is excellent, but the vehicle is still vulnerable to RPGs because of weak spots. Active armor may also have blind spots or other limitations.
If it can be triggered by the bad guys at will, this could have horrific results. A vehicle passes by a schoolyard when the active defense system fires…who are the locals going to blame for the casualties?
Could be very useful, but someone is going to have to think very carefully about this.
Incidentally, I have even seen one firm’s plans for active body armour which throws out little Kevlar airbags which can slow and deflect bullets. Just don’t be standing next to the wearer.

By: Noah Shachtman

Noah Shachtman — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:19:44 +0000

Good point, DCL. And what happens when one of these interceptors goes astray, and takes out the wrong Iraqis?
There are some less-lethal active protection schemes being considered, as well — using things like nets to throw an RPG’s course off. Maybe they’ll turn out to be a more sensible alternative.
nms

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:18:27 +0000

I think these are some legit concerns. It echoes concerns folks have been voicing since the first ERA came out– what about the poor bloody infantry who are supposed to be screening you?
Fortunately for the grunts, the system (as described) is a good deal more focused than the old ERA blocks; the odds of Joe Infantryman taking one in the neck are much lower with this sort of precision system than with sheets of plastic explosive going off near him.
The radar-homing question is also a valid one but inasmuch as the Stryker is not meant for engaging a heavy force (such as would have radar-seeking ATGMs, of all things) it is less applicable.
Come to think of it, shouldn’t the system be able to stop the anti-radar RPG as easily as normal RPGs?
This one will bear watching in any event.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:12:21 +0000

First, our vehicles aren’t trying to hide. This is to protect them as they drive down the middle of the street. Certainly, one could build a missile to home in on the radar these will emit. However, RPGs are direct fire weapons. You aim these by pointing them at the target. At that point, you’ve already got a visual lock on the target. There’s no reason to spend the money for it to lock onto the vehicle, especially when the vehicle’s protection system will fire anyway, taking care of the missile no matter how well it targets. Besides, any additional targeting equipment will add thousands of dollars of electronics to what is the only anti-tank system these people can really afford.

By: James

James — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:03:56 +0000

The Russians have fielded a couple of these systems with mixed results, as I understand it. I guess I have a couple of practical objections. First, wouldn’t the radar tend to attract enemy attention, especially if you’re trying to hide? Once the frequencies are known, isn’t it possible to build a missile that will home in on the signal itself? And second, how will nearby infantry feel about the tanks when they find out they might suddenly start spewing submunitions at any time?