 |
| Israel's combat proven Trophy Protection System mounted on a Merkava Main Battle Tank. |
As the U.S. Army prepares for formal testing to evaluate a system to protect combat vehicles from shoulder-fired and tube-launched Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) Quick Kill™ Active Protection System (APS) has again shown its maturity and accuracy in a series of tests.On the surface this sounds impressive right?
In a recent test, held in December 2012, the Quick Kill APS demonstrated its protective capability by successfully defeating an extended set of threats, including one of the most lethal RPG threats by destroying it in mid-flight. All testing is in preparation for formal government evaluations in early 2013 to demonstrate the system's unique RPG-defeat capabilities.
"Raytheon's APS is based on the same radar technology deployed to perform sense and warn operations at active Forward Operating Bases. It has been extremely successful in providing timely warning against rocket and mortar attacks," said Jeff Miller, vice president of Combat and Sensing Systems for Raytheon's Network Centric Systems business.
"With Quick Kill," he added, "Raytheon has matured a highly advanced system, offering our forces an unprecedented force protection capability that is essential to the future survivability of combat vehicles. This technology is ready and could begin fielding within a year."
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 multi-engagement of enemy fire for vehicle and squad protection.
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.
In previous tests, the system demonstrated its ability to defeat multiple threat types both from a stationary and an on-the-move platform – and it showed its multi-threat capability by defeating two simultaneous threats.
Wrong.
Like I said the Israeli's already have a protection system in service...we've been wasting time reinventing the wheel and second, check out the specs on the RPG-29 (notice that they never state what threat RPG their system defeated). via Wikipedia.
In August 2006 an RPG-29 round was reported to have penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, wounding several crew members.[8]In May 2008 The New York Times disclosed that an American M1 tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.[7][9] The US Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to armor so high that they refused to allow the newly-formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing it would fall into insurgent hands.[10]But the RPG-29 is in essence old tech. Check out the RPG-30..again via Wikipedia...
The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27 in that it is a man-portable, disposable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. Unlike the RPG-27 however, there is a smaller diameter precursor round in a smaller side barrel tube, in addition to the main round in the main tube. This precursor round acts as a false target, tricking the target's active protection system (APS) into engaging it, allowing the main round a clear path into the target, while the APS is struck in the 0.2-0.4 second delay it needs to start its next engagement.[1]The PG-30 is the main round of the RPG-30. The round is a 105-mm tandem shaped charge with a weight of 10.3-kg (22.7-lb) and has a range of 200 meters and a stated penetration capability in excess of 600-mm (24-in) rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) (after ERA), 1500-mm reinforced concrete, 2000-mm brick and 3700-mm of soil.[1] Reactive armor, including explosive reactive armor (ERA), can be defeated with multiple hits into the same place, such as by tandem-charge weapons, which fire two or more shaped charges in rapid succession
Armor can't evolve fast enough to defeat these threats. The key is mobility, speed and the introduction of Active AND Passive systems to defeat anti-tank missiles and grenades. Quite honestly the idea of APC's and IFV's weighing in excess of 40 tons is questionable, it probably always has been. It might even be worth considering forcing the issue towards the two tabs of the iron triangle...speed and mobility and accept the risks that come from lighter armor.
Maybe we need to establish a threshold of 20 to 30 tons and dismount further away from the objective in order to properly protect our armored forces.
I agree whith you 100% on this one...
ReplyDeleteRemember Heinz Guderian? He stated(from wikipedia)«According to Guderian, Hitler was easily persuaded to field too many new tank designs, and this resulted in supply, logistical, and repair problems for German forces in Russia.[17] Guderian preferred large numbers of Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs over smaller numbers of heavier tanks like the Tiger, which had limited range and could rarely go off-road without getting stuck in the Russian ».
I belive that our liders(not just american but from all our allies)fail to understand history.
We need to run away from this «Fulda Gap» mentality that bigger is better.Sure it was true during the cold war were our tanks were allready in place and would have to face large numbers of invadind MBTs and take multiple hits.We never plan to take the armored fight to the Soviet Union just hold then there and kill them.
But in todays world we need mobile offensive armour (not big defensive MBTs,APCs and IFVs.)that can be anywere in the world fast and be mobile there(no mater if its in sand,snow,jungle or city).
Sorry for the long post...but i got carried away :)
Guderian was an offensive-minded general from the very start. Like most of the German leadership, he had little time or inclination to conceptualize or refine defensive doctrine.
DeleteThus, he preferred the more mobile if more vulnerable Mk. III and Mk. IV's simply because the alternatives (the Mk. V and Mk. VI) were too compromised in terms of reliability and mobility.
The big take away from history, IMHO, is that tanks spend most of their time battling dug-in, well fortified infantry who resist using infantry anti-tank weapons; the sweeping, highly mobile armored offensives of WWII were actually pretty rare.
All sides developed heavily armored "assault" AFV that were capable of surviving multiple hits from infantry anti-tank weaponry. Such armor was too ponderous and unreliable to be used during armored breakouts but for the work-a-day task of smashing through prepared defenses it worked very well.
Consequently, I think we need the right mix of AFVs. I rather like the Stryker MGS but really think the way to go is something like the M8 AGS Buford or the derivative proposed by United Defense, Thunderbolt Block II which had a hybrid electric drive, autoloading 120mm cannon and room for four dismounts.
DeleteWe still need an assault tank so a very heavily up-armored turretless Abrams hull with a Stryker MGS "gun pod" on top
would do nicely, IMHO.
Quick Kill offers significant advantages over any Israeli APS design particularly in terms of weight, multiple engagement and power consumption.
ReplyDeleteThe Israeli Army very reluctantly fielded their home brew APS mostly for political reasons. The Israeli experience in Lebanon in 2006 showed that the main impact of advanced Russian ATGMs was to damage and disable Israeli AFVs that were in the vanguard and in doing so open up these AFVs to swarming RPG-7 attacks.
The RPG-30 is man-portable only in the loosest sense of the word. The combined system weighs more than 40+ lbs (more than Javelin), can't hit moving targets and has a rather paltry range.
Beyond that, the armor penetration capability is not particularly impressive particularly against modern composite armors (multilayer DU, ceramic, steel).
One main advantage of an APS is that it protects areas of the AFV that can't be armor reinforced very easily e.g. the turret, the engine compartment, the rear etc.
The other advantage is that it would allow APS equipped AFVs to act as mobile Phalanx/CIWS for dismounts.
Russkis are the ones leading the active defense their Drozd was used operationally in Afghanistan in late 70's follow up Arena has been around for at least 10 years .
ReplyDeleteRPG 30 weighs cca 23Lbs so its portable alright.
In regards to armor penetration you have to consider that frontal attack on an MBT is only last resort and its impressive for a handheld rocket to penetrate the Challenger2 on a frontal arc(by far the thickest armor of any MBT) ,remember most of the MBT armor is much thinner ,and APC armor is mostly under 0.5inch thick.Even the smallest shaped charge will cut trough any APC or IFV even trough frontal arc if it makes a solid hit that impacts the main armor.
The Russians needed both APS and ERA because their composite armor technology was not up to Western standards and even then not amenable to mass production. Russian T-72s and T-80s were destroyed by frontal RPG-7V penetrations in Grozny when Russian armor rushed in without their ERA tiles.
DeleteNot sure where you are getting the weight for total RPG-30 system; the rocket alone is 20+ lbs and the launcher has to be heavy enough to accommodate the decoy rocket as well. Unless the launcher is designed to be disposable, it has to be heavy enough to repeatedly withstand the launch of the decoy and main rocket.
Since when does the Challenger 2 have the thickest frontal arc of any MBT? Quite the contrary actually. The Challenger 2's frontal arc had a known design flaw that the MOD "corrected" by emplacing ERA tiles which failed to stop the tandem-charged RPG-29. Nevertheless, the tank drove off under it's own power with a nine toe'd gunner.
Doesn't the composition of the APC/IFV's armor determine how effective the shaped charge is?
Given that shaped charges have been used against armor since the US introduced the Bazooka in WWII, we know a lot about how to mitigate their effects, especially if they penetrate. That's why the wounds inflicted on Western crews have been relatively mild despite penetrations; crew body armor, spall liners, blast panels, automatic fire extinguishers and overpressure systems were specifically designed to counter the major damaging aspects of shaped charges.
GREAT post, Solly. Smart and insightful analysis like this is why I read your blog and is something that I've missed here lately. I'm a gun owner, too and certainly concerned but I'm glad to see you haven't forgotten where your bread is buttered.
ReplyDeletemessage received and thanks...
DeleteThere will never be enough armor or active defense systems for certain weapons. The question is how many of those certain weapons will fall into the hands of the enemy.
ReplyDeleteHaving better armor and weapons weren't enough for the Germans. Having less armor and inferior weapons didn't stop the US Army from taking on the Germans in WWII either.
It comes down to doctrine, training and tactics. The IDF have twice underestimated their foes capabilities, in the 1973 October war and in the 2006 Lebanon, in utilizing ATGWs. Both instances involved hasty armor-centric responses to a threat that didn't take into account the importance of the combined arms team.
Like Boyd used to say, "People, Ideas and hardware, in that order!"
Mechanized forces aren't going anywhere, but they need to be used properly. Armor and active defenses are still important.
Like any good defense, it has to be layered.
ReplyDeleteAPS without sufficient armor to back it up has a severe weakness. The more layers you have, the harder it will be to find a weakness.
IIRC the British have been experimenting with an electrical armor that causes the metallic jet from a heat round to vaporize on contact.
I wonder how long till they make a HPM type of defense that tries to cause a premature detonation or malfunction of the incoming round/missile.
Quick Kill can use any interceptor in it's entire magazine against incoming projectile from any direction, because it's a vertically launched system. Can't say the same about the Israeli Trophy, if a launcher is out of ammo, the system basically lose a chunk of its azimuth coverage. And the horizontally launched EFPs pose a much greater risk of fratricide than the downward firing shaped charge of Quick Kill due to the distant they could potentially travel. So no, I wouldn't say Quick Kill is a duplication, not technically.
ReplyDeleteBesides the weight, the launching of the decoy rocket from RPG-30 maybe enough to take the gunner's aim off the target. To keep the target centered for an extra half second after that is not all that easy. I'm not sure if it yields any benefit at all when the added chance to penetrate target defense is offset by the reduced hit probability. Plus, with the multi target capability of AESA radar and the infinitely high fire rate of the vertical launcher, I don't see the decoy does much more than consuming an additional interceptor round.
I do see merits in having lighter vehicles in many cases. Afterall for anti tank munition defeating purpose, the armor may no longer justify its cost. And it's not as hard to grow the warhead even more. However, if anything is worthy of the extra armor, it should be the personnel carriers. The additional passengers represent a greater risk, while the 120mm gun may not deserve that much protection, with the plentiful cheaper alternatives today. On the other hand, relatively cheap UGV in large numbers could, for one thing, serve as great distractions, improving manned vehicle survivability indirectly. And as long as the network architecture is robust enough, UGVs should be very tolerant to losses.
Please do excuse my English,