 |
| Wired photo |
via Artis Press Release
HERNDON, Va., April 29, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The head of a growing technology development firm announced today that one of its premier products, the active protection system (APS) known as Iron Curtain, successfully defeated all threats during recent U.S. government testing.I want to be stoked but defeating the threat inches away from the armor doesn't seem like much of a game changer. Time will tell and I could easily be wrong.
"After this latest round, where the system hit and killed 100 percent of the shots in a very demanding test series, the only rational conclusion is that the system simply works," said Keith Brendley , CEO of Artis, LLC, developer of Iron Curtain. "We proved not only that Iron Curtain defeats threats and saves lives, but the risk from collateral damage is minimal, especially when compared with the alternative."
Brendley said that the system protects military vehicles and other assets by intercepting threats such as rocket-propelled grenades inches from the vehicle and rendering them inert, even if the threat was fired from extremely close range. Iron Curtain uses two independent sensors, radar and optical, high-speed computing, and tightly controlled countermunitions to minimize the false alarm rate and provide extraordinary system effectiveness and reliability.
"In addition to these compelling test results, Iron Curtain has an approved safety architecture as unanimously recommended by the Joint Services Weapons Safety Review Board. These accomplishments along with our cost studies show that this system is affordable and ready to integrate today," said Brendley.
The system's radar was developed by Mustang Technology Group in Plano, Texas. BAE Systems integrated the system onto a combat vehicle as a system demonstrator for government testing.
Mark Signorelli , a BAE Systems executive, said, "We evaluated many active protection systems. Iron Curtain was selected because of its test history, maturity, robust capability against many types of threats, and safety to personnel outside the vehicle. Clearly, the outstanding result from these tests vindicates our decision. The BAE protection systems team picked the best APS in the market, and then did an excellent job in integrating it with our platform."
Retired Army Gen. Walter "Skip" Sharp, former head of U.S. and U.N. forces in Korea, said, "The threat posed by small rockets and missiles is very real in places such as Korea and around the globe. When I first heard how Iron Curtain shoots down threats just inches from the vehicle, my reaction was, 'No way!' But after I examined the data and witnessed a live fire demonstration, I was convinced. It defeats a real threat, and I can't see any technical, safety or affordability reason why this shouldn't be deployed today and save lives."
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Expeditionary Warfare, Brian Detter , said, "This is clearly a life-saving technology, and the testing demonstrates it is ready to be included in existing ground vehicles and those under development, such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Currently, there is no plan to include APS, and modifications can be made which preserves this capability at very little cost."
What ever happend to Raytheon Quick Kill? They said they would have government tests in march 2013. Haven't heard anything about it since. This Iron Curtain is cool and all, but having to put this all around a tank would take a lot. Doesn't protect against roof shots either. Wonder if it could take out RPG-29/RPG-30.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't be too hard to put around a tank, the main concern would be the effect of the main cannon's over pressure wave on the system. Roof shots could probably be protected against, but it would also decrease the overall safety of the system. Part of the inherent safety of this system is that it sends a cone/wall of shrapnel downward relatively close to the vehicle so that as long as dismounted soldiers are maintaining a keep out zone, the likelihood of injury is low or at least lower than that resulting from the actual RPG detonating.
DeleteRPG-29 shouldn't be an issue. The shrapnel wave will impact the rocket and break/destroy it. The answer for an RPG-30 slightly more complex and likely depends on details of the system that aren't available/public: distance between the rockets, lengthwise distribution of the shrapnel field, depth of the shrapnel field, independence of the explosive blocks that form the shrapnel field, acquisition ability of the radar, dependence/independence of the optical and radar systems, independent response time chaining delay, number of objects that can be tracked simultaneously, effectiveness/damage of the mini rocket, etc.
For example, if the system can track both rockets and it is known that the smaller/faster rocket poses little danger, you can just ignore it and take out the bigger one. For something like a hmmv, where the smaller rocket is likely to cause damage, it comes down to the ability to track multiple targets, the lateral spacing between the rockets, and the distance/width of the explosive shrapnel packs as well as the effective width/depth of the shrapnel fields.
From a practical standpoint, the main issue is the ability of the radar and optical systems to track multiple targets. The issues around the shrapnel field and likely be at least modified to deal with the threat.
In general the RPG-30 seems more effective vs an Israeli Trophy type system than something like the Iron Curtain design.
unless you're facing a complex anti-armor ambush like the Israeli's ran into when they faced off against the Hezbollah.
Deletethey aren't even professional soldiers yet they bloodied the noses of a first rate army. reports of multiple heavy anti-tank missiles being fired against one tank must be chilling to anyone inside one of those beasts. if you're up against pros then you can add in artillery fire, multiple (as in as many as the men can carry) light anti-tank rockets and you have a system that can in my minds eye be overwhelmed.
we don't know the details of the test but unless these systems are facing real world scenarios i remain in the skeptics camp.
Honestly, none of the APS are designed nor claim to protect against a full on concerted and organized anti-armor ambush. To expect them to is complete folly. A concerted multiple launch attack will result in an optimal or near optimal EFP impact. All the APS against sustained multiple launch will eventually run out of either sector charges or charges all together.
DeleteExpecting any modern system to prevent that is just ignoring reality. You prevent that via doctrinal, maneuver, and short range situational awareness tactics/technology including infantry support. If you drive down a high walled/building road without support, you will likely get ambushed and immobilized.
The purpose behind APS is to provide defense again point and longer range attacks and to increase the amount of manpower and RPGs required to either immobilize or kill a vehicle. It isn't a case of saying, well APS doesn't work against all attacks so it is useless. By that same logic, armor itself is also useless. Both APS and armor simply increase the threat level required to immobilize or kill a vehicle.
The primary benefit of an iron curtain style APS is that it allows infantry to be in relatively close proximity to the protected vehicle. The other APS systems that are known about utilize outward conical shrapnel charges which requires a much larger spacing between the vehicle and surrounding infantry (on the order of 30-40m kill/injury zones while the zone for iron curtain should be in the low single meters).
For testing, they likely tested against both single and tandem RPG rounds.
Might be just me, but defeating a threat three inches outside the armour is better than defeating it three inches into the armour. :P
ReplyDeleteDoes it really matter where you stop it, as long as it is stopped?