Active Protection Capability Demonstrated in an Open Demo

ADS equipped Fuchs undergoing mobility tests by Defence Technology Detachment 41 in Trier. Photo: Rheinmetall

A new active protection system developed by Rheinmetall and ADS GmbH was successfully demonstrated in live firing test earlier in the summer of 2011, validating the design parameters of the proprietary blast-based defeat mechanism in development by IBD Diesenroth for years. Since the test ADS has booked a first serial order for the system.

A rocket propelled weapon fired from a distance of 18 meters is intercepted and destroyed at close range by the ADS system protecting the Fuchs armored personnel carrier. Photo: Rheinmetall
The ADS installation includes modules combining sensors and explosive charges that blast away at the instance the threat is in effective range. The system combines threat detection sensors and electro-optical triggering systems, each segment protecting a specific sector of the protector perimeter and provide overlapping of its neighboring sectors. Photo: Rheinmetall

The test vehicle was a standard Fuchs/Fox 1A8 armored personnel carrier modified to carry the system, configured as an appliqué assembly ‘crowning’ above the vehicle’s perimeter, enabling the 6×6 vehicle to assume full protection against Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) without significantly altering the basic parameters of volume, weight and electrical output, mobility and handling trials.

For the APS a Panzerfaust rocket propelled weapon was fired at the ADS protected Fuchs as it travelled at a speed of 20 km/h. Triggered by a pressure detonator of the type commonly used to set off IEDs in urban areas and along routes of march, an RPG was fired at the side of the vehicle from a distance of 18 meters. The small standoff was intended to demonstrate ADS’s unique effectiveness in responding to an attack at close quarters, while simultaneously assuring that the detonator of the shaped charge was armed.

The ADS sensors detected the attack, identified the incoming projectile as a threat and immediately initiated its destruction. Its residual impact was insufficient to penetrate the vehicle’s armor, and was in fact so weak that the vehicle was able to drive away under its own power after being fired on. The low collateral risk was highlighted by the proximity of the test to the VIPs attending the test, viewing the live test from a distance of 150 meters.

Rheinmetall AG owns a 74% share of the ADS GmbH, with the remaining shares held by the technology developer IBD GmbH.

ADS equipped Fuchs undergoing mobility tests by Defence Technology Detachment 41 in Trier. Photo: Rheinmetall


  1. Diehl’s MAPS seems to be a superior system, compared with this one presented here. Much smaller, taking much less space on the armored vehicle, less bulky – and doing the same, efficient job, if not a better one …….

  2. If the thing takes up so much roof space then its hardly practical .
    Other systems have just a couple of modules which have 360 degree coverage.

    I can’t even see the German army buying it unless it evolves into a much smaller system.

  3. I don’t think the ADS concept is comparable to a full fledged APS system. It is optimized for very short range engagements, and, I am not sure it can handle threats at higher velocities.

    This configuration was designed to fit lighter vehicles such as Iveco LMV and potentially Dingo. On such light and medium armored vehicles there are other aspects to consider including including system weight and the acceleration loads transferred to the vehicle structure.

    In medium and light vehicles, systems ‘shooting’ intercepting elements at a distance are difficult to integrate, therefore, Textron, Rafael, IBD and others are employing multiple elements to protect against RPGs at very short range, shaping the dynamic movement outward (Textron, IBD) or downward (Rafael, Artis) thus enabling installation of APS even on light vehicles. IMI has taken an alternative approach utilizing a specialized mount (the Bright Arrow weapon system) offering similar capabilities.

    • Yes, this ADS system is doing substantially less, at the very same time being much huger, heavier and bulkier. Both Rafael’s Trophy and IMI’s Iron Fist exist now in much smaller and lighter versions, being able to protect relatively small armored vehicles, like Rafael’s Golan, or IMI’s Wildcat – both 0f them smaller than this German Fuchs/Fox, or even smaller armored cars than Golan/Wildcat. The only thing, which would speak for this ADS/Rheinmetall system is its possibly much lower price.

  4. There seems to be a large consensus about AMAP-ADS here. Maybe some other thought provoking ideas might be welcomed?

    On the contrary to the consensus here I personally consider this system at least equal to the fielded ones.

    Two major advantages I would think of are, that first it has no kinetic interceptor thus no shrapnel and second it has by far the closest detection & intercept range with well below 10m. Both reduce collateral and make it much more suitable in urban areas and next to dismounts than any other system.

    The weight is also equal to the system offered by Diehl. While AMAP-ADS is installed on the roof, the only disadvantage I can see is, that RWS would have to be installed elevated in order not to reduce the firing arc – yet, depending on the customers needs, it was shown that AMAP-ADS can be installed entirely on the sides as well as shown on the CV90120-T and wheeled SEP.

    So, while AMAP-ADS would require an elevated position for RWS, all other systems that use a rotating launcher actually do create a blind spot for any RWS with named disadvanteges of long intercept ranges and collateral.

    It is not that AMAP-ADS is tailor made for lighter vehicles, at least it is my impression, that just no other system can be equally upscaled from light to heavy.

Leave a Reply