|
Russian Active Protection Systems were
matured much earlier than the west's, as they were designed to
counter the threat from the west's anti-tank systems such as TOW,
Hellfire and HOT missiles fired from ground and helicopter
platforms, as well as airborne launched anti-tank missiles (such
as the Maverick). Although the Russian systems were much heavier
than their current Western counterparts, they provided the
countermeasures that could decimate the western threat. These
heavy countermeasure systems were designed to protect the most
important elements in the heavy armored divisions - and were
applied to platforms such as the T-55, T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks and
BMP-3 APCs. The Drozd systems entered full scale development when
as Russia was no longer planning to confront NATO, but was deeply
engaged in a war of attrition in Afghanistan and later - in
Chechnya, where defensive these countermeasures were required to
protect much older T-55 tanks against Russian made RPGs and AT
missiles. The Russian APS systems introduced innovative and proven
defeat mechanisms against CE and KE threats. First was the
Drozd, which protected
the tank's forward arc. This system was later followed by the
Arena-E system, which
introduced 360 degrees protection from side, front and partially
top attacks.
The US Army is
considering to replace the 1990's technology of the MCD, with a
Full Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP), a new system approach that
will be balanced with the capabilities of future advanced armor
technology. Such advanced active protection systems will be
considered to provide the primary survivability component of
future armored vehicles. FSAP will include missile engagement
capabilities, to-attack munitions intercept and defeat capability
and kinetic energy threat engagement concept. As the system
addresses both Kinetic Energy (KE) threats and Chemical
Energy (CE) threats, it will utilize different countermeasures
concepts to engage each threat. CE countermeasures rely on
technologically proven sensors and kill mechanisms.
 For
the near term, potential candidate for the near-term CE countermeasures
system is the FCLAS
system, under development at the US Army Tank Automotive Research,
Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and the Israeli /
General Dynamics developed
Trophy. Another
addition considered for future survivability applications are
various laser based infrared countermeasures, applicable against
thermal guided weapons. In Germany, Diehl is developing a similar
active protection system designated
AWiSS, which will be able
to counter RPGs and other CE threats.
A near-term Close-in countermeasure (CICM)
was also developed and tested by United Defense destined for rapid
fielding with US forces in Iraq.
The KE countermeasures require longer
detection range and faster data processing, to provide for
effective response rate against the faster threat. These have
already been demonstrated in testing, but require more development
to mature. Kill mechanisms compatible with KE countermeasures rely
on different concepts, including radial shaped charge warheads,
multiple explosive formed projectiles (Multi EFP), blast
deflection mechanism as well as momentum transfer methods. The
Multi EFP concept is considered to be the most mature, as it can
be utilized for both KE and CE engagements. An advanced generation
of the Trophy is
reported to be capable of intercepting and countering such kinetic
threats. It is also anticipated that the full capability version
of IAAPS will also
feature such performance. These munitions are
set to explode ahead of the incoming threat, forming a dense
"curtain" of high velocity fragments within one milisecond.
Previous.
|
