Armor & Mobility

MAR-APR 2018

Military magazines in the United States and Canada, covering Armor and Mobility, focuses on tactical vehicles, C4ISR, Special Operations Forces, latest soldier equipment, shelters, and key DoD programs

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 29 of 35

THE ACTIVE DEF OUR MISSION : PROVIDE THE MO ARMORED VEHICLE DEFENSE NEEDS A CRITICAL UPGRADE By Dr. Ronald M. Meixner, ADS mbH Vehicle armor has proven to be largely ineffecƟve against Rocket-Propelled Grenades and AnƟ-Tank Guided Missiles. Experience has shown that these small, lightweight and easily deployed weapon systems can be lethal against even the most well armored vehicles. AutomaƟon is the key to reversing this situaƟon. AcƟve ProtecƟon Systems provide an automated and immediate response to these anƟ-armor threats by destroying or disabling the incoming missile. This type of "Hardkill" APS not only increases survivability, it also provides much greater situaƟonal awareness as APS sensors generate and communicate criƟcal data that idenƟfies the type and vector of an incoming RPG or ATGM threat, enabling an immediate and effecƟve response. Turn surprise against you into your combat iniƟaƟve . . . . This is what an AcƟve ProtecƟon System does for you. Latest GeneraƟon APS AcƟve ProtecƟon Systems have been in development for decades. Russia deployed early versions of APS in the 1980's. Since then, many lessons have been learned and APS has conƟnued to evolve in response to increasingly advanced threats and changing combat situaƟons. CriƟcal APS Design ObjecƟves Safe-by-Design Defeat the MulƟ-AƩack Minimize Threat Defeat Distance Top AƩack Defense Low Power DetecƟon Modular Design Key Requirement Drivers APS must be safe for vehicle crews, dismounted infantry and civilian non-combatants, and must not disrupt normal operational tempo. APS must be effecƟve in complex threat scenarios, including defeat of simultaneous aƩacks and tandem warhead threats. APS must be capable of reacƟng quickly enough to effecƟvely defeat threats fired from very close range (objecƟve should be 10 meters or less). The drone aƩack is commonplace today as is urban combat with at- tackers in high buildings. APS should be able to defend against these evolving and increasingly common top-aƩack threats. The slow reacƟon Ɵme of early APS designs required significant radar range for the system to effecƟvely detect and respond to incoming threats, creaƟng high EW exposure and broadcasƟng the vehicle's presence on a baƩlefield. To avoid this APS radar signature should be minimized. A modular approach to APS design enables integraƟon on a wide variety of vehicle plaƞorms, from light trucks to tanks. Upgrade Vehicle Defense, not the Vehicle Design New vehicles in development today typically do not consider APS in their original designs so the ability to effectively integrate APS during in-service upgrades is criƟcal. SWaP has to be miƟgated and balanced with defensive performance requirements. A modular design that incorporates the same system components to detect, classify and counter potential threats makes the task of integration easier because placement of these APS components can be tailored to vehicle design limitations. This enables APS integration across a wide range of vehicle types. This type of modular APS design is also easier to deploy and to upgrade as future advancements in technology become available.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Armor & Mobility - MAR-APR 2018