Jump to content

Recommended Posts

... in response to Russian APS. Must say I'm surprised - and equally intrigued by its replacement:

"Should Russia's new Armata T-14 tanks worry Nato?"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40083641

"A Russian innovation in armoured warfare has pushed Norway to replace many of its current anti-tank systems.
Active protection systems (APS) are being built into Russia's new Armata T-14 tank, posing a problem for a whole generation of anti-armour weapons, not least the US-supplied Javelin guided missile, used by the Norwegian Army.
The warning comes from Brig Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. He says this is a problem that most Nato countries have barely begun to grapple with.
APS threatens to make existing anti-tank weapons far less effective, and there is little real discussion of this among many Western militaries, he says.
Some countries are conducting research and trials to equip their own tanks with APS. "But they seem to miss the uncomfortable implications for their own anti-armour capabilities," he says.
Norway is one of the first Nato countries to grasp this nettle. Its latest defence procurement plan envisages spending 200-350m kroner (£18.5-32.5m; $24-42m) on replacing its Javelin missiles, "to maintain the capacity to fight against heavy armoured vehicles".
"There is a need for [an] anti-tank missile," it says, "that can penetrate APS systems"."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 minutes ago, IanL said:

Did I miss something? I do not think that I read the Armata would have an APS system capable of defeating top attack missiles. I guess we really do not know anything about the APS system being developed.

My thought as well. The graphic seems to imply a high attack profile rather than a true top attack; which isn't what the Javelin does at longer ranges. Regardless, a bit of RnD based around a potential adversary isn't exactly a bad thing either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that a modification to Javelin software to make it using higher trajectory, with terminal dive angle close to vertical, would extend it's effectiveness against most APS systems.  Of course that wouldn't work in case of low clouds base.

What could be next step ? Adding a precursor missile fired forward at the last moment ? Smart APS radar could recognise and ignore that. But it could work for some time.

Best solution against any APS would be a heavy, pure kinetic weapon, like LOSAT -  there is simply no defense against this thing. But such missile has to be big and heavy... not man portable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the 'tank-destroyer' concept has also returned to the table as a possible solution.....I seem to recall a 140mm (or larger) weapon was under consideration for something that looked not unlike a high-tech Jagdpanzer IV.

Which option would probably be much more costly than the two I mention above.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know but tank destroyers are cool.  B)

And suggesting that any ordnance to be delivered by F-35 could ever be considered 'cheap' is probably just a wee bit optimistic all things considered (Can it actually even drop ordnance yet.....Intentionally I mean).  :P

If you want to get really high-tech (& expensive) about it, this is the option you want:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

And suggesting that any ordnance to be delivered by F-35 could ever be considered 'cheap' is probably just a wee bit optimistic all things considered (Can it actually even drop ordnance yet.....Intentionally I mean).  :P

In the case of an already operational fast mover or helo, basically all you would have to do is modify existing hard points to accept the weapon and perhaps change some software. Compared to creating and producing a whole new armored vehicle, I'd expect that to be relatively cheap. (Since we are talking modern weapons here, the term 'cheap' is very relative. For the cost of each one, you could probably put up a dormitory for the homeless. But alas, that would no doubt not make as popular a game.)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IanL said:

Did I miss something? I do not think that I read the Armata would have an APS system capable of defeating top attack missiles. I guess we really do not know anything about the APS system being developed.

Afghanit has 180 degree coverage. However, it uses soft-kill --probably IR-blocking smoke-- against diving munitions (Javelin uses IR tracking).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clumsy article. Norway is not replacing the Jav (ie the insinuation being that it is discarding Javelin) it's simply looking at future upgrades that will stay ahead of the accelerating R&D curve of APS. 

Personally, Im curious how hard would it be to adjust/supplement even current  APS to counter top attack munitions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting how the BBC has now 'discovered' APS while we've been wargaming with it for a year. ^_^ From what I (imagine I) understand, the US is hesitating on their own APS because they want to work out the bugs and work around the limitations before fielding anything. High angle of attack defense (terminally guided mortars) is a particularly thorny problem.

Tell me if I'm mistaken. It seems like APS radar would need to be continually on to provide coverage, making it into a virtual radio beacon to track the movement of enemy armor - A potential issue when facing a techologically savvy opponent. I wonder how susceptible to ECM interference, jamming or false signals it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Tell me if I'm mistaken. It seems like APS radar would need to be continually on to provide coverage, making it into a virtual radio beacon to track the movement of enemy armor - A potential issue when facing a techologically savvy opponent. I wonder how susceptible to ECM interference, jamming or false signals it is.

I believe JK has provided some figures for that somewhere in the forum.....Apparently the signal is not detectable at significant range (IIRC), I don't remember the specifics I'm afraid.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of issues for sure. The other one that gets very little discussion is its effect on friendly units. Crap, I remember when I first learned to be really careful when infantry are working in close proximity to tanks. It was in Dueling Shashkas. A squad was a head of on of the T84s when a missile came flying in and the APS did its job resulting in a sizable explosion right over the lead squad. Ouch it has to change the protocol for close working between tanks and infantry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael developed an new Spike LR II with a high impact angle and a Artificial Intelligence for target tracking to Counter APS / Countermeasures:

http://defense-update.com/20170529_spike_lr_2.html

""To handle such a wide range of targets RAFAEL offers the missile with a choice of two warheads – an anti-tank missile optimized with an enhanced tandem warhead that increases armor penetration by 30 percent over the previous generation. Another advantage of the new missile is its ability to strike at higher impact angles – Spike LR II will be able to hit targets at up to 70 degrees, delivering more lethal top attack profile. According to RAFAEL, the SPIKE LR II is the only missiles known to have an inherent Counter-APS (CAPS) capability.""

""Those software-based AI functions enable the seeker to maintain target lock even in situations that auto trackers generally fail – target disappearing behind obstacles, or against a low-contrast background, where third generation (fire and forget) missiles would fail, and fourth generation missiles would need operator assistance. The new Spike LR II can overcome such challenges and track its target automatically. Moreover, as a software defined feature those seeker functions can be changed and upgraded, enabling designers to implement innovative techniques against new enemy counter-countermeasures.""

 

Edited by Redken
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Apparently not in RL.....I was watching those 'Ukraine Combat Videos', with guys ambling past tanks festooned with reactive armour, thinking just one 30mm cannon shell and you lot are Nationalist Paté!  :rolleyes:

Yeah that stuff too. At least the ERA charges go off right next to the tank. Those APS systems throw an explosive out from the tank and then they go off in the air - not to mention the possibility of setting of whatever it is trying to wreck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

What I said was that if you want not to be easily detected at a distance you wanted to be on the water absorption spike at ~60 GHz, as seen in Figure 1 at the link. This doesn't work as well when you're in places like the Sahara! By contrast, the WASP program's seeker was at 94 GHz, which is in the attenuation trough. This was important, for the seeker had to look ahead and down to a fair distance--regardless of weather.

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~anita/new/papers/militaryHandbook/rf_absor.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...