弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批� http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产� http://www.xqt007.cn
�人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪�机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
��机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三�翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混�机 http://www.85399888.cn
�拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼�阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻�器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批� http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产� http://www.xqt007.cn
�人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪�机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
��机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三�翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混�机 http://www.85399888.cn
�拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼�阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻�器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批� http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产� http://www.xqt007.cn
�人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪�机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
��机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三�翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混�机 http://www.85399888.cn
�拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼�阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻�器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批� http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产� http://www.xqt007.cn
�人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪�机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
��机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三�翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混�机 http://www.85399888.cn
�拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼�阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻�器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html弓弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
弩　　　http://www.168gongnu.cn
新奇特批� http://www.jsxqt88.com
新奇特产� http://www.xqt007.cn
�人玩具 http://www.jsxqt88.com/tupianl.htm
剪�机　 http://www.jxwjs.cn
弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
弓弩 http://www.jsxqt88.com/indexi.htm
乳化机 http://www.ntdyjx.cn
过滤器 http://www.dryent.com
��机 http://www.nthljc.cn
弓弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弩　 http://www.gongnuw.cn
弓弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
弩　　http://www.gongnuw.com
通风机 http://www.qdwdl.com.cn
三�翻　 http://www.gr-door.com
混�机 http://www.85399888.cn
�拌机 http://www.85399888.cn/jiaobanji-01.html
呼�阀 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_29.html
阻�器 http://www.ntdyjx.cn/product_26.html

Posted by: 弩 at November 14, 2008 07:57 AM

You people talk about it like it should or should NOT happen. It MUST happen. It may not have the greatest top-attack coverage. But it has excellent 360 lateral coverage. To say that it stinks or that it should not be used, when it can eliminate all incoming threats from the side is ludicrous. Does a kevlar vest have good "top coverage?" It has NONE. yet it's still used and it has saved MANY lives. THAT is the whole point. NOT who pioneered it (unsuccessfully), and not the weak spots. ANY step that can be taken to reduce casualties is a step forward.

YES, it might pepper friendly forces, who are in full kit and protected against stupid "shot." Let's look at it from the point of view of a battlefield, not armchair quarterbacks. A vehicle full of American troops is a nice target. That's when the RPGs hit. Why would you fire an RPG at a stationary vehicle when there's 8 well trained American infantry man bearing down on you??? If the infantry has a chance to dismount, the odds of survival for the enemy go WAY down. That is the point that they disengage and run. Once the vehicle stops, infantry dismounts, they know that air strikes will also be inbound, not to mention any other mech. infantry in the area will converge. They don't do stand-up fights. THAT is the whole problem.

Posted by: Lamont at January 13, 2007 04:02 AM

1.Well, for some reason the article does not mention that Russian were the first to develop active protection systems years ago (Drozd 1 and 2 and Arena). (Or copied it, as this site appearently claims for any Russian equipment). Although, there does not seem to be any further development in the past years.
2. Diferentiating "beer cans" (as one reader commented) and ATGM or RPGs is extremly!!! easy. It is much harder to disinguish between hits and near misses (not to mention the difficulty if the vehicle is moving).
3. The problem in defeating such a system is not of guiding a missile to the tank (some of you mention using vehicles radar-pointless since a properly designed system will shoot down the missile be it passive radar guided or whotsever).
However their is always the possibility of destroying sensors/protective munitions with some other type of weapon (AHEAD?)- but anyway this makes an oponent have to overcome another major barrier in defeating the armored vehicle).There is no 100% proetction.

Posted by: Andrej at April 4, 2006 04:16 AM

As mentioned, Russians have been playing along with it since the 70s. Drozd sytem was effective in Afganistan but tended to pump the support squads full of ball bearings. The Arena system is suppoused to be even more effective, but the friendly fire problems remain.

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

Description & Videos for Arena

Posted by: Alex at March 14, 2006 01:56 AM

The chance of our current foe using anything
remotely close to a radar-guided and/or tracking
munition is highly unlikely.such weapons cost a
whole lot of mulla-shmulla,something a cash strappedi nsurgent is unlikely to part with when he can lay
hands on second-hand rpg-7s by the truckload for
way cheaper a price.As to the active protection
device and the undue harm errant frags from its warhead could cause is quite valid.I would think something more along the lines of a millimeter wave radar directed metal storm device,similar in concept to what the navy has been looking into as a point defence alternative to knock out incoming
anti-ship missles,might be employed,although you would still have the possibility of errant slugs
taking out an bystander.It would have the advantage of being capable of more direct fire
on an incoming projectile.As for the "Beer can"
accidental discharge theory,i would think the
weapons original programmers would be a little smarter then that,an rpg round moves at a
substantually higher velocity and possesses a
unique ballistic coefficient than say a can of
budweiser,or rock or whatever cockamamy,naysayer
object one could imagine.

Another alternative would be for the projectiles
warhead to have,not a prefragmented shot array
like a claymore mine,but perhaps a powdered or
sintered metal casing set around a bursting charge
the framentation mass would be sufficient to weaken the incoming projectiles body/stabilization
fins to knock it off couse,or detonate the charge
in the stand-off cone long before it reaches its
intended target,add an element of chaff/flare to
the powdered metal too confound weapons of the
guided/tracking variaty.

just a little food for thought.

Posted by: katsesama at March 14, 2006 01:07 AM

Well, I guess to be more clear I would say that the Army would be very surprised to hear that are never expected to lay in ambush again. Camouflaging vehicles has been a standard tactic since...forever. If the radar emissions give them away that's a downside. And my concern would be indirect fire weapons lobbed in the general direction of the vehicles would be able to home in on the radars. Being able to kill flies is good, but not if you attract a swarm of them doing it.

But chasing away the protecting infantry is probably the worst danger. Then you really will be more vulnerable to enemy infantry with short-range rockets.

Posted by: James at March 13, 2006 06:49 PM

"And we have to make sure that if someone throws a rock, or a bird flies by, that it doesn't go off."

I'd be more worried if someone threw something like a beer can. Being metallic I would assume it would be pretty hard to diferenciate between an incoming RPG and a can of Fourex.

Using munitions that fire out of the AFV is stupid, both in terms of possible friendly casualties (as James pointed out) and civilian casualties.

To me, the British are on the right track.

Posted by: oz at March 13, 2006 06:19 PM

Boooo ! I had dibs on this idea back during my freshman year in college (02'). hehe, o'well

"http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jwilliam/persproj/index.htm"

haha, my "detailed abstract" is worded almost exactly the same except for the device name of course. I knew those defense contractors were to interested in my idea during my interviews :

" The Trophy system has three elements providing – Threat Detection and Tracking, Launching and Intercept functions. The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including flat-panel radars, placed at strategic locations around the protected vehicle, to provide full hemispherical coverage."

Posted by: Jombs at March 13, 2006 04:34 PM

The principle is sound enough, the question is if it can be made to work in practice.

Abrams armor is excellent, but the vehicle is still vulnerable to RPGs because of weak spots. Active armor may also have blind spots or other limitations.

If it can be triggered by the bad guys at will, this could have horrific results. A vehicle passes by a schoolyard when the active defense system fires...who are the locals going to blame for the casualties?

Could be very useful, but someone is going to have to think very carefully about this.

Incidentally, I have even seen one firm's plans for active body armour which throws out little Kevlar airbags which can slow and deflect bullets. Just don't be standing next to the wearer.

Posted by: David Hambling at March 13, 2006 03:35 PM

Good point, DCL. And what happens when one of these interceptors goes astray, and takes out the wrong Iraqis?

There are some less-lethal active protection schemes being considered, as well -- using things like nets to throw an RPG's course off. Maybe they'll turn out to be a more sensible alternative.

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 13, 2006 11:19 AM

I think these are some legit concerns. It echoes concerns folks have been voicing since the first ERA came out- what about the poor bloody infantry who are supposed to be screening you?
Fortunately for the grunts, the system (as described) is a good deal more focused than the old ERA blocks; the odds of Joe Infantryman taking one in the neck are much lower with this sort of precision system than with sheets of plastic explosive going off near him.
The radar-homing question is also a valid one but inasmuch as the Stryker is not meant for engaging a heavy force (such as would have radar-seeking ATGMs, of all things) it is less applicable.
Come to think of it, shouldn't the system be able to stop the anti-radar RPG as easily as normal RPGs?
This one will bear watching in any event.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at March 13, 2006 11:18 AM

First, our vehicles aren't trying to hide. This is to protect them as they drive down the middle of the street. Certainly, one could build a missile to home in on the radar these will emit. However, RPGs are direct fire weapons. You aim these by pointing them at the target. At that point, you've already got a visual lock on the target. There's no reason to spend the money for it to lock onto the vehicle, especially when the vehicle's protection system will fire anyway, taking care of the missile no matter how well it targets. Besides, any additional targeting equipment will add thousands of dollars of electronics to what is the only anti-tank system these people can really afford.

Posted by: Brian at March 13, 2006 11:12 AM

The major drawback of active protection systems is that they take out your accompanying dismounted infantry. They force you to keep them buttoned up inside the vehicle. Once that happens, you are opening yourself up for other types of attacks such as people running up to the vehicle and throwing grenades and molotov cocktails inside.

Posted by: DC Loser at March 13, 2006 07:35 AM

The Russians have fielded a couple of these systems with mixed results, as I understand it. I guess I have a couple of practical objections. First, wouldn't the radar tend to attract enemy attention, especially if you're trying to hide? Once the frequencies are known, isn't it possible to build a missile that will home in on the signal itself? And second, how will nearby infantry feel about the tanks when they find out they might suddenly start spewing submunitions at any time?

Posted by: James at March 13, 2006 02:03 AM