"Force Field" to defeat RPGs - tell me more

#1
My civvy brother showed me this (from last year). Seems IDF were developing somethin similar. Can't find anything more recent.

OPSEC considered - can anybody out there tell us more?

Stryker Trophy System Destroys RPGs at First U.S. Live-Fire Tests

By John Joyce, Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division Corporate Communications

DAHLGREN, Va. (NNS) -- The Trophy Active Protection System (APS) designed to protect vehicles from rocket or missile attacks was successfully demonstrated for the first time on U.S. soil at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren Division March 30.

More than 100 visitors, including U.S. and international military dignitaries, observed the testing that culminated with a live-fire demonstration of the Trophy APS-equipped Stryker combat vehicle that was on the move when it detected, tracked and defeated an inert incoming rocket propelled grenade.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=22954
 
#3
Yep... lovely system that works as advertised with one major hitch. Friendly dismounts tend to get shredded if they happen to be between the vehicle and the incoming ATGM/RPG...
 
#5
Khyros said:
Yep... lovely system that works as advertised with one major hitch. Friendly dismounts tend to get shredded if they happen to be between the vehicle and the incoming ATGM/RPG...
Surely friendly dismounts would get shredded if the RPG/ATGM hit the vehicle anyway?
 
#6
Stonker said:
My civvy brother showed me this (from last year). Seems IDF were developing somethin similar. Can't find anything more recent.

OPSEC considered - can anybody out there tell us more?

Actually, I remember reading something about this ages ago..

I suspect this article from the Telegraph by 'Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent' may shed some light.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/19/nmod19.xml

I wonder if its the same 'Mick Smith' that you swap eyesight posts with?

:)
 
#7
Mr._Average said:
Stonker said:
My civvy brother showed me this (from last year). Seems IDF were developing somethin similar. Can't find anything more recent.

OPSEC considered - can anybody out there tell us more?

Actually, I remember reading something about this ages ago..

I suspect this article from the Telegraph by 'Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent' may shed some light.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/19/nmod19.xml

I wonder if its the same 'Mick Smith' that you swap eyesight posts with?

:)
Serpently is. C'mere Rover - bring me that white stick . . . . ow!! Who put that chair in the way. :?
 
#8
Leaving 'blind o'Reilly' to find the glasses he uses to find his glasses, the report by Mick Smith is dated 2002. This suggests there was some other major 'snag' to this system.......
 
#9
hansvonhealing said:
Leaving 'blind o'Reilly' to find the glasses he uses to find his glasses, the report by Mick Smith is dated 2002. This suggests there was some other major 'snag' to this system.......
Yes - a determined refusal to fund it, no doubt
 
#10
duckiciao said:
Khyros said:
Yep... lovely system that works as advertised with one major hitch. Friendly dismounts tend to get shredded if they happen to be between the vehicle and the incoming ATGM/RPG...
Surely friendly dismounts would get shredded if the RPG/ATGM hit the vehicle anyway?
Think along the lines of crew dismounted to patrol on foot ahead of/alongside the vehicle, in order to detect roadside IEDs/EFPs.

I think that might be the kind of scenario Khyros had in mind. (confirm, Khyros?)

What were you thinking: something like "Doesn't matter whether you fry inside or al fresco"?
 
#11
Firstly, I'm no electrician and I may be asking a stupid question, but I was struck by this part of Mick Smiths article:
When the warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull.
I assume they tested this without a crew in the tank.
According to this website http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1335 the amount required to kill a human being is 0.07 amps..So, how do they ensure the crew of the tank aren't electrocuted - especially as there is molten copper(an excellent conductor of electricity)flying about?
 
#12
hansvonhealing said:
Firstly, I'm no electrician and I may be asking a stupid question, but I was struck by this part of Mick Smiths article:
When the warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull.
I assume they tested this without a crew in the tank.
According to this website http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1335 the amount required to kill a human being is 0.07 amps..So, how do they ensure the crew of the tank aren't electrocuted - especially as there is molten copper(an excellent conductor of electricity)flying about?
I'm guessing that mick is no technologist.

I suspect wot happens is that this thing detects incoming, and then generates an electromagentic pulse (like yr mobile phone making yr car radfio go dzz-dzz) that is strong eneough to actuate the detonator, so the projectile detonates before it makes contact with its intended target.

Shaped charges are ineffective against armour unless they detonate within a avery narrowly defined standoff distance, thereby focussing their explosive energies to best effect (think in terms of burning paper with a magnifying lens, on a sunny day - only works with the lens at the right distance.) On t'other hand, the explosion of a shaped charge is effective against personnel in the open, hence Khyros comments earlier.

Haven't yet figure out how/if the system I'm imagingin might function in order to neutralise/minimise EFP attacks, which by deifinintion seem to be effective over a less narrowly limited range.

This is guesswork, however - I'll happily have my deductions corrected/adjusted by others more informed than this ex-Grunt.
 
#13
The Mick Smith article concerns 'electric armour', the subject of extensive research by Dstl (and others). Electric armour essentially works by 'shorting out' the jet of a HEAT warhead, and part of the whole FRES work package has included a study to demonstrate the ease of integration of such a system.

The original 'Trophy' article refers to an Israeli hard-kill DAS - i.e. a system designed to detect and destroy incoming warheads before they even make contact with the vehicle.
 
#14
Gassing_Badgers said:
The Mick Smith article concerns 'electric armour', the subject of extensive research by Dstl (and others). Electric armour essentially works by 'shorting out' the jet of a HEAT warhead, and part of the whole FRES work package has included a study to demonstrate the ease of integration of such a system.

The original 'Trophy' article refers to an Israeli hard-kill DAS - i.e. a system designed to detect and destroy incoming warheads before they even make contact with the vehicle.
So - similar but different - and not yet in the field (or even close?)
 
#15
Surely the theory (in the 'electric armour' article) is that the charge raises the temperature of the copper jet to such a point that it becomes ineffective as its' kinetic energy is dispersed by expansion? It would certainly have to do that very quickly, though, so the amp reading would have to be on the high side. Wouldn't have any effect on any other type of attack, though, unless you count the barbecue'd individuals with their suicide vests.
 
#16
As the current passes along the length of the jet, it creates a phenomenon similar to that of an 'exploding wire'.

Theory is that if you put enough current down a wire in a suitably short space of time, magneto-hydrodynamic forces pinch the wire into segments - these segments then 'explode' in the manner of smoke rings.

E-armour has an advantage over DAS-type systems in that it is essentially 'dumb', and therefore has no reliance on sensors or targetting algorithms.

H-DAS on the other hand, can engage a greater range of threats from a multitude of aspects.
 
#17
Gassing_Badgers said:
As the current passes along the length of the jet, it creates a phenomenon similar to that of an 'exploding wire'.

Theory is that if you put enough current down a wire in a suitably short space of time, magneto-hydrodynamic forces pinch the wire into segments - these segments then 'explode' in the manner of smoke rings.

E-armour has an advantage over DAS-type systems in that it is essentially 'dumb', and therefore has no reliance on sensors or targetting algorithms.

H-DAS on the other hand, can engage a greater range of threats from a multitude of aspects.
incl. EFP?
 
#18
Stonker said:
Gassing_Badgers said:
As the current passes along the length of the jet, it creates a phenomenon similar to that of an 'exploding wire'.

Theory is that if you put enough current down a wire in a suitably short space of time, magneto-hydrodynamic forces pinch the wire into segments - these segments then 'explode' in the manner of smoke rings.

E-armour has an advantage over DAS-type systems in that it is essentially 'dumb', and therefore has no reliance on sensors or targetting algorithms.

H-DAS on the other hand, can engage a greater range of threats from a multitude of aspects.
incl. EFP?
That would depend on the actual system in question - I was really only referring to the general concept of H-DAS.

In theory it could be done, but the practicalities of hitting something travelling at several Km per second - when launched from the curbside - would be tricky in the least...
 
#19
Gassing_Badgers said:
Stonker said:
incl. EFP?
That would depend on the actual system in question - I was really only referring to the general concept of H-DAS.

In theory it could be done, but the practicalities of hitting something travelling at several Km per second - when launched from the curbside - would be tricky in the least...
Understatement; v British! :sunny:

Thanx
 
#20
Stonker said:
duckiciao said:
Khyros said:
Yep... lovely system that works as advertised with one major hitch. Friendly dismounts tend to get shredded if they happen to be between the vehicle and the incoming ATGM/RPG...
Surely friendly dismounts would get shredded if the RPG/ATGM hit the vehicle anyway?
Think along the lines of crew dismounted to patrol on foot ahead of/alongside the vehicle, in order to detect roadside IEDs/EFPs.

I think that might be the kind of scenario Khyros had in mind. (confirm, Khyros?)

What were you thinking: something like "Doesn't matter whether you fry inside or al fresco"?
Exactly the situation... far as RPGs striking the vehicle when the personnel are dismounted, well... chances are first that one of the troopies will see the tango using the RPG setting up the shot and will perforate his nasty hide first. Easy to get the drop on a vehicle... very difficult to do so against a selection of trained mk.I eyeballs.

Sad fact is that vehicular patrols in an urban enviroment are quite a bit less effective than foot ones. The patrol is channalized and is much more vulnerable to ambush when mounted. It's one thing to scoot along the open desert frontier in an AFV when a potential threat is easy to identify but on a crowded street... that's asking for trouble.
 

Similar threads

Top