New Russian Anti-Tank “Trick” overcoming ADS

[luca28]

The Russian defence manufacturer Bazalt has unveiled a new infantry anti-tank system specifically designed to overcome active defence systems (ADS) for MBTs and other AFVs which are now entering service among major armies.

Readers will recall that all such active defence systems are based upon the combined use of various sensors to identify and track an incoming threat (anti-tank missile or projectile), and some form of counter-measure being launched, fired or detonated to intercept the threat. Bazalt’s new AT system, designated RPG-30, is based upon the simple concept of fooling the ADS into activating its counter-measures too early, thus remaining unable to intercept the real threat as it continues on its trajectory.

The RPG-30 is made up of the combination of two throwaway tubes for rocket-propelled grenades. The main 105mm-dia. tube is very similar to the standard RPG-27 weapon and maintains the same RPG-30 grenade with a tandem-shaped charged warhead, but it is backed by a smaller tube containing a so-called precursor rocket. The working principle consists of the precursor rocket being fired first, thus activating the target vehicle’s active defence system and being duly intercepted and destroyed at close range. The main rocket follows within a short time interval (0.2-0-4 sec.) that, according to Bazalt, does not leave the ADS enough time to reset itself for the next engagement sequence. According to the company, the effectiveness of the system has been demonstrated during extensive fire tests (arguably involving the Russian ARENA-E and/or DROZD active defence systems) in late 2008.

Understandably, the whole concept is based upon the idea that no active defence system could intercept in succession two different threats coming from the same direction at a 0.2-0.4 sec. interval. If this were indeed true, possible counter-counter-moves would have to be found in trying to further reduce the reset time, and/or enlarge the kill area covered by the counter-measure which, however, would further aggravate the risk of collateral damage.

For more information and for the working principle of the RPG-30, see:
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/230/

[marcellogo]

... simply putting on more than a precursor rocket, like in helicopter's rocket pop and shooting them in a casual sequence, so you have to intercept it all.
For a more nasty trick you can also put on same type of fuze,(something like the one Strelas and Iglas got to spark the remaining fuel) that when the precursor is intercepted project forward an iron balls canister, at least gaining a sensor kill.

[Firn]

It should be rather easy to program the Active Defense System to avoid going for the small threat.

a) Given that it can detect and interpret not just one projectile at the time a slow one with a very small head should be pretty down the target list. The systems ought to be very fast indeed.

b) It may also be favorable to increase the engagment range of the ADS when the standard one would not allow all two targets to be defeated.

[Feanor]

Just volley fire the ATGMs, or RPGs, 5-6 of them per target.

[marcellogo]

...as you depict it, you need still a such advanced sistem to discriminate the real anti-tank charge from drones and if the drones are still capable to damage your vehicle visors or the ADS itself you simply can't affort to not intercept them.

In every case I don't find these demonstrative examples so convincing, they always shown the same: one only and only that weapon, one only target and nothing in between, like in a laboratory or a proving ground, in battle things are usually very different.

My personal idea for overlapping all these fabled ADS is if possible much more simplier: before launching missiles shoot at the ADS sensors with a gatling or another high rate of fire gun sistem.

[marcellogo]

Just volley fire the ATGMs, or RPGs, 5-6 of them per target.

Exactly what Hezbollah has managed to do in 2006:nutkick.

On the opposite side, the ADS for tanks really exist and it is always the same from france 1940: it's called Blitzkrieg, a big numbers of tanks in little portion of the enemy line, artillery fire before and the infantry immediatly after tanks:nutkick.

[Firn]

ADS systems have to per definition able to search, track and interpret projectiles up from a specific dimension. Modern ones use overlapping radars to cover the a 360° sphere around the vehicle. The "trick" of this weapon should be rather easily countered as it should be mostly a question of programming the system to prioritize the various threads. Given that it matches the ballistic path of the warhead but is far smaller it is very easy to categorize it as a dud.

Shooting 4-6 rockets at the AFV certainly makes things more interesting. However most people don't seem to realize that it is quite difficult to concentrate so many launchers on one target at the same time without careful preperation as Hizbollah found out.

a) Massing them in one place eases communication and increases the chances of a simultanious salvo but makes very vulnerable and increases the chances of spotting them. Spreading out increases the risk to spread the salvo too much in time and space.

b) Hitting the target with an RPG can be very challenging and missing ones don't trigger a shot. Things like laser rangers which greatly ease aiming can be detected by the tank.

c) Guided systems can be misguided by the soft-kill system integrated by many hard-kill systems.

So you see that good ADS make like Stealth things a lot more complicated for the OPFOR thus greatly increasing the chances that something in their cycles goes wrong,

PS: I certainly won't volunteer to spray a tank with a machinegun or a RPG. More and more systems get fielded which allow to pinpoint the source of the fire with great precision (sound and ifrared based) and speed. The ADS itself can calculate the point of departure of unguided (exactely) and guided (more roughly) anti-tank projectiles and communicate this to the FCS. The AFV can then return the favor with added flavour.

[Feanor]

You want to engage it at close ranges, in more or less dense terrain. It limits it's ability to engage in a long-range firebattle, and decreases situational awareness, as LoS is obscured, and targets can appear close to it. In that situation, light infantry (Hezbollah style) can be very effective. Otherwise they're left to do what they did in the 2006 war, take long-range pot-shots, and retreat.

[marcellogo]

... to discriminate in a salvo of rockets distanced less than 0.5 secs one from the others the real one, expecially if they are arranged in a way to have similar velocity and RCS.

And about the one that have to volounteer :shudder to shot at a tank with a HMG or similar: Firn, I have no real combat experience but it seem more than plausibile to me that when a MBT is in a battlefield, it will be the primary target and every infantryman, ifv crew member, machine gun operator will shot at him first.

[Firn]

... to discriminate in a salvo of rockets distanced less than 0.5 secs one from the others the real one, expecially if they are arranged in a way to have similar velocity and RCS.

I already explained how a spectrum of the ADS operates, I will come to others later.

And about the one that have to volounteer to shot at a tank with a HMG or similar: Firn, I have no real combat experience but it seem more than plausibile to me that when a MBT is in a battlefield, it will be the primary target and every infantryman, ifv crew member, machine gun operator will shot at him first.

With no weapon around to take care of the tank, no way to run and no way to hide I would rather pop up my arms and surrender than starting to plink it with bullets and crying out "kill me". With some Panzerfausts or Milans around it things would be different.

[Feanor]

... to discriminate in a salvo of rockets distanced less than 0.5 secs one from the others the real one, expecially if they are arranged in a way to have similar velocity and RCS.

And about the one that have to volounteer :shudder to shot at a tank with a HMG or similar: Firn, I have no real combat experience but it seem more than plausibile to me that when a MBT is in a battlefield, it will be the primary target and every infantryman, ifv crew member, machine gun operator will shot at him first.

Especially those HMG operators and infantry with their assault rifles. Yep. They'll be blasting away at that MBT. A priority target for them. ;)

[marcellogo]

With no weapon around to take care of the tank, no way to run and no way to hide I would rather pop up my arms and surrender than starting to plink it with bullets and crying out "kill me". With some Panzerfausts or Milans around it things would be different.

Firn ,you still keep thinking in the terms of the industry propaganda leaflets, so I have to quote myself:

one only and only that weapon, one only target and nothing in between, like in a laboratory or a proving ground, in battle things are usually very different

Is this some kind of sadistical computer game?:unknown
Why you have to be alone in the battlefield? Where is your squad or your platoon? Why you are not allowed to have your organic anti tank weaponry with yourselves? Why you have to stay on the open ground and spray a tank (only one obviously: also his is on the propaganda leaflet) with a hmg (to be exact in my first example I was talking about a gatling gun or a IFV gun) ?

To be almost fair your gamemasters would have allowed you to have almost the same size unit of your opponents, so if you have to play infantry role against a tank ( that count as an armored squad), you would have to be (i'll use my own country, Italy, as a reference) eight men with two lmg, two underbarrelled granade launcher, two hand portable thermal imaginery & laser rangefinders +2 digital radio AND TWO PANZERFAUST 3 ( and usually it come also a Dardo or Freccia IFV or two Puma 6X6 or two Iveco LMV).

[Firn]

Firn ,you still keep thinking in the terms of the industry propaganda leaflets, so I have to quote myself:

Actually nothing could be farer from truth. I just said that in a tactical situation where one lacks the means to harm the enemy or to run and one will succumb to enemy firepower the best course of action is to surrender. Reread my post and you will understand.

With no weapon around to take care of the tank, no way to run and no way to hide I would rather pop up my arms and surrender than starting to plink it with bullets and crying out "kill me". With some Panzerfausts or Milans around it things would be different.

If my squad would have encountered tanks we would be hopefully be part of a combined force (light (us) and at least medium fire support assets) under a solid artillery umbrella with aircover and airsupport. Then things would have worked out rather differently.

We could discuss it further but I would rather return to topic of the thread...

[marcellogo]

The same for me, my proposal infact was that the "sprayers" will have to work closely togheter with the ATk teams, in order to phase out the ADS sistems (on my opinion many IFV vehicles will be able to easily perform the both part, expecially if they can be equipped with pfhe rounds)

So, let's bring it back to analize the various ADS sistem performances and the various tricks that can counteract them.

[Waylander]

Even if one is capable of getting a successfull coordinated ATGM strike onto the target the ADS is still successfull to some degree.

It forces the enemy to concentrate alot of his AT assets as well as exposing them while they were shooting.

That reduces the overall AT capabilities of the enemy because he has to do alot more to get the chance of hitting an AFV.
And it will cost him more of his AT assets because what fires can get spotted and what can get spotted makes itself a target for the other friendly assets in the area.

[eckherl]

Even if one is capable of getting a successfull coordinated ATGM strike onto the target the ADS is still successfull to some degree.

It forces the enemy to concentrate alot of his AT assets as well as exposing them while they were shooting.

That reduces the overall AT capabilities of the enemy because he has to do alot more to get the chance of hitting an AFV.
And it will cost him more of his AT assets because what fires can get spotted and what can get spotted makes itself a target for the other friendly assets in the area.

Especially for artillery, when that starts dropping they will be very reluctant to launch anything.

[marcellogo]

No one is saying that if some efficent sistem of overcoming actual or better next-future ADS will be found, they have to be discarded as futile, adding an active defence sistem to a tank or another armored vehicle is a very smart choice, IF it don't lead to the wrong assumptions that it make the invulnerable or can it be used instead of passive or reactive armor or that you don't need anymore prudence tactical awareness or good plans in using your armored forces.

[Firn]

Ok when we assume we spot elements of an enemy mechanized battalion with working ADS systems aka Trophy, Ironfist, Arena which rely on radars on the outskirts of a village. Part of our units have survived the concentrated artillery fire smashing down to prepare the way for an armored spearhead. We have Forward Observers able to call down artillery (howitzer, mortors and perhaps rocket artillery) Now the tactics depend heavily on our knowledge of the ADS.

a) If there isn't a coverage for the top it might be best to call in first smart anti-tank rounds from the indirect fire support assets in massive sudden strike.

b) If the system is covers every angle than we must concentrate first a great deal of HE fire from all available indirect assets. The massive strike should damage the "soft" parts of the system, damage the optics, suppress, maim or kill infantry and softskinned AFV so that after 1-2 min. (depending on CB thread) the artillery switches to smart rounds (SMart, Bonus).

Our hidden infantry and our remaining available AFV now start too to fire with alll antitank assets hoping to get as many as possible and repel the attack. The artillery scoots to avoid CB.


See the effect of massive artillery strikes on AFV (http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_PAGES_8_11.pdf)

Thanks to the ever increasing range, lethality and precision of the indirect fire trinity (howitzer, mortar and rocket) a larger NATO army can truly concentrate a lot of fire on an armored spearhead. When the Syrians broke through the Golan 1973 they concentrated 21 artillery batteries and a Rocket artillery battalion on the great syrian armored spearhead.

BTW: After that episode the Isreali alloted a lot of training time of their M109 to develop and sharpen their direct fire skills, especially against tanks as they lost a battery due to T-55 firing from 40 meters.

[Abraham Gubler]

Active Protection Systems are just another layer in the defensive 'onion' of modern land combat systems. The various defensive layers range from command and control to avoid threats and protection inside the vehicle to reduce damage caused by hits that penetrate. No one expects that every combat system is made invulnerable but that they are far more survivable than vehicles with just a layer of steel armour.

Integrating the APS into the defensive system means that the APS sensors won’t just trigger hard kill responses but provide situational awareness, targeting, decoy launching and other inputs to the combat system crew. APS like Iron Fist and Trophy Light also have a soft kill laser system built into the launcher able to defeat the guidance systems of most ATGMs.

The Russian RPG-30 system could easily be countered by most Western hard kill APS because they have very effective systems for classification of incoming threats. If the decoy round is a perfect mimic of the anti-tank round then a simple program to recognise the pattern of decoy-round would direct the APS to engage the second round and ignore the first. Or just engage both as most APS arrangements have multiple hard kill interceptors available.

Simultaneous barrage fire of anti-tank rounds is a nice concept but very hard to organise in the field. To do so up against an army with lots of ISR sensors is suicide. It’s one thing for an ATGM sniper squad (or RPGist) to infiltrate the battlefield and achieve surprise with their missile. It’s another for a company of ATGM teams (or RPG shooters) to stay in communications over a large area in order to achieve a coordinated multi-shot on a target. They will expose themselves to ISR detection and preparation fires.

[Waylander]

I am not sure that ADS are going to be able to defeat modern artillery ammunition like SMArt in the near future.
Such an attack is of a different quality than an ATGM attack.

In the end you descriped something which is not very different from how a good defence is done even when ADS don't play a role.
The idea of shredding the enemy soft spots with air burst and/or bomblet artillery is already done even without the existence of ADS.
Mixing some air bursts into your salvo is a good way to destroy some optics, vision blocks and antennas which is also going to have some effect on the efficiency of enemy armor.

And a nice coordinated fire command is gold for every defender. Creates alot of confusion if one gets multiple hits within a short period of time.
From training I know how difficult it is to keep the momentum and keep cohesion if one gets alot of hits even when the unit as a whole is theoretically still able to perform the mission.
I don't want to know much more difficult it is in real combat.

As for overconfidence in ADS. IMHO this is what the US is currently doing in regards to the Future Combat System.

Good post. :)

[Abraham Gubler]

I am not sure that ADS are going to be able to defeat modern artillery ammunition like SMArt in the near future.
Such an attack is of a different quality than an ATGM attack.

Such a round will actually be more vulnerable to certain hard kill active protection systems than more conventional artillery (HE and DPICM) because the submunition is less robust.

As for overconfidence in ADS. IMHO this is what the US is currently doing in regards to the Future Combat System.

I strongly disagree. There is a perception that the XM1200 manned ground vehicles will be light in armour? Nothing could be further from the truth. By significantly decreasing the armoured area (by reducing internal volume) and using new materials the XM1200s will have very high levels of passive protection (ie armour) while achieving low gross vehicle weight (<30 tonnes). An analogy from history is the Panzerjager Hetzer. It weighed only 16 tonnes yet had very high levels of protection (both passive and stealth).

Then of course there is the capability of active protection and the XM1200's Quick Kill system. Which will be able to defeat just about everything thrown at it from point blank artillery to 120mm APFSDS to airburst artillery rounds and in large numbers.

[kato]

A lot of modern artillery anti-tank munitions (including SmArt) use EFPs formed in the air well above the vehicle afaik, with the height at which the EFP is formed depending on speed of the target vehicle as determined by mmW radar by the submunition. An ADS can't really do much to intercept a high-speed EFP aimed at the vehicle, once it's formed. SmArt seems to explode at a typical height of something like 50 to 70 meters.

A single standard PzH 2000 battery using 6-shot MRSI salvoes can pack 96 guided SmArt submunitions (48 shells of 2) into the air above a target zone simultaneously, which should easily saturate the defences of any ADS systems in the area. And that's before we start mixing in airburst HE as a "precursor".

Unless we start mounting C-RAM systems on tanks as "ADS", i doubt there's much a tank can do against such threats.

[Waylander]

Such a round will actually be more vulnerable to certain hard kill active protection systems than more conventional artillery (HE and DPICM) because the submunition is less robust.


Really?
I would have thought that the two submunitions of SMARt actually fire their load from too high to be defeated by the ADS.
And even if the projectile is hit I would think that even a crippled projectile is very dangerous for the top of an AFV.

strongly disagree. There is a perception that the XM1200 manned ground vehicles will be light in armour? Nothing could be further from the truth. By significantly decreasing the armoured area (by reducing internal volume) and using new materials the XM1200s will have very high levels of passive protection (ie armour) while achieving low gross vehicle weight (<30 tonnes). An analogy from history is the Panzerjager Hetzer. It weighed only 16 tonnes yet had very high levels of protection (both passive and stealth).

Then of course there is the capability of active protection and the XM1200's Quick Kill system. Which will be able to defeat just about everything thrown at it from point blank artillery to 120mm APFSDS to airburst artillery rounds and in large numbers.

Surely one can get alot of protection out of new materials.
But there is only so much one can save. One just needs some space for a modern 120mm gun, 3 crewmembers, ammo, fuel and electronics.
We did what we could do regarding that with the Puma.
It became as small as one can get it and I am sure KMW and Rheinmetall are not far behind (if they are even behind) when it comes to passive protection technology.
Sure an IFV has some other requirements than a small tank with the tank. One may save some space as a direct fire system without dismounts may get more compact but believing that one can get as much protection out of it as from a bigger and heavier tank between 40-50 tons is IMHO very optimistic
I am not going to believe that it is doable to beat this easily before the other FCS systems are fielded.
It's not like the NLOS-C impressed me alot for it being the first of a revolutionary new family of vehicles...

[Abraham Gubler]

Really?
I would have thought that the two submunitions of SMARt actually fire their load from too high to be defeated by the ADS.
And even if the projectile is hit I would think that even a crippled projectile is very dangerous for the top of an AFV.

It depends on the hard kill system some can, some can’t. But a skeet type submunition like SMArt only fires from around 100-200m altitude. The skeet is pretty tough but even minor damage will defeat its sensors rendering it unusable. Also many of the latest Western APS systems can engage and defeat EFPs so countering a SMArt after it has fired.

But there is only so much one can save. One just needs some space for a modern 120mm gun, 3 crewmembers, ammo, fuel and electronics.
We did what we could do regarding that with the Puma.
It became as small as one can get it and I am sure KMW and Rheinmetall are not far behind (if they are even behind) when it comes to passive protection technology.

The XM1200 series is in a totally different league to Puma. The biggest savings are in crew (2 vs 3) and powerpack (small diesel, electric transmission vs large diesel torque transmission). The volume savings from the hybrid powerpack are huge. Like Puma the weaponry of all XM1200s, including the XM1202 MCS (ie tank) are in a remote turret so armour can be lighter without compromising crew safety (huge difference in armour weight compared to conventional tanks).

[Firn]

Coming back to the ADS the critical part of the suite (as of most AFV) are the sensors. The great majority does indeed use radar and as far as I know it is rather difficult to harden and armor it without interfering with its manipulation of the electromagnetic waves. So even if we have the whole sphere around the tank covered by both radar and to a certain extent redundant interceptors this part of the loop should be quite vulnerable.

A lot of modern artillery anti-tank munitions (including SmArt) use EFPs formed in the air well above the vehicle afaik, with the height at which the EFP is formed depending on speed of the target vehicle as determined by mmW radar by the submunition. An ADS can't really do much to intercept a high-speed EFP aimed at the vehicle, once it's formed. SmArt seems to explode at a typical height of something like 50 to 70 meters.

Given the modus operandi of the submunition and the sheer speed of the EFP I see here great problems for any ADS. The only possibility to counter such submunitions is to greatly enlarge the engagement range of the interceptors. With a concentrated barrage the systems will get overwhelmed. It also shouldn't very difficult to develop light and compact chaffs mimicing the RCS and flight pattern of the submunitions.

But as I said before, just like VLO technology ADS makes it a lot more complicated and difficult for enemy forces to counter AFV.

[Feanor]

Just a quick question... what is the XM-1200? A quick search turned up nothing on google.

[Abraham Gubler]

Just a quick question... what is the XM-1200? A quick search turned up nothing on google.

Future Combat System (FCS) Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV)

XM1201 Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle (RSV)
XM1202 Mounted Combat System (MCS)
XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C)
XM1204 Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M)
XM1205 Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV)
XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV)
XM1207 Medical Vehicle (MV-E)
XM1208 Medical Vehicle (MV-T)
XM1209 Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)

https://www.fcs.army.mil/systems/index.html

aka XM1200...

[Abraham Gubler]

Coming back to the ADS the critical part of the suite (as of most AFV) are the sensors. The great majority does indeed use radar and as far as I know it is rather difficult to harden and armor it without interfering with its manipulation of the electromagnetic waves. So even if we have the whole sphere around the tank covered by both radar and to a certain extent redundant interceptors this part of the loop should be quite vulnerable.

The radars of the new generation of western hard kill active protection systems are pretty resilient. They use low power phased arrays and have some basic ballistic protection. This idea that you can spray a tank with machinegun fire and take out all the sensors is not very realistic.

Given the modus operandi of the submunition and the sheer speed of the EFP I see here great problems for any ADS. The only possibility to counter such submunitions is to greatly enlarge the engagement range of the interceptors.

It depends on the type of HK device but there are several APS that have no problem defeating EFPs and at close range (under 50-100m). They can even defeat high velocity long rod kinetic energy penetrators or at least significantly reduce their penetrative power.

With a concentrated barrage the systems will get overwhelmed. It also shouldn't very difficult to develop light and compact chaffs mimicing the RCS and flight pattern of the submunitions.

If you are talking about a barrage of sensor fuzed skeets like SMArt 155 it is actually pretty hard to make the barrage simultaneous (in order to overwhelm the number of HK shots available before reloading: which range around 4-8). Each SMArt shell delivers two skeets which target different areas. You would actually have to know where the target is (which defeats the purpose of sensor fused and is impossible with a moving target) and have one or two batteries (6-12 rounds) firing at the same time at the same target to overwhelm the APS. Since you need to know where the target tank is to do so it would be much easier and more effective to fire DPICM (Cluster Bomb 155mm shell with ~80 submunitions) into its location.

As to decoys they would be very difficult because of the complex flight path of a skeet. They would also consume a lot of space in the shell so a single round would only contain one skeet and 4-8 decoys instead of two skeets. And if the APS sensor can track the incoming round and observe its base eject and seperation of the skeets it would be able to determine which one is the real shot and which the decoys. Since most HK APS have sensor ranges of over 1 km this would be possible.

[lobbie111]

The radars used are normally solid state AESA radars which mean that modules can be placed all around the vehicle and are relativly lightweight, and they are redundant in their area of influence (if you call it that) in that if one sensor block fails the surrounding blocks will take over its duties, similarly if that sensor block is engaged with a target they will do the same thing.

The size and shape makes the targets very hard to hit. What I would like to see is a system such as AMAP combined with a high power guided scatter laser to destroy rounds from IFV's, sniper fire and eliminate decoy's...But this is many years away and im in fantasy land, I have looked into it and fibre optic lasers (the ideal ones to use as it then can be used just like AESA blocks) are just not powerful enough yet.

I Know...:sniper:offtopic

[marcellogo]

One thing... how many of that sistems we are talking about are operational or almost close to it, Skeet, SMArtm, XM-12xyz?

In the end you descriped something which is not very different from how a good defence is done even when ADS don't play a role.
The idea of shredding the enemy soft spots with air burst and/or bomblet artillery is already done even without the existence of ADS.
Mixing some air bursts into your salvo is a good way to destroy some optics, vision blocks and antennas which is also going to have some effect on the efficiency of enemy armor.

And a nice coordinated fire command is gold for every defender. Creates alot of confusion if one gets multiple hits within a short period of time.
From training I know how difficult it is to keep the momentum and keep cohesion if one gets alot of hits even when the unit as a whole is theoretically still able to perform the mission.
I don't want to know much more difficult it is in real combat.


There is a lot of good old common sense in that statement, my greatest fear infact, is that the idea of having a quite invulnerable weaponry can lead someone to forget the basic of modern tactics or also the most elementary prudence.
On other terms, if you put an ADS on a real MBT( and still keep to use it accordingly the usual tactics),it's more than OK, but if you pretend that you can put it an on a 30tons CENTAURO or STRIKER AGS (I'm limiting myself to existing weaponry on pourpose) and use them in a similar fashion of a tank o also if you pretend that you can use a platoon of Ads capable Tank to do the job of a btg of the former ones, it could prove itself cathastrofic at least...

[eckherl]

It depends on the hard kill system some can, some can’t. But a skeet type submunition like SMArt only fires from around 100-200m altitude. The skeet is pretty tough but even minor damage will defeat its sensors rendering it unusable. Also many of the latest Western APS systems can engage and defeat EFPs so countering a SMArt after it has fired.



The XM1200 series is in a totally different league to Puma. The biggest savings are in crew (2 vs 3) and powerpack (small diesel, electric transmission vs large diesel torque transmission). The volume savings from the hybrid powerpack are huge. Like Puma the weaponry of all XM1200s, including the XM1202 MCS (ie tank) are in a remote turret so armour can be lighter without compromising crew safety (huge difference in armour weight compared to conventional tanks).


Good posts Abe,

May I add a few things though,

The XM1202 MC will actually have a three man crew, but you are correct that it will be a remote turret design with the XM-360 fed by a automated loader consisting of 27 rounds. The XM-360 will have just as much punch as a M256 and close to a L55 even though they were able to shave close to 2400 lbs worth of weight between the gun and recoil mechanism, to fire the current hot rod Sabots though we ended up having to settle for a muzzle brake, the ground pounder support will really be pissed now:D. Alot of composites are used for armor protection and the design of the XM-360 to get the weight down, also there is the use of rubber tracks that should benefit in two area`s, weight and cost.

[Firn]

One thing... how many of that sistems we are talking about are operational or almost close to it, Skeet, SMArtm, XM-12xyz?

SMart and SADARM are already operational submunitions and can be fired cannon and rocket artillery (SADARM). Strix is a fire-and-forget 120m mortar shell.

The radars of the new generation of western hard kill active protection systems are pretty resilient. They use low power phased arrays and have some basic ballistic protection. This idea that you can spray a tank with machinegun fire and take out all the sensors is not very realistic.

Perhaps you should look what damage (http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_PAGES_8_11.pdf) a HE 155mm shell can do to AFV from various ranges (up to 30m). Bomblets from Rocketartillery are certainly also a rather unpleasant present for a tank and I have a very hard time to believe that the radars on a AFV are armoured enough to take that sort of damage. BTW I never advocated to spary a tank with machinegun fire.


If you are talking about a barrage of sensor fuzed skeets like SMArt 155 it is actually pretty hard to make the barrage simultaneous (in order to overwhelm the number of HK shots available before reloading: which range around 4-8). Each SMArt shell delivers two skeets which target different areas. You would actually have to know where the target is (which defeats the purpose of sensor fused and is impossible with a moving target) and have one or two batteries (6-12 rounds) firing at the same time at the same target to overwhelm the APS. Since you need to know where the target tank is to do so it would be much easier and more effective to fire DPICM (Cluster Bomb 155mm shell with ~80 submunitions) into its location.

Reread the post of Kato

A single standard PzH 2000 battery using 6-shot MRSI salvoes can pack 96 guided SmArt submunitions (48 shells of 2) into the air above a target zone simultaneously, which should easily saturate the defences of any ADS systems in the area. And that's before we start mixing in airburst HE as a "precursor".


The artillery certainly doesn't fire into the blue, but gets the precise data quite rapidly by a FO with the right tools. The rest is taking care of by the Artillery and the SMart submunitons. Everything is actually rather simply and straighforward and very hard to break by the enemy during that timeframe.

It depends on the type of HK device but there are several APS that have no problem defeating EFPs and at close range (under 50-100m). They can even defeat high velocity long rod kinetic energy penetrators or at least significantly reduce their penetrative power.

I would really like to see a demostration of an ADS which hard-kills a EFP travelling over 2000 m/s fired from 50-100m. The only claiming to so is AMAP-ADS. Trophy and Ironfist are IMHO far to slow to react to such a thread as the slug would reach the target from 75m in less than 0,04 seconds.

[Waylander]

@Abraham
Actually I get the feeling that we are not talking about the same thing.

A battery or two of modern SPHs is not going to fire one or two salvos and then scoot.

One battery of PzH2000 is going to put 80 rounds with 160 skeets into the air above an enemy spearhead within 1 minute.
And all that while retaining the ability to scoot before counterfire flies back.
Add some additional minutes to the time window for the fire mission and it doesn't look better.
I am sure these are going to be too many submunitions in a too short timeframe for an ADS even if it is going to be able to defeat the high flying skeets.

And we all know that current modern artillery observers are putting the target data into the artillery datalink system as accurately and fast as one can get.

-----

Just a little bit offtopic about the FCS.
IMHO comparing the FCS at least roughly to the Puma is IMHO not that far away from reality.
Getting an AFV with as much space and weight reduction as possible by using modern armor technology and an unmanned turret while staying within the limits set by deployability by air.

In the end the only real difference is the type of engine used.
On may say that this is the weight difference between a proposed FCS and a basic Puma.
But even fully uparmored (C armor kit) and with 43tons the Puma is not even close to withstanding even a blunted KE.

And the FCS is going to achieve this? Without the US military industry having a serious advantage over the german one when it comes to land systems?

Sorry but I just don't believe it before I can see it. Not because of national pride. I am fully aware that the US is sometimes lightyears ahead in some areas of military technology. But because of scepticism. I just don't believe they are able to build the FCS family with all the proposed wonder capabilities, especially not within a reasonal timeframe and budget.

[eckherl]

@Abraham
Actually I get the feeling that we are not talking about the same thing.

A battery or two of modern SPHs is not going to fire one or two salvos and then scoot.

One battery of PzH2000 is going to put 80 rounds with 160 skeets into the air above an enemy spearhead within 1 minute.
And all that while retaining the ability to scoot before counterfire flies back.
Add some additional minutes to the time window for the fire mission and it doesn't look better.
I am sure these are going to be too many submunitions in a too short timeframe for an ADS even if it is going to be able to defeat the high flying skeets.

And we all know that current modern artillery observers are putting the target data into the artillery datalink system as accurately and fast as one can get.

-----

Just a little bit offtopic about the FCS.
IMHO comparing the FCS at least roughly to the Puma is IMHO not that far away from reality.
Getting an AFV with as much space and weight reduction as possible by using modern armor technology and an unmanned turret while staying within the limits set by deployability by air.

In the end the only real difference is the type of engine used.
On may say that this is the weight difference between a proposed FCS and a basic Puma.
But even fully uparmored (C armor kit) and with 43tons the Puma is not even close to withstanding even a blunted KE.

And the FCS is going to achieve this? Without the US military industry having a serious advantage over the german one when it comes to land systems?

Sorry but I just don't believe it before I can see it. Not because of national pride. I am fully aware that the US is sometimes lightyears ahead in some areas of military technology. But because of scepticism. I just don't believe they are able to build the FCS family with all the proposed wonder capabilities, especially not within a reasonal timeframe and budget.

Err, I think that we pissed away the time frame and budget many years ago with our FCS program Waylander, and yes vehicles in that weight class are not going to with stand a direct frontal impact from a newer 120 mm sabot and still have a vehicle within a realistic budget, thus the reason for a dependancy on soft and hard kill systems, speed and stealth. But the armor is quite good though for a vehicle in that weight class taking on other forms of threat projectiles, especially shaped charges.

@Firn, I agree with you

Even indirect artillery fire can either destroy or disable a MBT, the U.S and other NATO Alliance countries have conducted many tests in this area using just 155 mm HE ammo, this will be a major factor for any modern tank that is unlucky to be in a artillery bracket, I actually had someone on Tanknet tell me awhile ago that a LEO 2 or M1 Series Doghouse (gunners sight ballistic shield) could withstand 155mm HE shrapnel impact with no damage to the sighting system. :onfloorl:

[Waylander]

Shrapnel is not like shrapnel...

I am sure one is able to find some small shrapnels from a 155mm which are blocked by the doghouse... :D

[kato]

Maybe if the HE explodes at the turrets 180 ? :lol

[Abraham Gubler]

Perhaps you should look what damage (http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_PAGES_8_11.pdf) a HE 155mm shell can do to AFV from various ranges (up to 30m). Bomblets from Rocketartillery are certainly also a rather unpleasant present for a tank and I have a very hard time to believe that the radars on a AFV are armoured enough to take that sort of damage. BTW I never advocated to spary a tank with machinegun fire.

I am more than familiar with the effects of artillery splinters on AFVs. But hard kill APS can defeat a 155mm HE artillery shell before it can PD or AB.

Reread the post of Kato

Nope, you and Kato should reread my post as Kato is not fully informed about how SFM like SMArt operates. Ie there is no way anyone will be firing MRSI SMArt missions. Apart from being totally against the CONOPs of the weapon it also incredibly wasteful as a MRSI mission of DPICM will achieve far better results. SMArt however replaces large frontage fires of DPICM to destroy armour to reduce the number of rounds fired (significantly) and increase lethality.

The artillery certainly doesn't fire into the blue, but gets the precise data quite rapidly by a FO with the right tools. The rest is taking care of by the Artillery and the SMart submunitons. Everything is actually rather simply and straighforward and very hard to break by the enemy during that timeframe.

Hah, hah, hah, hah.

I would really like to see a demostration of an ADS which hard-kills a EFP travelling over 2000 m/s fired from 50-100m. The only claiming to so is AMAP-ADS. Trophy and Ironfist are IMHO far to slow to react to such a thread as the slug would reach the target from 75m in less than 0,04 seconds.

That is assuming detonation to maximum velocity is instantaneous. Which it isn't... Also the skeet SFM (like SMArt) detonates at the altitude within its engagement cycle in which the target is identified. Altitude is not fixed. If a skeet needs to descend to 75m altitude it is well within the vulnerability zone of being destroyed by the HK APS.

The typical profile of a skeet is base eject at 1,000m, stabilise by 800m, orientate and search by 500m, engage by 200m. It will continue to search until it hits the ground. The orientate and search phase (500m to 200m) takes as much as 15 seconds. This is where skeets will be shoot down by HK APS tanks.

[Abraham Gubler]

One battery of PzH2000 is going to put 80 rounds with 160 skeets into the air above an enemy spearhead within 1 minute.

Yeah sure but not all those skeets are going to be firing at the same individual tank target. For one each round ejects two skeets which follow different ballistic paths to engage different areas. While someone could decide to fire all 80 rounds at the same coordinate (and there would probably be some collisions reducing the number of effective skeets) you would have 80 skeets each (not 160) descending on two adjoining target areas. Now unless this is a stationary target that is being engaged any mobile vehicle would have driven out of this target area within the time of flight. While its possible to shoot artillery into a predicted path its very hard to do.

The whole point of SFMs like SMArt is that the 80 rounds will be fired in order for each skeet to be targeting its own area. This way the 160 skeets can cover a large area and typically destroy an entire armoured brigade.

In the end the only real difference is the type of engine used.

Not at all. Its not just an engine its a powerpack system that is far more space efficient. The Puma needs a mechanical torque system for a vehicle of up to 42 tonnes with heavy tracks. The XM1200 as an electrical motor torque system (built into the actual wheel) for a vehicle of 27 tonnes with lightweight tracks. So firstly the XM1200 needs far less power and it's transmission is not within the armoured hull of the vehicle. This means less fuel, less cooling and so on. So you can see there are huge reductions in volume requirements. You can see this by comparing the sizes of each vehicles engine bay. Also the Puma takes up an entire sponsoon with exhaust and engine auxiliary systems.

And this is not the only difference. The Puma is built with early 2000s technology (design circa 2003-05). The XM1200 in the spiral blocks that will see service as the MCS and ICV is being built with technology circa 2010-12. Also the Puma is built with high hardness steel for the resilient structure, the XM1200 is being built with titanium and composite for resilience. The Germans could have used Ti and composites but chose steel for cost reasons.

[kato]

But hard kill APS can defeat a 155mm HE artillery shell before it can PD or AB.
What kind of HK APS are we talking about anyway that has a IP for MDD beyond 50 meters (against skeets before EFP detonation)? I'm not aware of any with that kind of distance in mind. Quick Kill has a ~30m IP, same as AWiSS and Trophy/Trophy Light, and those are the few far-range IP systems under development.
Sure, if there was a APS specifically built to handle this threat - and that's not really a problem to design - we'd be talking something solid. But current and developing HK APS are not built to handle such threats as a primary function, and in a lot of cases not as a secondary function either.

Apart from being totally against the CONOPs of the weapon it also incredibly wasteful as a MRSI mission of DPICM will achieve far better results. SMArt however replaces large frontage fires of DPICM to destroy armour to reduce the number of rounds fired (significantly) and increase lethality.

DPICM and other cluster munitions are off the table however for a whole lot of armies in the near future, due to the cluster munitions ban.

The US Army is pretty much alone in extreme use of DPICM btw (with a typical 60:20:20 CM/HE/other mix), perhaps along with Israel with a similar mix. The Bundeswehr, and a lot of other NATO armies, use a 40:30:30 mix, with SmArt of course belonging to the last 30%, and DPICM use still being relatively massive.

Btw, SmArt ejects at between 800 and 300m, depending on mission profile. DM702A1 ejects in the later part of that and affects a search area of 15,000m², DM702A2 ejects earlier and affects 35,000m².

With regard to "wasteful" - a double-skeet SmArt shell comes in at 20,000 €. 155mm Double-skeet SADARM costs around 16,000€. 155mm M483A1 DPICM comes in at around 2,000 € per shell nowadays, with self-destruct upgrades - that's not even factor 10. And i'm relatively sure a EFP from a SmArt or SADARM penetrates more than the 70mm RHA of M42/M46, so we're getting something out of that too.

Yes, i know the skeet is vulnerable against a HK APS. For its roughly 1.5 to 2 seconds of searching if ejected at lower altitude. How many skeets can a HK APS successfully engage in 1.5 to 2 seconds? 2? 3? 4? And can it engage skeets successfully if a blinding or obscurant (WP) misson is fired first? What if ECM/localized-counter-radar shells are developed and used for such purposes, which shouldn't really be any problem?

[Abraham Gubler]

What kind of HK APS are we talking about anyway that has a IP for MDD beyond 50 meters (against skeets before EFP detonation)?

There are basically two types of HK launchers. Those that fire the interceptor effect from the launcher (Trophy, Quick Kill – the later is tethered to the launcher) and those that launch the interceptor towards the target for latter effect initiation (Iron Fist, AWiSS – the later is very short range, 10m only). While all these systems work in different ways some can have quite long range intercept profiles, especially the launched systems. E Quick Kill can have a much longer IP than 30m, especially with the larger long range HK interceptor (it has two sorts). As APS are required to cover more and more threat options, including C-RAM and KE penetrators and soft kill resistant ATGMs, longer range engagement is required. Those systems that launch an interceptor towards the target that initiates its effectors at the target (like Iron Fist) can do so at long ranges that are a product of sensor range, response time and respective velocities. This is well within the ballpark for a bomblet/skeet during the separation to targeting profile.

Sure, if there was a APS specifically built to handle this threat - and that's not really a problem to design - we'd be talking something solid. But current and developing HK APS are not built to handle such threats as a primary function, and in a lot of cases not as a secondary function either.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. C-RAM, skeet and bomblet protection is filtering into all sorts of weapon systems, including certain APS.

DPICM and other cluster munitions are off the table however for a whole lot of armies in the near future, due to the cluster munitions ban.

Which is another example about how rushing to partial disarmament can severally hamper military performance. There is nothing wrong with cluster bombs in how they are supposed to be used it’s just that many bomblets don’t explode. Remove this technical failing and there is no moral issue with using these weapons. But those countries that have rushed to outlaw them will be at a military disadvantage when the ethical dilemma could have been delt with by technology.

With regard to "wasteful" - a double-skeet SmArt shell comes in at 20,000 €. 155mm Double-skeet SADARM costs around 16,000€. 155mm M483A1 DPICM comes in at around 2,000 € per shell nowadays, with self-destruct upgrades - that's not even factor 10. And i'm relatively sure a EFP from a SmArt or SADARM penetrates more than the 70mm RHA of M42/M46, so we're getting something out of that too.

But you were talking about firing 80 rounds of SMArt to achieve the same concentration of skeets to bomblets onto a single AFV target (~80) as a single DPICM round. [So to overwhelm an APS] That’s 1.6 million Euros to 2,000 Euros or a cost ratio of 800 to one. Even if you only fire enough SMArt to overwhelm the number of HK devices (say 10) that is still a cost difference of 100 to one.

And can it engage skeets successfully if a blinding or obscurant (WP) misson is fired first? What if ECM/localized-counter-radar shells are developed and used for such purposes, which shouldn't really be any problem?

Virtually all APS are now using a combination or radar and EO. If you are going to saturate the target with countermeasures then these will also defeat the skeet’s own sensors so you won’t achieve much.

You have basically built up an enormously complex fire mission in order to defeat a single AFV armed with HK APS. It involves firing countermeasures and then a barrage of SMArt/SADRAM/BONUS type rounds onto a single point target (that is moving). To cover the options for the mobility of the target multiple target areas will need to be covered. The number of guns required and other artillery resources are immense. Against an APS equipped AFV DPICM is far easier and more effective.

[Firn]

The artillery certainly doesn't fire into the blue, but gets the precise data quite rapidly by a FO with the right tools. The rest is taking care of by the Artillery and the SMart submunitons. Everything is actually rather simply and straighforward and very hard to break by the enemy during that timeframe.

Hah, hah, hah, hah.


I really wonder if you understand the way a FO and the Artillery (or Air) cooperates and at what speed. The tools a FO has at its disposal are making such a fire mission very fast and easy. Read the following:


The Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder has been an essential piece of warfighting equipment in the U.S. Army's inventory. To make this highly effective equipment even more capable on the battlefield, the U.S. Army is funding system improvements that include decreasing system weight, increasing its ability to operate in low visibility conditions and replacing components no longer supported by vendors.

Weight is an issue with any man-transportable system and making a system lighter is a top priority. Through a number of innovations, the improved LLDR's overall weight will be reduced by nearly five pounds. The improved night vision capability will increase the stand-off distance and thus the survivability of forward observers and forward air controllers. In addition, by addressing several parts-obsolescence issues, warfighters will have access to state-of-the-art electro-optic sensor equipment.

"These improvements to the LLDR represent a significant leap in capability while reducing the overall weight," said Gregory Williams, general manager of the company's Laser Systems business unit. "Giving our customer more capability in a smaller package has been a true technological feat. Our designers and engineers have used leading-edge technology to give our warfighters exactly what they want...an even smaller and better system than what they are currently using."

Northrop Grumman's LLDR accurately targets enemy positions during the day, at night and in nearly all battlefield conditions including haze, smoke, fog and rain. It ranges to the targets at an eye-safe wavelength and calculates grid coordinates with built-in GPS, elevation and azimuth sensing capabilities. The system then provides this information to other digital battlefield systems. The LLDR can also be used with semi-active laser-guided munitions and laser spot trackers.

The system has been used in Afghanistan and Iraq to provide targeting information for laser-guided, GPS-guided and conventional munitions. As Williams pointed out, "Army Forward Observers have used the LLDR with extraordinary success in the global war on terrorism."


On a more general note:

a) We framed the question as a response against an armored spearhead, a much more realistic scenario as a single AFV wandering around the battlefield. Kato, Waylander and Eckerl posted within this framework. The massive use of fire-support units with quite cheap ammunition against such a thread is a non-brainer. To counter a single AFV in search of trouble is a different thing.

b) We should also start to name the type of ADS in question. We already discussed in general the possible abilities of them and so we should refer to a specific system like Trophy or AMAP-ADS

c) We also should try to distinguish between the potential of a system and its operational status and current capabilities.

This should make the discussion more focused.


I will continue later.

[kato]

But you were talking about firing 80 rounds of SMArt to achieve the same concentration of skeets to bomblets onto a single AFV target (~80) as a single DPICM round.
I'm thinking in standard 500x500 squares for fire missions when it comes to artillery battery-level missions, not single targets. Let's say we have two adjoining squares to cover, a relatively standard 1000x500 band.

Firing 48 DM702A1 - the smaller-coverage version for later ejection - into two adjoining 500x500 square at proper dispersion will create an overlapping field with a coverage of 1.44 million m², creating an average targeting overlap of 2.88 skeets onto every single target m² of the zone. With a DM702A1/DM702A2 mix, you'd have 4.8 skeets tracking every possible target, probably a better mix even.

You'll need a certain number of DPICM shells to provide the same target coverage. If we assume optimum dispersion, we're talking perhaps a bomblet in every 10 m² to achieve penetrating results on any armored object in the target zone. That's 5000 bomblets, or, depending on type, 70 to 110 DPICM shells. Let's say 80, nice round number, because then the battery will only have a single 1-minute fire mission before redeploying.
Which results in a cost ratio of 1:6, not that bad really - especially when you consider that you won't have to run cleanup on minimum 200 UXO duds in the target zone later.

c) We also should try to distinguish between the potential of a system and its operational status and current capabilities.

All western APS under development can currently be grouped into mid-range and far-range IP systems. Pure EFP systems, i.e. using directed charges, are not built for this thread so we can pretty much completely disregard them (ie AMAP-ADS). Trophy - and Iron Fist - have the problem that they use directional flat-panels as radar faces, which i suspect will possibly have problems tracking skeets above it (ie in the extreme sectors of the radar). Even if it doesn't the grenade launched has a stated IP in the 10-30m band. AWiSS is not really applicable as it uses relatively low-elevation directed grenade launchers, and only for certain targeting sectors. Saab LED-150 is a midrange IP system with a IP of 15m.

That leaves us with... right, Raytheon Quick Kill as the only possible intercept system. And i've yet to see any solid data or tests regarding the "long-range" interceptor of QK. The anti-RPG round does 30m IP max.

[Feanor]

Excellent discussion so far. I'm very interested. Does the XM-1202 carry an APS, and if so which one? The site you linked to doesn't go into very much detail. And, from what I can tell, it's not a full MBT. More like almost a medium/light tank, when compared with M1A2, or Leo 2A6, correct?

[kato]

Btw, i'd suggest we put this whole APS discussion in a new thread. Doesn't have much to do with "decoying RPGs" at this point anymore.

[Firn]

I agree. Thanks for the overview kato.

So let us take a detailed look at the status of the Hardkill components of the ADS:

General overview (http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/Hard-kill.htm)



Trophy

Overview (http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm)

Video

According to the marketing video in youtube there is high elevation coverage which basically means it is defenseless against the artillery launched submunitions.

They are developing the ability to counter kinetic penetrators - given the moving parts I wonder how far away the shooter can be to allow an intecept.



AWiSS

Overview (http://defense-update.com/products/a/awiss.htm)

Still in the testing phase. The launcher units are as far as I can tell not able for the very high elevation needed to reliably shoot down the submunitions. Detects the threats with radar around 75m. Given the reaction time of 355 milliseconds and slewing rate of 600 degrees per second it needs at least 0,4 (or 0,35) sec to react if one of the launchers must rotate just 30°. As shown above a EFP jet travels 75m in 0,04 sec. If we assume that a rod of tank is reaching the target after a long flight with 1000m/s it still travels the last 100m in 0,1 sec.




Iron Fist

Overview (http://defense-update.com/products/i/iron-fist.htm)

Video

As with Trophy the reaction times are unknow.



AMAP-ADS

SEP Test

Info (http://ads.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-ads-active-defense-systems.html)

A very interesting and rather unique systems.



Quick Kill

Video




LEDS-150

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2008/sections/daily/day2/leds-gathers-momentum.shtml

[kato]

As with Trophy the reaction times are unknow.
From Strategie und Technik, issue 10/08

System reaction times:

AMAP-ADS/AAC/SHARK - 560 µs (no launcher redirecting)
AWiSS (for symmetric threats) - >355 ms (limited field)
AWiSS Light (for asymmetric threats) - >300 ms (limited field)
Quick-Kill - 350-400 ms (vertical launch)
Trophy/T. Light - 300-350 ms (360° launcher)
Iron Fist - 300-350 ms (360° launcher)
LEDS-150 - 200 ms supposed (360° "high-speed" launcher)

Minimum engagement distance (engagement decision) and Intercept Point:

AMAP-ADS: 10m (any target speed); IP: 1.5m
AWiSS: RPG > 50m, ATGM > 100m, KE > 600m; IP: 10-30m
AWiSS Light: RPG > 30m, ATGM > 100m; IP: 10-20m
Quick Kill: RPG @100m/s: 70m, @200m/s: 100m, @450m/s: 170m; IP: 30m
Trophy/T. Light: RPG @100m/s: 50m, @200m/s: 80m, @450m/s: 150m; IP: 10-30m
Iron Fist: RPG @100m/s: 45m, @200m/s: 75m, @450m/s: 150m; IP: 5-20m estimated
LEDS-150: RPG @100m/s: 30m, @200m/s: 50m, @450m/s: 100m; IP: > 5-15m, all values estimated

RPG @ 100m/s reflects older RPG-7 ammunition
RPG @ 200m/s reflects newer RPG-7 ammunition
RPG @ 450m/s reflects RPG-29 ammunition

Of the above, all except Trophy and Iron Fist are regarded by SuT as "capable of handling non-RPG threats" including ATGM, EFP, HEAT, APFSDS, Top Attack munitions etc; Quick Kill only if using the post-launch-guided projectiles, AWiSS Light only in a limited fashion.

[Abraham Gubler]

I really wonder if you understand the way a FO and the Artillery (or Air) cooperates and at what speed. The tools a FO has at its disposal are making such a fire mission very fast and easy.

Actually I think you’ll find the exact opposite. I’m intimately familiar with forward observation and artillery fire control. I think you will find that no matter how much better the new observation and geolocation systems networked with the fire control system and the guns is this doesn’t help that much when trying to engage a moving target. The time on target is still going to be effected by the time of flight even if the cycle from call to fire to shoot is slashed. Which means if you are trying to concentrate rounds onto a single moving target you are going to need to fire a lot of them to cover its options.

This also applies to an armoured spearhead, if you are trying to achieve a high density of skeet type bomblets above every tank of the spearhead because they have HK APS then you are going to have to fire a massive amount of rounds. A typical company sized armour force will have a frontage of 2.5km and a depth of 3km and advance at 15kph. That is 90 155mm battery frontages to cover the frontage of the company taking into account where it could be within one minute to first round time on target (a very impressive kill cycle time) and two minutes last round time on target (assuming one minute of firing form the guns)

Firing 48 DM702A1 - the smaller-coverage version for later ejection - into two adjoining 500x500 square at proper dispersion will create an overlapping field with a coverage of 1.44 million m², creating an average targeting overlap of 2.88 skeets onto every single target m² of the zone. With a DM702A1/DM702A2 mix, you'd have 4.8 skeets tracking every possible target, probably a better mix even.

So to take out a company of armour with HK APS you are looking at 2160 SMArt/SADRAM/BONUS rounds. To achieve the kind of density to ensure destruction. Of course to fire that mission you will need 216 PzH2000s to drop the mission in a minute. That’s 12 battalions of artillery to destroy one company of armour. Like I said before a huge allocation of resources for the target.

[Abraham Gubler]

Excellent discussion so far. I'm very interested. Does the XM-1202 carry an APS, and if so which one? The site you linked to doesn't go into very much detail. And, from what I can tell, it's not a full MBT. More like almost a medium/light tank, when compared with M1A2, or Leo 2A6, correct?

The XM1202 will carry the Quick Kill APS. It is just as much a MBT as the tanks you mention but many people continue to think it's protection and combat power should be judged by its gross vehicle weight in direct comparison to the older MBTs as if it was designed and built in the 1970s.

[Abraham Gubler]

From Strategie und Technik, issue 10/08

Of the above, all except Trophy and Iron Fist are regarded by SuT as "capable of handling non-RPG threats" including ATGM, EFP, HEAT, APFSDS, Top Attack munitions etc; Quick Kill only if using the post-launch-guided projectiles, AWiSS Light only in a limited fashion.

They have a lot of wrong information in that table. No surprise that they know a lot more about the European systems compared to the US and Israeli systems.

[kato]

A typical company sized armour force will have a frontage of 2.5km and a depth of 3km and advance at 15kph.
... heavily dependant on terrain. The above might apply in desert or other open terrain, where distances of 2-3 km between platoons do not prevent mutual fire support. In most European or American terrain, such distances might even blank out the reliability of radio communications between platoons on occasion, and will definitely prevent the platoons from observing or supporting each other.

If we're talking 2x3 km bands, that's what MLRS is for. Just pull a MLRS fire mission with AT-2 over the 3 km band. With a single mission from a battery of 8 launchers, that'd be a 1 km deep and 3.2 km wide minefield with 2688 AT mines - pretty standard operation. Cost is roughly 4 million euro, so not exactly cheap either.
Or we just dump a MW-1 over the band, e.g. with 896 MIFF over 2.5 km width and 300 m depth. Not like we don't have over 100,000 of those left over that need to go one way or another.

[Firn]

@Kato: thanks for the informations. Can I perhaps later merge them with my post?

@Abraham: if you think part of the data is wrong, why don't should say us which and why and post your take?

I will continue later.

[Waylander]

Sure it's not that easy to hit a moving spearhead with an artillery fire mission.
But that's what our FOs train for. And even while I am as sceptical of the fire support guys as every tanker or infantryman is I witnessed them hitting moving targets.

And Kato already said it. Apart from some really open terrains, be it Iraqi desert or Australian bush your numbers of dispersion are too big.
One is not even able always get the whole company into the broad wedge (ahem, I have no idea what the english translation for the Breitkeil formation is...) not speaking of being able to disperse an attacking company over some kilometers while retaining the ability of a unified fire zone.

And I still think that you get it wrong. Everybody here admits that a modern ADS is going to increase the survivability of a vehicle and forces the OPFOR to use more resources for every kill.
But you make it look like it is going to be the ultimate defense rendering enemy actions totally ineffective. And that's were we disagree.


As for FCS.
I already said that the FCS saves weight and space compared to a more traditional design like the Puma by using a hybrid propulsion system. That's were one can make the FCS lighter and smaller. It is obvious that the Puma is heavier than a proposed FCS vehicle.
So we might assume that the FCS is better armored while being smaller and lighter. That doesn't make it very well armoured for a tank substitue either.
Even if we assume that it is substantial better armoured than a Puma it is still not going to withstand even a blunted KE.
BTW, I am relatively sure that the Puma uses multi-material armor on it's front. I am going to dig for a source apart from talks from KMW guys.

A Puma is going to cost roughly 7million €. That's damn expensive.
And while the FCS features a much bigger production run I expect it to be even more expensive.

And that's were the FCS meets my criticism. It's an overambitious programm.
They already axed the original weight requirement. They went back from a two men to a 3 men crew for the ground combat vehicles.
The amount of time and resources poured into this project is insane. Instead from going an evolutionary way the US tries to leapfrog some generations and produce the ultimate goldplated ground system family.

The recent plans to have the heavy brigades (And with them heavily upgraded versions of current systems) serve together with the FCS brigades tells you something about the ability of the FCS system to totally substitute the current vehicles...

[eckherl]

Sure it's not that easy to hit a moving spearhead with an artillery fire mission.
But that's what our FOs train for. And even while I am as sceptical of the fire support guys as every tanker or infantryman is I witnessed them hitting moving targets.

And Kato already said it. Apart from some really open terrains, be it Iraqi desert or Australian bush your numbers of dispersion are too big.
One is not even able always get the whole company into the broad wedge (ahem, I have no idea what the english translation for the Breitkeil formation is...) not speaking of being able to disperse an attacking company over some kilometers while retaining the ability of a unified fire zone.

And I still think that you get it wrong. Everybody here admits that a modern ADS is going to increase the survivability of a vehicle and forces the OPFOR to use more resources for every kill.
But you make it look like it is going to be the ultimate defense rendering enemy actions totally ineffective. And that's were we disagree.


As for FCS.
I already said that the FCS saves weight and space compared to a more traditional design like the Puma by using a hybrid propulsion system. That's were one can make the FCS lighter and smaller. It is obvious that the Puma is heavier than a proposed FCS vehicle.
So we might assume that the FCS is better armored while being smaller and lighter. That doesn't make it very well armoured for a tank substitue either.
Even if we assume that it is substantial better armoured than a Puma it is still not going to withstand even a blunted KE.
BTW, I am relatively sure that the Puma uses multi-material armor on it's front. I am going to dig for a source apart from talks from KMW guys.

A Puma is going to cost roughly 7million €. That's damn expensive.
And while the FCS features a much bigger production run I expect it to be even more expensive.

And that's were the FCS meets my criticism. It's an overambitious programm.
They already axed the original weight requirement. They went back from a two men to a 3 men crew for the ground combat vehicles.
The amount of time and resources poured into this project is insane. Instead from going an evolutionary way the US tries to leapfrog some generations and produce the ultimate goldplated ground system family.

The recent plans to have the heavy brigades (And with them heavily upgraded versions of current systems) serve together with the FCS brigades tells you something about the ability of the FCS system to totally substitute the current vehicles...

Maybe in English terms you would be referring to a combat wedge formation.;)

FCS vehicles still need some maturing, as evident inregards to the M1A2 SEP still being around for quite some time, General Dynamics has just recieved another 80 million to convert 30 additional M1 series to A2 V2, this will help augment them into the overall FCS program. While we have made great strides in certain technologies we still have aways to go. Within the next few weeks will be a crucial time for this program, U.S Army gets to appear before congress and offer justifications on keeping the program around, how this review meeting goes will say alot on much progress has been made.

[kato]

Breitkeil is usually translated as a "broad wedge" formation.

[Abraham Gubler]

Sure it's not that easy to hit a moving spearhead with an artillery fire mission.
But that's what our FOs train for. And even while I am as sceptical of the fire support guys as every tanker or infantryman is I witnessed them hitting moving targets.

There are many variables in defeating moving targets with artillery fire. It’s not impossible but at the far more typical combat situation (as opposed to close range training missions) of deep fires from STA inputs rather than nice convenient in front of the FO OP it requires a lot of rounds to make sure your cover where the enemy force is going to be.

And Kato already said it. Apart from some really open terrains, be it Iraqi desert or Australian bush your numbers of dispersion are too big.

OK so fighting tanks in the Middle East isn’t relevant? I don’t know what you’re smoking if you think that but you can count me out. Besides the orders of magnitude of SFM against APS vehicles able to intercept skeets are so high that even with lower tank unit frontages the overkill will remain.

But you make it look like it is going to be the ultimate defense rendering enemy actions totally ineffective. And that's were we disagree.

We have only been talking about SFM rounds. You may have noticed my conclusion is that against a tank with APS able to defeat skeets DPICM is a far more effective option. It’s plain and simple anyway SFM tactics are not about high density fires to overwhelm some kind of active defence. I’m often amazed at how far people will go to argue a point just because they think they have some kind of ownership with that point.

And that's were the FCS meets my criticism. It's an overambitious programm.
They already axed the original weight requirement. They went back from a two men to a 3 men crew for the ground combat vehicles.

Neither are issues caused by over ambition but specification changes from the user. The weight went up to add more armour. The XM1202 mounted combat system (MCS, ie tank) has an extra crewman because the users are more comfortable with driver-gunner-commander, rather than pilot-battle captain. Once they realise with the autonomous driving capability they can operate with only two the third will probably become a sub-unit or unit command position.

The recent plans to have the heavy brigades (And with them heavily upgraded versions of current systems) serve together with the FCS brigades tells you something about the ability of the FCS system to totally substitute the current vehicles...

That has nothing to do with capability of FCS; it’s a completely wrong argument in fact and even reasoning. It’s because the US Army doesn’t have enough money to replace all Heavy BCTs with FCS BCTs. If it was an issue of tactical capability as you suggest then all heavy and FCS BCTs would be mixed to provide both M1, M2 and XM1200 vehicles.

[Abraham Gubler]

FCS vehicles still need some maturing, as evident inregards to the M1A2 SEP still being around for quite some time, General Dynamics has just recieved another 80 million to convert 30 additional M1 series to A2 V2, this will help augment them into the overall FCS program. While we have made great strides in certain technologies we still have aways to go. Within the next few weeks will be a crucial time for this program, U.S Army gets to appear before congress and offer justifications on keeping the program around, how this review meeting goes will say alot on much progress has been made.

That is no evidence of your argument. The US Army has a capability assurance program to keep the M1 in service for decades. The maturity of the FCS is MGVs is quite advanced thanks to the extensive prototyping. But first deliveries of a BCT equipped with production standard XM1200s isn’t programmed until 2014.

[Tavarisch]

A bit off topic but, does anyone know if the XM 1202 will be amphibious? Should provide Army guys with some landing advantage. Crossing rivers without the use of a bridge can be possible. IMO, crossing a bridge is quite dangerous anyway. All it takes is a few GBUs or some really High-Ex IEDs to make the bridge unstable. To exacerbate the problem, some bridges are on mountain top highways, but ones closer to the ground are not unheard of. (Penang Bridge and Singapore's causeway come to mind) But, crossing rivers can also be dangerous, who knows what awaits on the other side of the river?

In any case, it's all up to the Army's requirements. They make the final decision.

[eckherl]

That is no evidence of your argument. The US Army has a capability assurance program to keep the M1 in service for decades. The maturity of the FCS is MGVs is quite advanced thanks to the extensive prototyping. But first deliveries of a BCT equipped with production standard XM1200s isn’t programmed until 2014.

No evidence to my argument, having decades worth of upgrade packages for the M1 series tanks and forced to use them due to the fact that we cannot get our FCS program to give us a capable tank just shows at the current time that we still need heavy armor and will need it for some time to come, again we can sit here and discuss all the great things that the U.S Army envisions with this program but if the entire package deal doesn`t work properly it will not be up and running by 2014, this is in terms to our XM1200. You know very well that the M1A2 SEP versions are being upgraded for this very purpose, or are you under the assumption that the M1A2 SEP version will be running along side the XM1200, kinda defeats the purpose doesn`t it.

[Firn]

We have only been talking about SFM rounds. You may have noticed my conclusion is that against a tank with APS able to defeat skeets DPICM is a far more effective option. It’s plain and simple anyway SFM tactics are not about high density fires to overwhelm some kind of active defence. I’m often amazed at how far people will go to argue a point just because they think they have some kind of ownership with that point.

I'm also amazed how far people will got to argue a point just because think they have some kind of ownership with it. Abraham, I will repeat what not only Waylander said: ADS are a great step forward to enhance the protection of AFV. They make it harder to kill the AFV in question. But until today no ADS has shown the ability to defeat the thread posed by the operational intelligent submunitions. It might be possible in the near future, but then again we don't know the counter-countermeasurments either. But right now operational AFVs encounter in operational systems like SMart a very dangerous threat. And a operational threat which is very suited to be delivered by long-range missions with STA input against moving targets thanks to a tri-mode sensors, a large scanning and targeting area and it's fire-and-forget nature.

BTW: Depending on the ISTAR the movement of AFV can also be extrapolated and the grid adjusted to it, greatly increasing the lethality of conventinal rounds unless they don't change abruptly their direction in the first minute(s) of the firing mission.

OK so fighting tanks in the Middle East isn’t relevant? I don’t know what you’re smoking if you think that but you can count me out. Besides the orders of magnitude of SFM against APS vehicles able to intercept skeets are so high that even with lower tank unit frontages the overkill will remain.

Read again what Waylander and Kato said. They never said that open terrains aren't relevant, but pointed out that in great amount of theaters the dispersion of AFV is greatly reduced. Natural features and terrain greatly restrict the space suited for AFV and the ability to give direct fire support. Man-made obstacles come in huge numbers and shapes and also most heavily influence the military operations. MOUT becomes ever more important. The enemy might seek to channel movement and create killzones so many did since WWII. All this affects negatively the dispersion of AFV. So Waylander certainly "doesn't smoke things unknown to you" but shows a broader understanding of the influences of terrain on military operations.

[eckherl]

Breitkeil is usually translated as a "broad wedge" formation.

We like our combat wedge, makes it easier to conduct echelon movements.

[Abraham Gubler]

having decades worth of upgrade packages for the M1 series tanks and forced to use them due to the fact that we cannot get our FCS program to give us a capable tank just shows at the current time that we still need heavy armor

OK let me repeat myself. The US Army will have two sorts of mechanised brigades post 2014. One equipped with upgreaded legacy vehicles (the heavy BCT) and the other equipped with XM1200 vehciles (the FCS BCT).

Now if the US Army's leadership was concerned about the combat viability of the XM1200 platform then why will they be deploying a formation equipped entirely with that platform? While there will be Heavy BCTs in exsistance they will be operating in their corner of the battlefield while the XM1200s operate somewhere else.

Surely if the M1 MBT was so vital to future tactical operations each XM1200 BCT would have at least a company or battalion of M1s on their ORBAT? But they don't. The long term plan to keep M1s in service beyond 2020 is not driven by tactical needs but by budgetary needs. The rate of production of the XM1200 will not be high enough to replace all the M1s.

[Abraham Gubler]

Read again what Waylander and Kato said.... So Waylander certainly "doesn't smoke things unknown to you" but shows a broader understanding of the influences of terrain on military operations.

:onfloorl:

Waylander's point about different frontages for terrain was in no way a counter to my argument about the very high levels of SFM rounds need to achieve the kind of over target density of skeets to defeat an active protection system. It was just a bit of smoke and mirrors good enough to distract a few from the central argument that the required density was ridiculous.

A mechanised combat team (tank company) in urban terrain will have a frontage of 500m and a depth of 1km. Yes that is contracted from in the open field (desert, plains, etc). But so what? Urban areas tend to be things that a peer army would like to defend from the marauding enemy tanks. We are not talking about Hamas here with a force of modern SPH and SFM rounds.

The whole point of SFM is to break the assault - ie Assault Breakers (the original program that developed them). To take the steam out of a enemy tank force when they are most dangerous - that is maneuvering at high speed - usually something in open terrain.

[kato]

This is not restricted to urban areas. Hills, River Valleys, Irrigation canals, Forests, Swamps, Villages - these are all terrain features that will channel any force into tighter dispersal, and in Europe these are the norm - not something an OPFOR can avoid just to be soaked in urban terrain later. Remote-laid minefields, planned demolition, planned flooding and other such military measures will further complicate the issue for an OPFOR.
There simply is no wide-open terrain in most NATO nations, and to only plan for the rare case of desert warfare isn't exactly the foremost thing on at least European NATO planners.

Btw, the original "Assault Breakers" were developed to combat enemy tank concentrations and high-value area targets behind the front line. Not to take the wind out of an enemy spearhead rushing at your forces.

[Waylander]

First I am a little bit dissapointed by your stile of discussion.
I am defenitely not smoking some weird stuff... :rolleyes:

There are many variables in defeating moving targets with artillery fire. It’s not impossible but at the far more typical combat situation (as opposed to close range training missions) of deep fires from STA inputs rather than nice convenient in front of the FO OP it requires a lot of rounds to make sure your cover where the enemy force is going to be.


For sure one is going to have a hard time targeting a force which wildly maneuvers in open terrain.
But usually an armored spearhead is heading for a certain objective and is more or less channelled and restricted by the terrain.
All this together with the modern targeting capabilities provided by the FISTs networked into the artillery system (Be it ADLER II or some other system) drastically enhances the capability to hit moving armor formations.

OK so fighting tanks in the Middle East isn’t relevant? I don’t know what you’re smoking if you think that but you can count me out. Besides the orders of magnitude of SFM against APS vehicles able to intercept skeets are so high that even with lower tank unit frontages the overkill will remain.


You are twisting the words in my mouth.
I never said that fighting in the middle east is not relevant anymore.
Kato already beat me again with the answer to this.
Nearly all NATO countries and the bordering countries don't have this kind of terrain. Heck even the rest of the world normally doesn't have this kind of terrain As I said NORMALLY one cannot hope for having the kind of open terrain you like to use as a reference.

We have only been talking about SFM rounds. You may have noticed my conclusion is that against a tank with APS able to defeat skeets DPICM is a far more effective option. It’s plain and simple anyway SFM tactics are not about high density fires to overwhelm some kind of active defence. I’m often amazed at how far people will go to argue a point just because they think they have some kind of ownership with that point.

What makes a round carrying DPICMs less vulnerable to the proposed ADS?
If it is able to interecept a SMARt it should also be able to interecept a DPICM round before it opens up.
Not to talk of the problems you run into when you want to make a counterassault through an area where DPICM has been used before.

Neither are issues caused by over ambition but specification changes from the user. The weight went up to add more armour. The XM1202 mounted combat system (MCS, ie tank) has an extra crewman because the users are more comfortable with driver-gunner-commander, rather than pilot-battle captain. Once they realise with the autonomous driving capability they can operate with only two the third will probably become a sub-unit or unit command position.

You counter my argument with "The weight went up to add more armour"?
Why should I believe that the weight right now is high enough to offer the needed passive protection? In the end they already said that before they had to make the MCS heavier.
They also said that 2 men are enough before they readded the 3rd man.
I am far from believing that we are going to see autonomous driving capabilities at high speeds in rough terrain with a tracked vehicle very soon.
It's not like the annual UGV championships show anything remotely capable of doing this.
BTW, you were the one who said that they save room because of the 2 men crew. One of your argument for the MCS being able to carry some heavy armor. Now after it is clear that they are going to have a 3 men crew you say that they eventually will use the 3rd place as some sort of command position. This doesn't reduces the need to protect 3 crewmembers instead of 2...

That has nothing to do with capability of FCS; it’s a completely wrong argument in fact and even reasoning. It’s because the US Army doesn’t have enough money to replace all Heavy BCTs with FCS BCTs. If it was an issue of tactical capability as you suggest then all heavy and FCS BCTs would be mixed to provide both M1, M2 and XM1200 vehicles.

Cost is also a relevant factor for a successfull AFV.
They promise alot. I still doubt that the FCS family is able to make these promises come true especially within a reasonable timeframe and budget.
What good is it to field a goldplated vehicle family too late and to pricey which may be revolutionary in some areas when having evolutionary successors the current fleet of vehicles may give you a very capable vehicle in time and in budget.

How many percent of the needed technologies for FCS are ready by now...?

[eckherl]

OK let me repeat myself. The US Army will have two sorts of mechanised brigades post 2014. One equipped with upgreaded legacy vehicles (the heavy BCT) and the other equipped with XM1200 vehciles (the FCS BCT).

Now if the US Army's leadership was concerned about the combat viability of the XM1200 platform then why will they be deploying a formation equipped entirely with that platform? While there will be Heavy BCTs in exsistance they will be operating in their corner of the battlefield while the XM1200s operate somewhere else.

Surely if the M1 MBT was so vital to future tactical operations each XM1200 BCT would have at least a company or battalion of M1s on their ORBAT? But they don't. The long term plan to keep M1s in service beyond 2020 is not driven by tactical needs but by budgetary needs. The rate of production of the XM1200 will not be high enough to replace all the M1s.


Okay, this is something that I have posted on this site a year or so ago, yes they will have two seperate types of fighting Brigades, one will be equipped with FCS type systems and the other for what we would deem heavy consisting of older generation upgraded platforms. But this is not how the original concept was sold to congress nor was this the intent of the U.S Army. Bottom line is that we still have aways to go with this program and I am finally satisfied that we will get additional parts of the program out to the soldiers for testing and evaluations, it is a good concept with excellant advancements in vehicle capabilities and I am one of those that hope that the program can continue and be emplemented, but just incase we will have to depend on vehicles like the 70 ton monsters in current use, it is just not the cost but something that is proven and still capable of defeating a potential opponent.

[gf0012-aust]

General observation:

One of the (many) problems of the internet is that tone and intent are not always conveyed in the manner intended.

So that there is no confusion it is important that all remember that robust opinions are not seen as dismissive of others who are just as qualified in casting comment.

This is especially important where the Defence Professionals are involved as you all have varying degrees of expertise on subject matter.

[Abraham Gubler]

First I am a little bit dissapointed by your stile of discussion.

You are twisting the words in my mouth.

Now you know how I feel...

What makes a round carrying DPICMs less vulnerable to the proposed ADS?
If it is able to interecept a SMARt it should also be able to interecept a DPICM round before it opens up.
Not to talk of the problems you run into when you want to make a counterassault through an area where DPICM has been used before.

As I posted from the very beginning the intercept profile for the HK APS against the SFM skeet would be so when it has deployed from the 155mm carrier round and is in low altitude floating under its parachute or on its stub wings searching for a target. This is where it is vulnerable to attack not just from its slow speed and low altitude but because a skeet has no high hardness exterior walls and exposed sensors and flight systems (parachute, stub wings) vital to carry out its mission.

The base eject carrier round that deploys two skeets or 88 DPICM bomblets (aka grenades) (eg M483) is a much, much harder target for any HK APS or even C-RAM system. This is because of its flight profile and rigidity of the exterior walls. The ejection height for SFMs is usually over 1km altitude and These rounds tend to be made of aluminum to save weight but are still strong enough to be fired through a gun bore. Ejection height is variable depending on required density of bomblets.

As to the FCS I give up trying to persuade a 2001 Holden driver that the new model 2009 Ford has better features. For Germany perhaps this should be translated to BMW for Holden and Audi for Ford.

[Waylander]

Yeah right, the auto model is a good example.

Let's look at the NLOS-C and the proposed Donar from GDLS and KMW.
The NLOS-C has alot of advantages over the Donar with it's years old PzH2000 technology...

[Abraham Gubler]

Yeah right, the auto model is a good example.

Let's look at the NLOS-C and the proposed Donar from GDLS and KMW.
The NLOS-C has alot of advantages over the Donar with it's years old PzH2000 technology...

Yeah it does. Apart from the hugely better vehicle system (FCS MGV vs Uhlan) the mission system has completely automatic resupply (can't do that with PzH2000 technology), laser ignition, JTRS CNR, self defence systems (APS, RCWS) and so on.

[Firn]

Thanks for the timely intervention gf0012-aust

As I posted from the very beginning the intercept profile for the HK APS against the SFM skeet would be so when it has deployed from the 155mm carrier round and is in low altitude floating under its parachute or on its stub wings searching for a target. This is where it is vulnerable to attack not just from its slow speed and low altitude but because a skeet has no high hardness exterior walls and exposed sensors and flight systems (parachute, stub wings) vital to carry out its mission.

Although so far no systems has demostrated the ability to shoot down the skeet, it is certainly a real possibility to give an ADS with radar the ability to shoot down a skeet with a fast rocket or grenade. I would expect such a capability to mature soon enough.

However their might be a rather effective CCM against interceptors. The currently fielded skeets have self-stabilizing flightsystems (stubs, etc.) which deaccelerate it and then allow it to search for targets. Given that the skeets (like SMArt) are already equipped with radar they should be able to detect the active ADS as it is emitting very shortly after leaving the container. Let us asssume it detects an active source on the ground within striking range. If the skeet gets equipped with a small lateral rocket booster (sacrificing some space) it could rapidly change course (depending on the power of the booster and the whole size of the skeet) in a rather unpredictable manner and self-stabilize again. This evasion-stabilize-search loop could be repeated several times at different times. The AFV with the ADS (emitting radar) is of course the primary target and is possibly engaged.

Depending on the capabilities of the sensor suite the evasion-stabilize-search loop can also be initiated by the input provided by the fused sensors. A launched rocket leaves a very clear IR signature, a rather fast grenade a clear muzzleflash. Such signatures could than trigger the ESS-loop. So it is a really exciting match between CM, CCM and CCCM.


BTW:Let's look at the NLOS-C and the proposed Donar from GDLS and KMW.
The NLOS-C has alot of advantages over the Donar with it's years old PzH2000 technology...

The NLOS-C should have some great advantages, part intrinsic, part non-intrinsic and thus addable to other systems. Only the inferior range of the L38 is a clear disadvantage compared to the long L52s. Isn't Donar also autoloading, btw (http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0608/news/news0706_donar.htm)?

[kato]

Autoloading yes, Auto-resupply no. I.e. you can't dock a resupply vehicle onto the back of a Pzh/AGM/Donar and have it automatically reload the magazines.

[Firn]

Autoloading yes, Auto-resupply no. I.e. you can't dock a resupply vehicle onto the back of a Pzh/AGM/Donar and have it automatically reload the magazines.

Ah, ok. Auto-supply can be of great value in a manuever battle with a great deal of artillery duels. Given their specific terrain and tactical/strategical environment it is no wonder that Southkorea has built for the K-9 155mm L52 howitzer the K-10 Carrier to automate the whole process. Do they also field container rounds with smart submunitions?

[Waylander]

You are talking aboutb thinks like RCWS, APS and network capabilities as something which is integral parts of the NLOS-C platform while they are not.

One can put the same JTRS CNR (Or any other battlefield command and management system), APS and RCWS onto every platform one wants.
The army is implementing them into legacy platforms so there is nothing which stops them from doing it with any other artillery system than NLOS-C.

And while I agree that fully automatic resupply is an advantage higher RoF and bigger range are also advantages.

I am not saying that the NLOS-C is utterly useless or something like that.
I am just stating that it is not close to being as revolutionary as the army sold the whole FCS programm to the government and public.

[Feanor]

Independently the NLOS-C is not all that revolutionary, but as part of the FCS is a large step forward.