This is a discussion on Non Explosive Reactive Armour (NERA) within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Hi there
I'm sure you know Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) well enough, so I will not go on about the ...
I'm sure you know Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) well enough, so I will not go on about the principal of how it works.
Quite some time ago when reading about new light and medium armoured vehicles i came across NERA. Essentially it does the same as ERA, it deflects some of the kinetic energy of a KE penetrator and the effects of a HEAT round.
But as it says in the name, it does not explode. So far I've heard of rubber (not a joke) and EMP going through the out most layer of the armour and in some way offering protection.
Does anyone here know more than I do? (Doesn't take much, does it?)
NERA for example works like the following principle.
You have some plates of metal with rubber inbetweeen them.
When for example a penetrator hits the armor the metal plates move into different directions. Thus some of the energy of the penetrator is absorbed and the forces of the metal plates may put so much stress onto the penetrator that it is blunted or breaks.
From what I know, NERA is lighter and much safer than ERA, and from reading the Wiki article on the M-84AS (essentially an M-84 upgraded to the max, it almost looks like a T-90 even M-84AS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), from what I can understand is NERA gives less protection in comparison to ERA. However, it states that it does give better protection against tandem HEAT warheads, apparently in theory because the layer in between the metal plates are not explosive.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Hey Tavarisch that's some pretty interesting stuff on the M-84AS. It seems similar to the T-72 mods, that bring them up (almost) to the T-90 standard. Am I right? It's something retrofittable, and basically grafted on to the existing M-84, as opposed to a new model based on the M-84A? Also as far as I can tell it uses K-5. Is that in addition to the NERA? Or do we have alternating NERA and K-5 on different parts of the tank?
NERA for example works like the following principle.
You have some plates of metal with rubber inbetweeen them.
When for example a penetrator hits the armor the metal plates move into different directions. Thus some of the energy of the penetrator is absorbed and the forces of the metal plates may put so much stress onto the penetrator that it is blunted or breaks.
You do realize that it may only be more effective against small and medium caliber KE projectiles, only thing really good performance wise with this set up is that a vehicle can take multiple hits from shaped charged projectiles, ERA doesn`t offer this, including new ERA packages. Which brings up another interesting point, is bigger era bricks better than smaller bricks.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
NERA protects much better against KE than ERA can. That is the big advantage.
That is not the projectile that it was initially designed to defeat nor will it over newer *ERA* packages coming out of Ukraine and Russia. This is not to say though that the U.S doesn`t offer a good viable solution to a more advanced design, you may here a little more in regards to that comment with the U.S and Germany teaming up to work on some smaller tracked vehicle weapons platforms, first vehicle of course will be a SPH.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
Hey Tavarisch that's some pretty interesting stuff on the M-84AS. It seems similar to the T-72 mods, that bring them up (almost) to the T-90 standard. Am I right? It's something retrofittable, and basically grafted on to the existing M-84, as opposed to a new model based on the M-84A? Also as far as I can tell it uses K-5. Is that in addition to the NERA? Or do we have alternating NERA and K-5 on different parts of the tank?
Yep, pretty much an upgraded M-84 (which is essentially a copy of the T-72) brought up to an almost T-90 standard.
From a glance of the picture on display in that article, you'd have to assume the plates to be K-5. I don't know what kind of NERA is used and what the array is like, so I'm not exactly sure. In the panel to the right side of the page, it states that yes K-5 is used. Perhaps the NERA is used in vital areas where ERA cannot be placed (like the engine areas or near the suspension I think) whereas K-5 is used for the turret and hull glacis areas.
From what I understand, the T-90 is more armored with thicker composites but the M-84AS is faster. Both have SHTORA and both have pretty much the same firepower.
I am a reporter for a large-circulation international newsweekly and would like to speak with one or more vehicle-armor experts for an article I am writing on electric- and reactive-armor systems. You will preferably have had military or defense-contractor experience with armor systems. Ideally you will also be able to provide comment on explosively formed projectiles. It would be possible for you to speak anonymously or on background if necessary. Thanks and best, BenjaminSutherland [ a t ] Economist.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
NERA for example works like the following principle.
You have some plates of metal with rubber inbetweeen them.
When for example a penetrator hits the armor the metal plates move into different directions. Thus some of the energy of the penetrator is absorbed and the forces of the metal plates may put so much stress onto the penetrator that it is blunted or breaks.
Not a expert but there is also currently a good bit of research going into making EM active shielding.
When the projectile detects the weapon closing in it charges up a intensly strong Electro magnetic field this deflects the object and most of the force away.
Though not sure how power intensive such a system would be.
T-80U front side hull has NERA so does T-90A and upgraded T-72B. It is effective against HEAT missiles and KE projectiles. Side hull of T-80U can go 700mm RHA vs KE rounds with NERA.
Not a expert but there is also currently a good bit of research going into making EM active shielding.
When the projectile detects the weapon closing in it charges up a intensly strong Electro magnetic field this deflects the object and most of the force away.
Though not sure how power intensive such a system would be.
Not exactly similar, but i read somewhere that the brits were working on inducing high potential difference between the outer shell of the armor and the inner shells to disrupt the penetration of plasma flow originating from the shaped charges in the RPG's.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
NII Stali claims to be developing a type of reactive armor, that has no explosive in it.
президент НИИ Стали академик РАРАН Валерий Григорян: «На подходе принципиально новые разработки, в которых не используется ВВ. Мы используем совершенно новые энергетические составы, которые намного эффективнее и безопаснее взрывчатых веществ»
President of NII Stali says, We are using completely new energetic compounds that are a lot more effective and safer then explosives.
From what I know, NERA is lighter and much safer than ERA, and from reading the Wiki article on the M-84AS (essentially an M-84 upgraded to the max, it almost looks like a T-90 even , from what I can understand is NERA gives less protection in comparison to ERA. However, it states that it does give better protection against tandem HEAT warheads, apparently in theory because the layer in between the metal plates are not explosive.
It's stated that a NERA plate has less protective capability than a ERA plate of similar size. Does this mean that you can increase the protection of a NERA plate by increasing its size (width, thickness, etc)?
)
It's stated that a NERA plate has less protective capability than a ERA plate of similar size. Does this mean that you can increase the protection of a NERA plate by increasing its size (width, thickness, etc)? 
