I suspect that the German designed AMAP-ADS system is less suitable for a MBT and more suitable for the over 40 types of Bronco ATTC
in service or the 10 types of Belrex MRAP vehicles (namely, security, engineer, reconnaissance, logistics, fuel, medical, mortar, signal, maintenance and mortar ammunition carrier) and is based on the Paramount Marauder (4x4) MRAP, as combat support vehicles to reduce ambush risk, especially in forward resupply with the SAF’s CSS train.
- In British service, the ATTC encountered 30 IED attacks with zero fatalities. To retain swim capability and IED resistance, the Bronco 3 (which has German technology inserts) has been redesigned and is well suited to include the AMAP-ADS system as an additional survivability onion layer.
- The battalion command and recovery variants of the ATTC especially need an APS system. ST Kinetics displayed the Bronco ATTC with the AMAP-ADS active protection system as far back as EUROSATORY 2008.
It has been documented that the SAF does remove some sensors on the Hunter IFV before it goes on public display
— therefor not a surprise that the APS system, even if selected, will not be on public display.
Rumour has it that a few years ago Singapore has completed testing and placed an order for AMAP-ADS for certain classes of vehicles like the ATTCs, but as it is the norm, the SAF will not be willing to showcase these systems. There is significant defence industrial base collaboration between Germany and Singapore but the nature of such collaboration is not open source.
- It is not unusual to find German speaking Singaporeans in our Army and Navy at LTC and above level and in our defence science organisation — as a select few are German trained.
- The SAF’s conduct of armour training in the Oberlausitz Military Training Area (OMTA), in Germany, with the German Panzerbataillons, keep our armour doctrine aligned.
- In this case, I see the Leopard 2SG is an important symbol of the excellent defence relationship — especially its German ammo, like the KE DM63 / DM53 A1 in use.
The doctrinal move to hull down fighting is an indication that APS systems are mature or close to mature.
But I think you or Kato would have a better idea of the pros and cons of each APS and not one size system fits all for the IDF’s or the Bundeswehr armour vehicle fleets — I look forward to hearing both your insights.
Replying in points because this forum's formatting is a bit outdated. All in chronological order, as much as possible:
1)Exhibitions like Eurosatory are hardly indicative. It's common practice to only do mechanical integration of components to a platform, and proceed to software integration and UI development when there's a contract already, which, depending on the company's schedule, could take a couple years.
It's also expensive work and diverts valuable human capital from other projects for a considerable amount of time. That's why companies want a contract first, and armed forces are not protesting against the practice because it is totally legitimate.
For example, the Iron Fist was demonstrated in anti-KE tests as far back as mid 2000's, and also shown on various platforms like the Merkava, Namer, and various foreign platforms as well (CV90, ASCOD, etc). Yet when the US Army wanted it for the Bradley, the Iron Fist was not mature enough and the company's schedule did not meet the army's, and that's mainly because none bought Iron Fist prior to that. Only now there's huge interest.
So, 15 years after first demonstrations.
2)The laser warning sensor at hand, was shown for the first time in 2002 in the unveiling ceremony of the first Merkava 4 tank. Since then, at least 95% of photos of the Merkava 4 show the module missing with only the mounting brackets in place.
The IDF does not normally hide such equipment, especially if it makes sure to display it for everyone to see, and the company displays it on its site.
I suspect there are considerations here that are unknown to us.
My guess is there's some strict maintenance requiremens for this device, so it's mounted only during operational activity.
Your guess is almost as good as mine (mine's pretty solid. Hardly anyone can top that).
3)The Hunter's turret, as you know, is a Samson turret, and was built to accommodate a Trophy APS. It would be very odd if the SAF selected 2 types of APS for service, in a matter of several years, unless it does not trust the ADS, which in turn also sounds odd if it was really already purchased.
But then, we also know to take such claims with a grain of salt, like the alleged sale of Merkava 4 tanks, several years ago, to Singapore, which turned out to be fake news on Israel's part.
4)I see no relation here to hull down fighting. If anything, the very opposite should be the case.
Hull down is a common drill for any type of armed AFV.
An APS allows AFVs to be far more aggressive than usually, and therefore be more mobile rather than in prepared hulldown positions.
I believe you meant to also suggest the opposite?
5)Indeed one size doesn't fit all, but it doesn't mean buying 2 different systems makes sense.
In the age of digital architectures, it's possible to make a single system in any number of sizes.
Want the ADS? Buy it with light and heavy firing units for multiple platform categories.
Want the Trophy? It has 2 versions now as well.
The American approach is solid - develop as part of the VPS project an architecture first and only then ask industry to offer components that will be integrated from day 1 to the architecture.
Unfortunately, it's been a very long time since anything about the VPS program was published.