Skip to comments.US Army tanks get futuristic shields to destroy incoming threats
Posted on 03/01/2018 11:31:11 AM PST by RoosterRedux
If an enemy launches a weapon, like an anti-tank missile, at a U.S. Army tank protected with Trophy, radar or sensors recognize and locate the incoming threat. Tracking radar identifies what kind of threat has been launched at the tank. It distinguishes a rocket from an anti-tank missile, for example.
Trophy instantaneously works out where the weapon would strike. If the missile will strike the tank, then it swings into action to protect the soldiers.
The system figures out the necessary firing angles to intercept the incoming weapon. The computers relay the firing angles to the two launchers positioned on either side of the tank. The launchers rotate to the correct position and fire a countermeasure.
The counter-measure intercepts the anti-tank missile aimed at the U.S. Army and destroys it at a distance before it can reach the tank.
One countermeasure option can be a sort of giant, powerful shotgun loaded with buckshot approach. Trophy can fire canisters filled with ball-bearings at the enemy projectile to defeat it.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Israeli system. Rafaelle and IAI
Wouldn’t touch paypal with a 10 ft bamboo. Bunch of crooked snakes, IMHO.
Ain’t military technology great?
Another reason for supporting infantry to keep their distance from tanks!
Can’t remember the politics of why the Israeli Raphael TROPHY system working since 2008 or 2009 years now. I think it had to do with US contractors and lawyers and of course politics not buying or expanding in the Israeli system. So it’s taken near 10 years and billions to catch up with a proven system I think the Israeli’s were going to sell a t one million per system. This is all from memory so please don’t rag on me if I’m wrong. Just correct me, thank you.
My bad. I meant that as a reply to FR’s announcement that the donation mechanism is ferdutzed right now; but that donations can still be made via PayPal. I clicked the wrong link to rely. Nothing new for me. Sorry. But IMO, PP still sux.
I hate it when I do that..................
In theory then one could reduce the armor thickness and have cheaper(more)and faster tanks.
We had those in Vietnam. They were called canister rounds. Had ball bearings or fleshettes. Problem was we had to aim and fire them.......not a computer.
Infantry should just stay way back and walk in the tank’s tracks. 2nd/34th Armor 25th Infantry Division.
The Army decided to wait for Raytheon’s vaporware QuickKill system. They’ve been waiting for it for over a decade and been ignoring all other systems in their wait for their ‘perfect’ system.
The Army, having seen what’s going on with Leopard 2s in Syria, is finally realizing that they can’t wait any longer.
Not a good idea. That means the tank can’t actually defend to the rear. Countermeasure rounds have a surprisingly long range.
Modern systems like Trophy and the Russian Arena are actually infantry compatible and will not kill infantry advancing with or taking cover on the other side of a tank. Even today that WW1 function of a tank is still a thing.
Yeah, but then things that can’t be shot down by the countermeasures system could get through the armor. Hypervelocity antitank rifles could be viable again.
There is still a role for the main battle tank with its heavy armor. What it does (and has) open up is the survivability of a light airdroppable tank, which the US Airborne is currently starting to pursue. Something with light armor and a big gun that can be paradropped from an aircraft. It can’t stand in the line like an MBT, nor could it spearhead a conventional infantry advance (or be used as a patrol vehicle as in the Sandbox or Syria) but with active defenses it could at least provide point firepower for airborne troops until the heavy armor can get there.
You wrote what Ididn’t know. I suppose then instead of upgrading on a pretty good system they waited for a “perfect” system that will still need upgrades? Was it Rayethon then that has had the contract all this time? Thanks.
This was in Vietnam. The reason they stayed in the tracks is the tank would set off the anti-personnel mines. The only anti tank counter measure was an RPG coming through the turret causing a spalding action.
Modern antipersonnel mines can actually have fuses/detonator mechanisms that *won’t* go off if a tank drives over it but will if infantry steps on it. Riding on the tank or walking in the ground pressure shadow of the tank is a better idea in areas with modern mines.
They’ve been waiting for it for over a decade; the Army has been dithering about Active Protection Systems since the late 90s.
There was never an actual production contract awarded, though IIRC, Raytheon was given a few development only contracts.
The Army believed Raytheon’s sales pitch and put off APS purchases... until recently where it became clear that Konkurs and other world ATGMs are far, far more lethal to first line NATO tanks than previously thought. QuickKill 2.0 promises to be all singing, all dancing - but it’s vaporware. Trophy is available now and it’s demonstrated to work.
Thanks for the extra effort educating me. I'm certainly not a pro on this but know how to read. Appears to me we're on the same page but the politics of buying from Israel and huge military contracts are probably impossible to get out of once all the paper work is signed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.