Posted on 10/10/2017 11:59:28 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
We have discussed in-depth the U.S. Army's move to equip some of its M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks with a version of Israeli's proven Trophy Active Protection System, and although we have seen some renderings of what the Abrams may look like with the system, we now have actual pictures, and they look a bit different than expected to say the least.
As we noted on our last piece about Trophy, the system works as such:
"Trophy... is a so-called “hard kill” active protection system for tanks and other armored vehicles. It combines a radar with launchers that shoot a burst of metal pellets, akin to a large shotgun, to destroy incoming anti-tank rockets and missiles."
Judging by these new photos, Trophy's components are arranged in a more centralized manner than expected and the added "wing" structures attached to the Abram's turret appears to make the tank even wider than it already is. From the front aspect it almost looks as if the brutish M1 has "ears" of sorts that protrude from its sides.
One of our readers alerted us to the images, which are found in marketing materials put out by one of Trophy's prime contractors, Leonardo.
U.S. ARMY VIA LEONARDO
The added structure likely makes the system more modular and easy to install/uninstall and port over to other tanks if need be. It incorporates both the front and rear facing radars, the countermeasures unit and its magazine, as well as other components of the Trophy system.
These images also show the M1A2 equipped with both Trophy and the new Abrams Reactive Armor Tile (ARAT) kit mounted on the tank's flanks and skirt. It's unclear if operating with both the new active and passive protection measures installed will be the configuration for M1s operating in the highest threat environments or not.
US ARMY VIA LEONARDO
The brochure says the Trophy system weighs roughly 1,800lbs, but it isn't clear if that includes the steel fairings it is installed in on the M1 or not. Regardless, it just throws another ton onto the now 69 ton plus vehicle.
The system offers 360 degree protection against anti-tank missiles, RPGs, recoilless rifles and high explosive anti-tank rounds. It also offers the crew an instant indication of where the enemy fire came from so the threat can be neutralized. Specific zones cane be programmed as well. For instance, if dismounted infantry are marching alongside the left side of the vehicle, Trophy can be deactivated or put in passive detection mode on that side alone. And if an attack occurs the system can automatically broadcast the incident over data-link. If the system fails and the tank is hit, this can be very useful for getting rescue crews to it as fast as possible.
You can see the entire installation, including how the rear hemisphere facing radar arrays are mounted below.
The large size of the Trophy installations on the Abrams may be why it was flagged for additional testing due to integration issues with the Abrams turret, which our own Joseph Trevithick noted just weeks ago:
"Earlier in Sept. 2017, the Army Requirements Oversight Council, which works to develop overarching operational requirements and concepts, had decided that more testing was needed on Trophy. This was due to an unspecified loss of performance with regards to the turret and other impacts on the Abrams’ basic functioning."
RAFAEL
Israel's Merkava IV tank has a much more streamlined Trophy installation.
Regardless of potential developmental snags, after years of delays the U.S. Army is finally charging hard to upgrade the survivability of its most potent armored combat vehicles in a move, among others, to maintain an edge against late advances in Russian tank and armored vehicle technology. It is also meant to plug key vulnerability gaps identified via evaluations of various conflicts, including the one in Ukraine, as well as emerging enemy tactics.
Other active protection systems, like Iron Curtain, are also under testing and once these systems are fielded operationally they will likely end up in Eastern Europe, where the U.S. and its allies are working together to deter potential Russian aggression under Operation Atlantic Resolve.
Tanks a lot!
Also, this is not the first US tank with "ears" - the T29E3, which kind of set the pattern for future US tank development, had great big "ears" for its coincidence rangefinder.
The skirts - they look to be reactive armor. Have they abandoned chobham in the skirts?
In the second photo, there is a large plate on the lower portion of the front slope of the hull...what is that? It's already one of the thickest points on the tank...could it possibly be something meant to activate mines?
What are the elaborate sights at the TC station? Are the all involved with the .50, or is it a sort of open hatch auxiliary sight, to help the TC guide the gunner?
With that Trophy system installed, how hard will it be to access parts of the engine compartment...will they have to tilt the engine to pull the pack?
The Cavalry’s come a long way since my Vietnam days.
Thanks for posting.
THis is starting to look like David Drake's Hammer's Slammers stuff:
The weakest part of the Abrams is its old, inefficient engine. The army wanted to upgrade to a less fuel hungry engine but the choice was keep building new, out of date engine tanks, or upgrade the existing ones with new engines. GD used their pocket Congress-critters to force the Army to build new ones as the money for re-engine-ing the tanks would go to somebody else without a pocket Congress- critter. The weakest part of the tank is the line of fuel tankers behind it. It used to be that if you had air superiority they were safe. But with drones the size of toys it’s likely the tankers will be hit fairly early on and the tanks will rapidly become fixed gun emplacements.
The Meriva is a nice looking piece of equipment. One thing that bothers me about it is the obvious bullet trap under the leading edge of the turret. The Porchester turret version of the Tiger II, Sd.Kfz.182 had the same problem to an even greater extent
Meriva = Merkva (damn spell checker)
Treadhead Tuesday - you’ve inherited the logo and list, please ping at will!
High-tech wizardry inside and out. Are we losing that many to side shots that penetrate the chobham side skirts?
Tanks for the ping! Big question is how will the emissions be exploited?
We had about 500 mission-killed Abrams in Iraq through December 2006. Many of them were RPG-7 and RPG-16 hits. Turns out the rear, engine deck and top of the Abrams are very vulnerable to RPG-7 or better hits.
With modern tank rounds, it’s apparently less of an issue. I’m told that modern APFSDS is more likely to disintegrate than ricochet and penetrate, for example.
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.