armyrecognition.com
9 year old article.Missile Defense For Tanks: Raytheon Quick Kill Vs. Israeli Trophy - Breaking Defense
WASHINGTON: After two decades of dithering and delay, the Army wants to give its armored vehicles the ability to shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles. What’s more, while the service will continue its own long-term, in-house research program, the Army is now willing to accept something “not...breakingdefense.com
Still t.rue today, W/o a missile dangerous to surrounding troops. QK seems to have been forgotten
I think it's just too hard an ask to make happen. "5 miracles" that all need to happen for QK to work.
Now there's a sentence.Missile Defense For Tanks: Raytheon Quick Kill Vs. Israeli Trophy - Breaking Defense
WASHINGTON: After two decades of dithering and delay, the Army wants to give its armored vehicles the ability to shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles. What’s more, while the service will continue its own long-term, in-house research program, the Army is now willing to accept something “not...
By contrast, the Raytheon Quick Kill system developed for the cancelled FCS is “more expensive, but far more reliable,” Scales said. First, Raytheon is a leading maker of radars, so the electronic eyes and brain of the system are world-class. Second, Quick Kill launches its tiny interceptors vertically, upward, before they turn and dive to destroy the incoming missile: That means their blast is directed at the ground rather than sideways, reducing the chance of killing friendly foot troops.
If Quick Kill sounds complicated, that’s because it is. “The thing FCS was doing never worked,” snorted the Hill staffer. “The joke name for it was ‘Five Miracles’ because of the wildly complex firing mechanism. [It’s also] much, much more expensive than Trophy.”
The expense is particularly problematic for an Army trying to wage a new Cold War on a shoestring. “I don’t have a lot of money overall to do modernization and it’s going to be a long time before I’m buying a new vehicle of any type,” said Gouré. “They’ve got to start improving what they’ve got just to meet the existing threat whether it’s Russian stuff on the eastern front or Hamas with third generation ATGMs.”
For me, Quickly Killed is a go-to example of the failure of anti-NIH procurement. They spent a lot of money on a system that was never really going to work, because Raytheon lobbied them enough, and ended up losing an entire decade on APS procurement and refinement.Missile Defense For Tanks: Raytheon Quick Kill Vs. Israeli Trophy - Breaking Defense
WASHINGTON: After two decades of dithering and delay, the Army wants to give its armored vehicles the ability to shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles. What’s more, while the service will continue its own long-term, in-house research program, the Army is now willing to accept something “not...
By contrast, the Raytheon Quick Kill system developed for the cancelled FCS is “more expensive, but far more reliable,” Scales said. First, Raytheon is a leading maker of radars, so the electronic eyes and brain of the system are world-class. Second, Quick Kill launches its tiny interceptors vertically, upward, before they turn and dive to destroy the incoming missile: That means their blast is directed at the ground rather than sideways, reducing the chance of killing friendly foot troops.
If Quick Kill sounds complicated, that’s because it is. “The thing FCS was doing never worked,” snorted the Hill staffer. “The joke name for it was ‘Five Miracles’ because of the wildly complex firing mechanism. [It’s also] much, much more expensive than Trophy.”
The expense is particularly problematic for an Army trying to wage a new Cold War on a shoestring. “I don’t have a lot of money overall to do modernization and it’s going to be a long time before I’m buying a new vehicle of any type,” said Gouré. “They’ve got to start improving what they’ve got just to meet the existing threat whether it’s Russian stuff on the eastern front or Hamas with third generation ATGMs.”
Interesting. Source? Is it Trophy or IF?
IMI is Israel Military Industries, since then acquired by Elbit and rebranded as Elbit Systems Land.
AMAP-ADS met or even exceeded all US requirements during the tests.[8] The operability in hot climates was also proven.
I'm not doubting the concept, nor the engineers' ability to make a working product. But the fact is that even the German Leopard has Trophy as standard and not AMAP-ADS (renamed RAP then StrikeShield a while ago).AMAP-ADS met or even exceeded all US requirements during the tests.[8] The operability in hot climates was also proven.
AMAP-ADS - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Other German APS tech has been tested in German for a looong time. NIH is prevalent
www.armyrecognition.com
What you fail to understand is that there is no shortage of APS-sized warheads that can defeat an APFSDS. Rather, it's a shortage of detection capability.AMAP-ADS met or even exceeded all US requirements during the tests.[8] The operability in hot climates was also proven.
The ADS-Gen3 is the first hard-kill APS certified to the highest safety standard IEC 61508 in 2017[11] and was certified for ISO 61508 SIL 3 in 2018.
In 2022, Rheinmetall presented its KF51 Panther main battle tank fitted with the StrikeShield APS along the hull to protect against ATGMs, RPGs and armour-piercing rounds such as large-calibre APFSDS ammunition.[15] At DSEI 2023, the StrikeShield's passive armour was advertised with protection ranging from STANAG 4569 Level 3 to 6.
The ADS-Gen3 and StrikeShield can use two different types of countermeasures: a lighter effector to defeat ATGMs and RPGs and a heavier effector that generates much more energy to defeat APFSDS rounds.[16] Tests with the StrikeShield APS were carried out in cooperation with the Bundeswehr to verify its protective performance.[15] Two types of APFSDS ammunition were used: the 125 mm 3BM42 APFSDS and a Western 120 mm APFSDS fired from just 200 metres (660 ft) distance to simulate future threats.[15] In photographs presented by Rheinmetall, the APFSDS projectile was tilted or broken in several pieces after interception by the StrikeShield. While the company didn't reveal performance figures, the penetration can be reduced by up to 75%, according to an unspecific source.[15]
The Hybrid Protection Module received the brand name StrikeShield in 2019 and was offered in cooperation with the US company Unified Business Technologies in the US Army's APS program for the Stryker.[13]
AMAP-ADS - Wikipedia
Various other German APS tech has been tested in Germany for some time.
There are serious problems w/ various contractors.
...would argue vehicle defense layers including a longer-range missile ie "revenge shots" should be considered as discussed in another thread on the original FCS and TACOM concept,
NIH is prevalent globally.
An anti-APFSDS APS does not defeat APFSDS. It only reduces its penetration. If the vehicle does not have enough armor to absorb it, it'll still penetrate and perhaps do even more damage. I wouldn't count on anything short of an MBT or HAPC/HIFV to stop a defeated APFSDS from the side, or a 35+ ton AFV to stop one from the front (assuming engine in front).
Is a widest band RF being thrown in low duration pulses to maximize detection range? Long range multi-RF sensors should afford tank gun fire detection @ over 1km
When is one expected to catch a fast ball @ 200m? If that is the case, one would imagine, "you got bigger problems" and detection is only one..
Glade to learn from you that APFSDS defeat is a much more limited threat and usually only faced when one is already protected w/ thick passive armor. .
2 armored rotating launchers, very small warheads, and a good magazine depth - that's easy to restock after battle.
Again, as stated the demand is driven by angst, not the MAPS long term plan, originally proposed for FCS & now potentially adding new counter-UAS swarm, as well as Rev Shot & maybe even counter-helio. Counter-helio may well remain based on Main Guns.
There is an example of thick applique armor being mounted to 4x4 armored car, and was aware an APS can only be expected to reduce penetration ~75%.
Indeed there are more problems like how do you align the launcher on target in time, or if you use a maneuvering missile like QK then how could it reach it in time to intercept at least a few meters from the tank.
It would not. The QK missile is an interceptor only. It certainly does not have a range of several kilometers, let alone the capability to detect and home in on a target there, and finally defeat it. Especially if it's a vehicle.
Even an APS-equipped vehicle must have sufficient armor as if it has no APS.
Not always when equipped with proper armor, but yes it's limited and is only mentally inflated by video games like war thunder and such which make us believe tanks usually go up against tanks, when in reality they very rarely ever do, since multi-domain warfare became a thing.
Have you seen an APFSDS impacting a target? Good simulations out there.
Trophy is neither heavy nor complex. It is one of the simplest APS on the market, and on the lighter end of things. More passive APS types like Iron Curtain or StrikeShield quickly become heavier as you add more munitions to cover the vehicle.
www.janes.com
