Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israeli unveils tank-defense system of the future

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JCFalkenbergIII
    replied
    I would be interested in how fast an object has to be traveling in order to be detected. Robert

    Leave a comment:


  • JCFalkenbergIII
    replied
    Originally posted by GMan88 View Post
    Maybe next step is to make it magazine or belt-fed if possible. Kinda puts me in mind of the Bolo by Keith Laumer...
    It does seem that we are heading that way . Robert

    Leave a comment:


  • GMan88
    replied
    Maybe next step is to make it magazine or belt-fed if possible. Kinda puts me in mind of the Bolo by Keith Laumer...

    Leave a comment:


  • Afghanisdan
    replied
    Originally posted by kuma View Post
    Here's an Iron Fist video.. is this a replacement for Trophy or just a similar offering from another supplier? If these thing already work, why should the US reinvent the wheel? Just buy them from Israel and deploy them ASAP to the troops.

    Actually this looks more promising against sabot rounds too. Very interesting. No direct contact with the incoming round is required for this technique. They need to work on reloads though. Two rounds per side may not be enough in a heavy fight. Good find kuma!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • kuma
    replied
    Here's an Iron Fist video.. is this a replacement for Trophy or just a similar offering from another supplier? If these thing already work, why should the US reinvent the wheel? Just buy them from Israel and deploy them ASAP to the troops.

    Leave a comment:


  • JCFalkenbergIII
    replied
    Originally posted by GMan88 View Post
    a-ha a david drake fan! nice to meet you!
    Yes I am . Nice to meet you too. Robert

    Leave a comment:


  • GMan88
    replied
    Originally posted by JCFalkenbergIII View Post
    That's for sure . The first thought I had was the "Hammer's Slammers" books . Robert
    a-ha a david drake fan! nice to meet you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Demon_Llama
    replied
    Originally posted by JCFalkenbergIII View Post
    "If the technology works, he said it will reduce the need for heavy armor on tanks — resulting in lighter vehicles that are easier to transport and deploy and are more nimble on the battlefield. But, he noted, "it's a lot easier to get it to work on a test range than it is to get it to work on a battlefield."
    To me this statement, concerning a reduction in the need for heavy armor seems flawed. A system which defeats ATGMs in widespread service would only increase the need for countries to have units capable of launching APFSDS rounds, i.e. tanks which would be much harder to deflect, let alone destroy.

    For example the US army M2/3 Bradleys provide a considerable anti-tank capability with their TOW missiles and almost all modern anti-tank infantry and aircraft weapons are missile based. If enemy tanks are equipped with a truly effective Trophy-like system, then anti-tank options are basically limited to M1 tanks and the Warthog's 30mm cannon.

    Also, regarding TA Gardner's comment about countermeasures on the ATGMs. I think that the advantage in any ECM, ECCM battle would probably go to the tanks given that they will be able to carry much larger and more advanced equipment into battle.

    If anything, IMO the development of Trophy-like systems only prolongs the existence of MBTs. Solid rounds would be much harder to destroy/deflect than missiles. Plus we need something to mount railguns on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Afghanisdan
    replied
    I helped evaluate the system years ago. What would the surrounding area be like if the ATGM or RPG was to detonate against the vehicle not to mention what could happen to the occupants inside the vehicle? Have we become so PC that we are not willing to defend the vehicle because we may have collateral damage that would likely happen anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • JCFalkenbergIII
    replied
    I noticed that the site doesn't mention the collateral damages. But at least the first article claims about 1 percent. which is certainly better then the 20 percent stated in the earlier article. Robert

    "After firing, the system quickly reloads. The entire process is automated, holds fire if the rocket is going to miss the tank, and causes such a small explosion that the chances of unintentionally hurting friendly soldiers through collateral damage is only 1 percent, the company says."

    Leave a comment:


  • Golani
    replied
    Originally posted by JCFalkenbergIII View Post
    From the article quoted above May 2003. I guess since then they have gotten over these problems.

    "Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.

    Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.”

    Robert
    Sounds weired, that's what's on the company's site:
    System's Features
    Neutralization of all known Anti-Tank-Rockets (ATRs), Anti-Tank-Missiles (ATGMs)
    Full performance on AFV in motion
    Full performance against short range threats
    Full performance in close and urban terrain
    Full performance under all weather conditions
    Engagement of several threats from each direction, arriving simultaneously
    Reduced vehicle weight
    Easy integration on to light as well as heavy platforms
    http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/ho...=281&docID=963

    Leave a comment:


  • JCFalkenbergIII
    replied
    Originally posted by kuma View Post
    The US evaluated Trophy some years back but decided to develop its own system IIRC.
    Yes we did. The article posted earlier is from 2007. The original article is from a day or so ago. The Israelis decided to keep working on it for their own military on their own. Robert

    http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm
    Last edited by JCFalkenbergIII; 04 Apr 10, 00:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuma
    replied
    The US evaluated Trophy some years back but decided to develop its own system IIRC.

    Leave a comment:


  • JCFalkenbergIII
    replied
    From the article quoted above May 2003. I guess since then they have gotten over these problems.

    "Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.

    Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.”

    Robert
    Last edited by JCFalkenbergIII; 03 Apr 10, 21:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    One extremely well known author talked about measures, counter measures, anti counter measures etc etc. He stated in one of his books in the 8th millenium it was important that troops knew the nuances of using the bayonet. I'm sure it was Robert A Heinlein but I'm happy to be corrected .

    Having just watched Body of Lies this doesn't surprise me. The best technology does not have to be the most sophisticated, just one that works.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X