New Russian Anti-Tank “Trick” overcoming ADS

[luca28]

The Russian defence manufacturer Bazalt has unveiled a new infantry anti-tank system specifically designed to overcome active defence systems (ADS) for MBTs and other AFVs which are now entering service among major armies.

Readers will recall that all such active defence systems are based upon the combined use of various sensors to identify and track an incoming threat (anti-tank missile or projectile), and some form of counter-measure being launched, fired or detonated to intercept the threat. Bazalt’s new AT system, designated RPG-30, is based upon the simple concept of fooling the ADS into activating its counter-measures too early, thus remaining unable to intercept the real threat as it continues on its trajectory.

The RPG-30 is made up of the combination of two throwaway tubes for rocket-propelled grenades. The main 105mm-dia. tube is very similar to the standard RPG-27 weapon and maintains the same RPG-30 grenade with a tandem-shaped charged warhead, but it is backed by a smaller tube containing a so-called precursor rocket. The working principle consists of the precursor rocket being fired first, thus activating the target vehicle’s active defence system and being duly intercepted and destroyed at close range. The main rocket follows within a short time interval (0.2-0-4 sec.) that, according to Bazalt, does not leave the ADS enough time to reset itself for the next engagement sequence. According to the company, the effectiveness of the system has been demonstrated during extensive fire tests (arguably involving the Russian ARENA-E and/or DROZD active defence systems) in late 2008.

Understandably, the whole concept is based upon the idea that no active defence system could intercept in succession two different threats coming from the same direction at a 0.2-0.4 sec. interval. If this were indeed true, possible counter-counter-moves would have to be found in trying to further reduce the reset time, and/or enlarge the kill area covered by the counter-measure which, however, would further aggravate the risk of collateral damage.

For more information and for the working principle of the RPG-30, see:
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/230/

 

[marcellogo]

And the counter- countermeasure will be...

... simply putting on more than a precursor rocket, like in helicopter's rocket pop and shooting them in a casual sequence, so you have to intercept it all.
For a more nasty trick you can also put on same type of fuze,(something like the one Strelas and Iglas got to spark the remaining fuel) that when the precursor is intercepted project forward an iron balls canister, at least gaining a sensor kill.

 

[Firn]

It should be rather easy to program the Active Defense System to avoid going for the small threat.

a) Given that it can detect and interpret not just one projectile at the time a slow one with a very small head should be pretty down the target list. The systems ought to be very fast indeed.

b) It may also be favorable to increase the engagment range of the ADS when the standard one would not allow all two targets to be defeated.

 

[Feanor]

Just volley fire the ATGMs, or RPGs, 5-6 of them per target.

 

[marcellogo]

Don't seem me so easy...

...as you depict it, you need still a such advanced sistem to discriminate the real anti-tank charge from drones and if the drones are still capable to damage your vehicle visors or the ADS itself you simply can't affort to not intercept them.

In every case I don't find these demonstrative examples so convincing, they always shown the same: one only and only that weapon, one only target and nothing in between, like in a laboratory or a proving ground, in battle things are usually very different.

My personal idea for overlapping all these fabled ADS is if possible much more simplier: before launching missiles shoot at the ADS sensors with a gatling or another high rate of fire gun sistem.

 

[marcellogo]

Exactly...

Just volley fire the ATGMs, or RPGs, 5-6 of them per target.

Exactly what Hezbollah has managed to do in 2006:nutkick.

On the opposite side, the ADS for tanks really exist and it is always the same from france 1940: it's called Blitzkrieg, a big numbers of tanks in little portion of the enemy line, artillery fire before and the infantry immediatly after tanks:nutkick.

 

[Firn]

ADS systems have to per definition able to search, track and interpret projectiles up from a specific dimension. Modern ones use overlapping radars to cover the a 360° sphere around the vehicle. The "trick" of this weapon should be rather easily countered as it should be mostly a question of programming the system to prioritize the various threads. Given that it matches the ballistic path of the warhead but is far smaller it is very easy to categorize it as a dud.

Shooting 4-6 rockets at the AFV certainly makes things more interesting. However most people don't seem to realize that it is quite difficult to concentrate so many launchers on one target at the same time without careful preperation as Hizbollah found out.

a) Massing them in one place eases communication and increases the chances of a simultanious salvo but makes very vulnerable and increases the chances of spotting them. Spreading out increases the risk to spread the salvo too much in time and space.

b) Hitting the target with an RPG can be very challenging and missing ones don't trigger a shot. Things like laser rangers which greatly ease aiming can be detected by the tank.

c) Guided systems can be misguided by the soft-kill system integrated by many hard-kill systems.

So you see that good ADS make like Stealth things a lot more complicated for the OPFOR thus greatly increasing the chances that something in their cycles goes wrong,

PS: I certainly won't volunteer to spray a tank with a machinegun or a RPG. More and more systems get fielded which allow to pinpoint the source of the fire with great precision (sound and ifrared based) and speed. The ADS itself can calculate the point of departure of unguided (exactely) and guided (more roughly) anti-tank projectiles and communicate this to the FCS. The AFV can then return the favor with added flavour.

 

[Feanor]

You want to engage it at close ranges, in more or less dense terrain. It limits it's ability to engage in a long-range firebattle, and decreases situational awareness, as LoS is obscured, and targets can appear close to it. In that situation, light infantry (Hezbollah style) can be very effective. Otherwise they're left to do what they did in the 2006 war, take long-range pot-shots, and retreat.

 

[marcellogo]

It would need HUGE elaboration capacity...

... to discriminate in a salvo of rockets distanced less than 0.5 secs one from the others the real one, expecially if they are arranged in a way to have similar velocity and RCS.

And about the one that have to volounteer :shudder to shot at a tank with a HMG or similar: Firn, I have no real combat experience but it seem more than plausibile to me that when a MBT is in a battlefield, it will be the primary target and every infantryman, ifv crew member, machine gun operator will shot at him first.

 

[Firn]

... to discriminate in a salvo of rockets distanced less than 0.5 secs one from the others the real one, expecially if they are arranged in a way to have similar velocity and RCS.

I already explained how a spectrum of the ADS operates, I will come to others later.

And about the one that have to volounteer to shot at a tank with a HMG or similar: Firn, I have no real combat experience but it seem more than plausibile to me that when a MBT is in a battlefield, it will be the primary target and every infantryman, ifv crew member, machine gun operator will shot at him first.

With no weapon around to take care of the tank, no way to run and no way to hide I would rather pop up my arms and surrender than starting to plink it with bullets and crying out "kill me". With some Panzerfausts or Milans around it things would be different.

 

[Feanor]

... to discriminate in a salvo of rockets distanced less than 0.5 secs one from the others the real one, expecially if they are arranged in a way to have similar velocity and RCS.

And about the one that have to volounteer :shudder to shot at a tank with a HMG or similar: Firn, I have no real combat experience but it seem more than plausibile to me that when a MBT is in a battlefield, it will be the primary target and every infantryman, ifv crew member, machine gun operator will shot at him first.

Especially those HMG operators and infantry with their assault rifles. Yep. They'll be blasting away at that MBT. A priority target for them.

 

[marcellogo]

Ok, Feanor, I'll try to explain myself better

With no weapon around to take care of the tank, no way to run and no way to hide I would rather pop up my arms and surrender than starting to plink it with bullets and crying out "kill me". With some Panzerfausts or Milans around it things would be different.

Firn ,you still keep thinking in the terms of the industry propaganda leaflets, so I have to quote myself:

one only and only that weapon, one only target and nothing in between, like in a laboratory or a proving ground, in battle things are usually very different

Is this some kind of sadistical computer game?:unknown
Why you have to be alone in the battlefield? Where is your squad or your platoon? Why you are not allowed to have your organic anti tank weaponry with yourselves? Why you have to stay on the open ground and spray a tank (only one obviously: also his is on the propaganda leaflet) with a hmg (to be exact in my first example I was talking about a gatling gun or a IFV gun) ?

To be almost fair your gamemasters would have allowed you to have almost the same size unit of your opponents, so if you have to play infantry role against a tank ( that count as an armored squad), you would have to be (i'll use my own country, Italy, as a reference) eight men with two lmg, two underbarrelled granade launcher, two hand portable thermal imaginery & laser rangefinders +2 digital radio AND TWO PANZERFAUST 3 ( and usually it come also a Dardo or Freccia IFV or two Puma 6X6 or two Iveco LMV).

 

[Firn]

Firn ,you still keep thinking in the terms of the industry propaganda leaflets, so I have to quote myself:

Actually nothing could be farer from truth. I just said that in a tactical situation where one lacks the means to harm the enemy or to run and one will succumb to enemy firepower the best course of action is to surrender. Reread my post and you will understand.

With no weapon around to take care of the tank, no way to run and no way to hide I would rather pop up my arms and surrender than starting to plink it with bullets and crying out "kill me". With some Panzerfausts or Milans around it things would be different.

If my squad would have encountered tanks we would be hopefully be part of a combined force (light (us) and at least medium fire support assets) under a solid artillery umbrella with aircover and airsupport. Then things would have worked out rather differently.

We could discuss it further but I would rather return to topic of the thread...

 

[marcellogo]

Ok, we are agreed...

The same for me, my proposal infact was that the "sprayers" will have to work closely togheter with the ATk teams, in order to phase out the ADS sistems (on my opinion many IFV vehicles will be able to easily perform the both part, expecially if they can be equipped with pfhe rounds)

So, let's bring it back to analize the various ADS sistem performances and the various tricks that can counteract them.

 

[Waylander]

Even if one is capable of getting a successfull coordinated ATGM strike onto the target the ADS is still successfull to some degree.

It forces the enemy to concentrate alot of his AT assets as well as exposing them while they were shooting.

That reduces the overall AT capabilities of the enemy because he has to do alot more to get the chance of hitting an AFV.
And it will cost him more of his AT assets because what fires can get spotted and what can get spotted makes itself a target for the other friendly assets in the area.

 

[eckherl]

Even if one is capable of getting a successfull coordinated ATGM strike onto the target the ADS is still successfull to some degree.

It forces the enemy to concentrate alot of his AT assets as well as exposing them while they were shooting.

That reduces the overall AT capabilities of the enemy because he has to do alot more to get the chance of hitting an AFV.
And it will cost him more of his AT assets because what fires can get spotted and what can get spotted makes itself a target for the other friendly assets in the area.

Especially for artillery, when that starts dropping they will be very reluctant to launch anything.

 

[marcellogo]

Yes, no one is denying that...

No one is saying that if some efficent sistem of overcoming actual or better next-future ADS will be found, they have to be discarded as futile, adding an active defence sistem to a tank or another armored vehicle is a very smart choice, IF it don't lead to the wrong assumptions that it make the invulnerable or can it be used instead of passive or reactive armor or that you don't need anymore prudence tactical awareness or good plans in using your armored forces.

 

[Firn]

Ok when we assume we spot elements of an enemy mechanized battalion with working ADS systems aka Trophy, Ironfist, Arena which rely on radars on the outskirts of a village. Part of our units have survived the concentrated artillery fire smashing down to prepare the way for an armored spearhead. We have Forward Observers able to call down artillery (howitzer, mortors and perhaps rocket artillery) Now the tactics depend heavily on our knowledge of the ADS.

a) If there isn't a coverage for the top it might be best to call in first smart anti-tank rounds from the indirect fire support assets in massive sudden strike.

b) If the system is covers every angle than we must concentrate first a great deal of HE fire from all available indirect assets. The massive strike should damage the "soft" parts of the system, damage the optics, suppress, maim or kill infantry and softskinned AFV so that after 1-2 min. (depending on CB thread) the artillery switches to smart rounds (SMart, Bonus).

Our hidden infantry and our remaining available AFV now start too to fire with alll antitank assets hoping to get as many as possible and repel the attack. The artillery scoots to avoid CB.


See the effect of massive artillery strikes on AFV

Thanks to the ever increasing range, lethality and precision of the indirect fire trinity (howitzer, mortar and rocket) a larger NATO army can truly concentrate a lot of fire on an armored spearhead. When the Syrians broke through the Golan 1973 they concentrated 21 artillery batteries and a Rocket artillery battalion on the great syrian armored spearhead.

BTW: After that episode the Isreali alloted a lot of training time of their M109 to develop and sharpen their direct fire skills, especially against tanks as they lost a battery due to T-55 firing from 40 meters.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Active Protection Systems are just another layer in the defensive 'onion' of modern land combat systems. The various defensive layers range from command and control to avoid threats and protection inside the vehicle to reduce damage caused by hits that penetrate. No one expects that every combat system is made invulnerable but that they are far more survivable than vehicles with just a layer of steel armour.

Integrating the APS into the defensive system means that the APS sensors won’t just trigger hard kill responses but provide situational awareness, targeting, decoy launching and other inputs to the combat system crew. APS like Iron Fist and Trophy Light also have a soft kill laser system built into the launcher able to defeat the guidance systems of most ATGMs.

The Russian RPG-30 system could easily be countered by most Western hard kill APS because they have very effective systems for classification of incoming threats. If the decoy round is a perfect mimic of the anti-tank round then a simple program to recognise the pattern of decoy-round would direct the APS to engage the second round and ignore the first. Or just engage both as most APS arrangements have multiple hard kill interceptors available.

Simultaneous barrage fire of anti-tank rounds is a nice concept but very hard to organise in the field. To do so up against an army with lots of ISR sensors is suicide. It’s one thing for an ATGM sniper squad (or RPGist) to infiltrate the battlefield and achieve surprise with their missile. It’s another for a company of ATGM teams (or RPG shooters) to stay in communications over a large area in order to achieve a coordinated multi-shot on a target. They will expose themselves to ISR detection and preparation fires.

 

[Waylander]

I am not sure that ADS are going to be able to defeat modern artillery ammunition like SMArt in the near future.
Such an attack is of a different quality than an ATGM attack.

In the end you descriped something which is not very different from how a good defence is done even when ADS don't play a role.
The idea of shredding the enemy soft spots with air burst and/or bomblet artillery is already done even without the existence of ADS.
Mixing some air bursts into your salvo is a good way to destroy some optics, vision blocks and antennas which is also going to have some effect on the efficiency of enemy armor.

And a nice coordinated fire command is gold for every defender. Creates alot of confusion if one gets multiple hits within a short period of time.
From training I know how difficult it is to keep the momentum and keep cohesion if one gets alot of hits even when the unit as a whole is theoretically still able to perform the mission.
I don't want to know much more difficult it is in real combat.

As for overconfidence in ADS. IMHO this is what the US is currently doing in regards to the Future Combat System.

Good post.