New Russian Anti-Tank “Trick” overcoming ADS

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

Such a round will actually be more vulnerable to certain hard kill active protection systems than more conventional artillery (HE and DPICM) because the submunition is less robust.

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

I strongly disagree. There is a perception that the XM1200 manned ground vehicles will be light in armour? Nothing could be further from the truth. By significantly decreasing the armoured area (by reducing internal volume) and using new materials the XM1200s will have very high levels of passive protection (ie armour) while achieving low gross vehicle weight (<30 tonnes). An analogy from history is the Panzerjager Hetzer. It weighed only 16 tonnes yet had very high levels of protection (both passive and stealth).

Then of course there is the capability of active protection and the XM1200's Quick Kill system. Which will be able to defeat just about everything thrown at it from point blank artillery to 120mm APFSDS to airburst artillery rounds and in large numbers.

 

[kato]

A lot of modern artillery anti-tank munitions (including SmArt) use EFPs formed in the air well above the vehicle afaik, with the height at which the EFP is formed depending on speed of the target vehicle as determined by mmW radar by the submunition. An ADS can't really do much to intercept a high-speed EFP aimed at the vehicle, once it's formed. SmArt seems to explode at a typical height of something like 50 to 70 meters.

A single standard PzH 2000 battery using 6-shot MRSI salvoes can pack 96 guided SmArt submunitions (48 shells of 2) into the air above a target zone simultaneously, which should easily saturate the defences of any ADS systems in the area. And that's before we start mixing in airburst HE as a "precursor".

Unless we start mounting C-RAM systems on tanks as "ADS", i doubt there's much a tank can do against such threats.

 

[Waylander]

Such a round will actually be more vulnerable to certain hard kill active protection systems than more conventional artillery (HE and DPICM) because the submunition is less robust.

Really?
I would have thought that the two submunitions of SMARt actually fire their load from too high to be defeated by the ADS.
And even if the projectile is hit I would think that even a crippled projectile is very dangerous for the top of an AFV.

strongly disagree. There is a perception that the XM1200 manned ground vehicles will be light in armour? Nothing could be further from the truth. By significantly decreasing the armoured area (by reducing internal volume) and using new materials the XM1200s will have very high levels of passive protection (ie armour) while achieving low gross vehicle weight (<30 tonnes). An analogy from history is the Panzerjager Hetzer. It weighed only 16 tonnes yet had very high levels of protection (both passive and stealth).

Then of course there is the capability of active protection and the XM1200's Quick Kill system. Which will be able to defeat just about everything thrown at it from point blank artillery to 120mm APFSDS to airburst artillery rounds and in large numbers.

Surely one can get alot of protection out of new materials.
But there is only so much one can save. One just needs some space for a modern 120mm gun, 3 crewmembers, ammo, fuel and electronics.
We did what we could do regarding that with the Puma.
It became as small as one can get it and I am sure KMW and Rheinmetall are not far behind (if they are even behind) when it comes to passive protection technology.
Sure an IFV has some other requirements than a small tank with the tank. One may save some space as a direct fire system without dismounts may get more compact but believing that one can get as much protection out of it as from a bigger and heavier tank between 40-50 tons is IMHO very optimistic
I am not going to believe that it is doable to beat this easily before the other FCS systems are fielded.
It's not like the NLOS-C impressed me alot for it being the first of a revolutionary new family of vehicles...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Really?
I would have thought that the two submunitions of SMARt actually fire their load from too high to be defeated by the ADS.
And even if the projectile is hit I would think that even a crippled projectile is very dangerous for the top of an AFV.

It depends on the hard kill system some can, some can’t. But a skeet type submunition like SMArt only fires from around 100-200m altitude. The skeet is pretty tough but even minor damage will defeat its sensors rendering it unusable. Also many of the latest Western APS systems can engage and defeat EFPs so countering a SMArt after it has fired.

But there is only so much one can save. One just needs some space for a modern 120mm gun, 3 crewmembers, ammo, fuel and electronics.
We did what we could do regarding that with the Puma.
It became as small as one can get it and I am sure KMW and Rheinmetall are not far behind (if they are even behind) when it comes to passive protection technology.

The XM1200 series is in a totally different league to Puma. The biggest savings are in crew (2 vs 3) and powerpack (small diesel, electric transmission vs large diesel torque transmission). The volume savings from the hybrid powerpack are huge. Like Puma the weaponry of all XM1200s, including the XM1202 MCS (ie tank) are in a remote turret so armour can be lighter without compromising crew safety (huge difference in armour weight compared to conventional tanks).

 

[Firn]

Coming back to the ADS the critical part of the suite (as of most AFV) are the sensors. The great majority does indeed use radar and as far as I know it is rather difficult to harden and armor it without interfering with its manipulation of the electromagnetic waves. So even if we have the whole sphere around the tank covered by both radar and to a certain extent redundant interceptors this part of the loop should be quite vulnerable.

A lot of modern artillery anti-tank munitions (including SmArt) use EFPs formed in the air well above the vehicle afaik, with the height at which the EFP is formed depending on speed of the target vehicle as determined by mmW radar by the submunition. An ADS can't really do much to intercept a high-speed EFP aimed at the vehicle, once it's formed. SmArt seems to explode at a typical height of something like 50 to 70 meters.

Given the modus operandi of the submunition and the sheer speed of the EFP I see here great problems for any ADS. The only possibility to counter such submunitions is to greatly enlarge the engagement range of the interceptors. With a concentrated barrage the systems will get overwhelmed. It also shouldn't very difficult to develop light and compact chaffs mimicing the RCS and flight pattern of the submunitions.

But as I said before, just like VLO technology ADS makes it a lot more complicated and difficult for enemy forces to counter AFV.

 

[Feanor]

Just a quick question... what is the XM-1200? A quick search turned up nothing on google.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just a quick question... what is the XM-1200? A quick search turned up nothing on google.

Future Combat System (FCS) Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV)

XM1201 Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle (RSV)
XM1202 Mounted Combat System (MCS)
XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C)
XM1204 Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M)
XM1205 Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV)
XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV)
XM1207 Medical Vehicle (MV-E)
XM1208 Medical Vehicle (MV-T)
XM1209 Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)

https://www.fcs.army.mil/systems/index.html

aka XM1200...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Coming back to the ADS the critical part of the suite (as of most AFV) are the sensors. The great majority does indeed use radar and as far as I know it is rather difficult to harden and armor it without interfering with its manipulation of the electromagnetic waves. So even if we have the whole sphere around the tank covered by both radar and to a certain extent redundant interceptors this part of the loop should be quite vulnerable.

The radars of the new generation of western hard kill active protection systems are pretty resilient. They use low power phased arrays and have some basic ballistic protection. This idea that you can spray a tank with machinegun fire and take out all the sensors is not very realistic.

Given the modus operandi of the submunition and the sheer speed of the EFP I see here great problems for any ADS. The only possibility to counter such submunitions is to greatly enlarge the engagement range of the interceptors.

It depends on the type of HK device but there are several APS that have no problem defeating EFPs and at close range (under 50-100m). They can even defeat high velocity long rod kinetic energy penetrators or at least significantly reduce their penetrative power.

With a concentrated barrage the systems will get overwhelmed. It also shouldn't very difficult to develop light and compact chaffs mimicing the RCS and flight pattern of the submunitions.

If you are talking about a barrage of sensor fuzed skeets like SMArt 155 it is actually pretty hard to make the barrage simultaneous (in order to overwhelm the number of HK shots available before reloading: which range around 4-8). Each SMArt shell delivers two skeets which target different areas. You would actually have to know where the target is (which defeats the purpose of sensor fused and is impossible with a moving target) and have one or two batteries (6-12 rounds) firing at the same time at the same target to overwhelm the APS. Since you need to know where the target tank is to do so it would be much easier and more effective to fire DPICM (Cluster Bomb 155mm shell with ~80 submunitions) into its location.

As to decoys they would be very difficult because of the complex flight path of a skeet. They would also consume a lot of space in the shell so a single round would only contain one skeet and 4-8 decoys instead of two skeets. And if the APS sensor can track the incoming round and observe its base eject and seperation of the skeets it would be able to determine which one is the real shot and which the decoys. Since most HK APS have sensor ranges of over 1 km this would be possible.

 

[lobbie111]

The radars used are normally solid state AESA radars which mean that modules can be placed all around the vehicle and are relativly lightweight, and they are redundant in their area of influence (if you call it that) in that if one sensor block fails the surrounding blocks will take over its duties, similarly if that sensor block is engaged with a target they will do the same thing.

The size and shape makes the targets very hard to hit. What I would like to see is a system such as AMAP combined with a high power guided scatter laser to destroy rounds from IFV's, sniper fire and eliminate decoy's...But this is many years away and im in fantasy land, I have looked into it and fibre optic lasers (the ideal ones to use as it then can be used just like AESA blocks) are just not powerful enough yet.

I Know...:sniperfftopic

 

[marcellogo]

The discussion have grown up well...

One thing... how many of that sistems we are talking about are operational or almost close to it, Skeet, SMArtm, XM-12xyz?

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.

There is a lot of good old common sense in that statement, my greatest fear infact, is that the idea of having a quite invulnerable weaponry can lead someone to forget the basic of modern tactics or also the most elementary prudence.
On other terms, if you put an ADS on a real MBT( and still keep to use it accordingly the usual tactics),it's more than OK, but if you pretend that you can put it an on a 30tons CENTAURO or STRIKER AGS (I'm limiting myself to existing weaponry on pourpose) and use them in a similar fashion of a tank o also if you pretend that you can use a platoon of Ads capable Tank to do the job of a btg of the former ones, it could prove itself cathastrofic at least...

 

[eckherl]

It depends on the hard kill system some can, some can’t. But a skeet type submunition like SMArt only fires from around 100-200m altitude. The skeet is pretty tough but even minor damage will defeat its sensors rendering it unusable. Also many of the latest Western APS systems can engage and defeat EFPs so countering a SMArt after it has fired.



The XM1200 series is in a totally different league to Puma. The biggest savings are in crew (2 vs 3) and powerpack (small diesel, electric transmission vs large diesel torque transmission). The volume savings from the hybrid powerpack are huge. Like Puma the weaponry of all XM1200s, including the XM1202 MCS (ie tank) are in a remote turret so armour can be lighter without compromising crew safety (huge difference in armour weight compared to conventional tanks).

Good posts Abe,

May I add a few things though,

The XM1202 MC will actually have a three man crew, but you are correct that it will be a remote turret design with the XM-360 fed by a automated loader consisting of 27 rounds. The XM-360 will have just as much punch as a M256 and close to a L55 even though they were able to shave close to 2400 lbs worth of weight between the gun and recoil mechanism, to fire the current hot rod Sabots though we ended up having to settle for a muzzle brake, the ground pounder support will really be pissed now. Alot of composites are used for armor protection and the design of the XM-360 to get the weight down, also there is the use of rubber tracks that should benefit in two area`s, weight and cost.

 

[Firn]

One thing... how many of that sistems we are talking about are operational or almost close to it, Skeet, SMArtm, XM-12xyz?

SMart and SADARM are already operational submunitions and can be fired cannon and rocket artillery (SADARM). Strix is a fire-and-forget 120m mortar shell.

The radars of the new generation of western hard kill active protection systems are pretty resilient. They use low power phased arrays and have some basic ballistic protection. This idea that you can spray a tank with machinegun fire and take out all the sensors is not very realistic.

Perhaps you should look what damage a HE 155mm shell can do to AFV from various ranges (up to 30m). Bomblets from Rocketartillery are certainly also a rather unpleasant present for a tank and I have a very hard time to believe that the radars on a AFV are armoured enough to take that sort of damage. BTW I never advocated to spary a tank with machinegun fire.

If you are talking about a barrage of sensor fuzed skeets like SMArt 155 it is actually pretty hard to make the barrage simultaneous (in order to overwhelm the number of HK shots available before reloading: which range around 4-8). Each SMArt shell delivers two skeets which target different areas. You would actually have to know where the target is (which defeats the purpose of sensor fused and is impossible with a moving target) and have one or two batteries (6-12 rounds) firing at the same time at the same target to overwhelm the APS. Since you need to know where the target tank is to do so it would be much easier and more effective to fire DPICM (Cluster Bomb 155mm shell with ~80 submunitions) into its location.

Reread the post of Kato

A single standard PzH 2000 battery using 6-shot MRSI salvoes can pack 96 guided SmArt submunitions (48 shells of 2) into the air above a target zone simultaneously, which should easily saturate the defences of any ADS systems in the area. And that's before we start mixing in airburst HE as a "precursor".

The artillery certainly doesn't fire into the blue, but gets the precise data quite rapidly by a FO with the right tools. The rest is taking care of by the Artillery and the SMart submunitons. Everything is actually rather simply and straighforward and very hard to break by the enemy during that timeframe.

It depends on the type of HK device but there are several APS that have no problem defeating EFPs and at close range (under 50-100m). They can even defeat high velocity long rod kinetic energy penetrators or at least significantly reduce their penetrative power.

I would really like to see a demostration of an ADS which hard-kills a EFP travelling over 2000 m/s fired from 50-100m. The only claiming to so is AMAP-ADS. Trophy and Ironfist are IMHO far to slow to react to such a thread as the slug would reach the target from 75m in less than 0,04 seconds.

 

[Waylander]

@Abraham
Actually I get the feeling that we are not talking about the same thing.

A battery or two of modern SPHs is not going to fire one or two salvos and then scoot.

One battery of PzH2000 is going to put 80 rounds with 160 skeets into the air above an enemy spearhead within 1 minute.
And all that while retaining the ability to scoot before counterfire flies back.
Add some additional minutes to the time window for the fire mission and it doesn't look better.
I am sure these are going to be too many submunitions in a too short timeframe for an ADS even if it is going to be able to defeat the high flying skeets.

And we all know that current modern artillery observers are putting the target data into the artillery datalink system as accurately and fast as one can get.

-----

Just a little bit offtopic about the FCS.
IMHO comparing the FCS at least roughly to the Puma is IMHO not that far away from reality.
Getting an AFV with as much space and weight reduction as possible by using modern armor technology and an unmanned turret while staying within the limits set by deployability by air.

In the end the only real difference is the type of engine used.
On may say that this is the weight difference between a proposed FCS and a basic Puma.
But even fully uparmored (C armor kit) and with 43tons the Puma is not even close to withstanding even a blunted KE.

And the FCS is going to achieve this? Without the US military industry having a serious advantage over the german one when it comes to land systems?

Sorry but I just don't believe it before I can see it. Not because of national pride. I am fully aware that the US is sometimes lightyears ahead in some areas of military technology. But because of scepticism. I just don't believe they are able to build the FCS family with all the proposed wonder capabilities, especially not within a reasonal timeframe and budget.

 

[eckherl]

@Abraham
Actually I get the feeling that we are not talking about the same thing.

A battery or two of modern SPHs is not going to fire one or two salvos and then scoot.

One battery of PzH2000 is going to put 80 rounds with 160 skeets into the air above an enemy spearhead within 1 minute.
And all that while retaining the ability to scoot before counterfire flies back.
Add some additional minutes to the time window for the fire mission and it doesn't look better.
I am sure these are going to be too many submunitions in a too short timeframe for an ADS even if it is going to be able to defeat the high flying skeets.

And we all know that current modern artillery observers are putting the target data into the artillery datalink system as accurately and fast as one can get.

-----

Just a little bit offtopic about the FCS.
IMHO comparing the FCS at least roughly to the Puma is IMHO not that far away from reality.
Getting an AFV with as much space and weight reduction as possible by using modern armor technology and an unmanned turret while staying within the limits set by deployability by air.

In the end the only real difference is the type of engine used.
On may say that this is the weight difference between a proposed FCS and a basic Puma.
But even fully uparmored (C armor kit) and with 43tons the Puma is not even close to withstanding even a blunted KE.

And the FCS is going to achieve this? Without the US military industry having a serious advantage over the german one when it comes to land systems?

Sorry but I just don't believe it before I can see it. Not because of national pride. I am fully aware that the US is sometimes lightyears ahead in some areas of military technology. But because of scepticism. I just don't believe they are able to build the FCS family with all the proposed wonder capabilities, especially not within a reasonal timeframe and budget.

Err, I think that we pissed away the time frame and budget many years ago with our FCS program Waylander, and yes vehicles in that weight class are not going to with stand a direct frontal impact from a newer 120 mm sabot and still have a vehicle within a realistic budget, thus the reason for a dependancy on soft and hard kill systems, speed and stealth. But the armor is quite good though for a vehicle in that weight class taking on other forms of threat projectiles, especially shaped charges.

@Firn, I agree with you

Even indirect artillery fire can either destroy or disable a MBT, the U.S and other NATO Alliance countries have conducted many tests in this area using just 155 mm HE ammo, this will be a major factor for any modern tank that is unlucky to be in a artillery bracket, I actually had someone on Tanknet tell me awhile ago that a LEO 2 or M1 Series Doghouse (gunners sight ballistic shield) could withstand 155mm HE shrapnel impact with no damage to the sighting system. nfloorl:

 

[Waylander]

Shrapnel is not like shrapnel...

I am sure one is able to find some small shrapnels from a 155mm which are blocked by the doghouse...

 

[kato]

Maybe if the HE explodes at the turrets 180 ? :lol

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Perhaps you should look what damage a HE 155mm shell can do to AFV from various ranges (up to 30m). Bomblets from Rocketartillery are certainly also a rather unpleasant present for a tank and I have a very hard time to believe that the radars on a AFV are armoured enough to take that sort of damage. BTW I never advocated to spary a tank with machinegun fire.

I am more than familiar with the effects of artillery splinters on AFVs. But hard kill APS can defeat a 155mm HE artillery shell before it can PD or AB.

Reread the post of Kato

Nope, you and Kato should reread my post as Kato is not fully informed about how SFM like SMArt operates. Ie there is no way anyone will be firing MRSI SMArt missions. Apart from being totally against the CONOPs of the weapon it also incredibly wasteful as a MRSI mission of DPICM will achieve far better results. SMArt however replaces large frontage fires of DPICM to destroy armour to reduce the number of rounds fired (significantly) and increase lethality.

The artillery certainly doesn't fire into the blue, but gets the precise data quite rapidly by a FO with the right tools. The rest is taking care of by the Artillery and the SMart submunitons. Everything is actually rather simply and straighforward and very hard to break by the enemy during that timeframe.

Hah, hah, hah, hah.

I would really like to see a demostration of an ADS which hard-kills a EFP travelling over 2000 m/s fired from 50-100m. The only claiming to so is AMAP-ADS. Trophy and Ironfist are IMHO far to slow to react to such a thread as the slug would reach the target from 75m in less than 0,04 seconds.

That is assuming detonation to maximum velocity is instantaneous. Which it isn't... Also the skeet SFM (like SMArt) detonates at the altitude within its engagement cycle in which the target is identified. Altitude is not fixed. If a skeet needs to descend to 75m altitude it is well within the vulnerability zone of being destroyed by the HK APS.

The typical profile of a skeet is base eject at 1,000m, stabilise by 800m, orientate and search by 500m, engage by 200m. It will continue to search until it hits the ground. The orientate and search phase (500m to 200m) takes as much as 15 seconds. This is where skeets will be shoot down by HK APS tanks.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

One battery of PzH2000 is going to put 80 rounds with 160 skeets into the air above an enemy spearhead within 1 minute.

Yeah sure but not all those skeets are going to be firing at the same individual tank target. For one each round ejects two skeets which follow different ballistic paths to engage different areas. While someone could decide to fire all 80 rounds at the same coordinate (and there would probably be some collisions reducing the number of effective skeets) you would have 80 skeets each (not 160) descending on two adjoining target areas. Now unless this is a stationary target that is being engaged any mobile vehicle would have driven out of this target area within the time of flight. While its possible to shoot artillery into a predicted path its very hard to do.

The whole point of SFMs like SMArt is that the 80 rounds will be fired in order for each skeet to be targeting its own area. This way the 160 skeets can cover a large area and typically destroy an entire armoured brigade.

In the end the only real difference is the type of engine used.

Not at all. Its not just an engine its a powerpack system that is far more space efficient. The Puma needs a mechanical torque system for a vehicle of up to 42 tonnes with heavy tracks. The XM1200 as an electrical motor torque system (built into the actual wheel) for a vehicle of 27 tonnes with lightweight tracks. So firstly the XM1200 needs far less power and it's transmission is not within the armoured hull of the vehicle. This means less fuel, less cooling and so on. So you can see there are huge reductions in volume requirements. You can see this by comparing the sizes of each vehicles engine bay. Also the Puma takes up an entire sponsoon with exhaust and engine auxiliary systems.

And this is not the only difference. The Puma is built with early 2000s technology (design circa 2003-05). The XM1200 in the spiral blocks that will see service as the MCS and ICV is being built with technology circa 2010-12. Also the Puma is built with high hardness steel for the resilient structure, the XM1200 is being built with titanium and composite for resilience. The Germans could have used Ti and composites but chose steel for cost reasons.

 

[kato]

But hard kill APS can defeat a 155mm HE artillery shell before it can PD or AB.

What kind of HK APS are we talking about anyway that has a IP for MDD beyond 50 meters (against skeets before EFP detonation)? I'm not aware of any with that kind of distance in mind. Quick Kill has a ~30m IP, same as AWiSS and Trophy/Trophy Light, and those are the few far-range IP systems under development.
Sure, if there was a APS specifically built to handle this threat - and that's not really a problem to design - we'd be talking something solid. But current and developing HK APS are not built to handle such threats as a primary function, and in a lot of cases not as a secondary function either.

Apart from being totally against the CONOPs of the weapon it also incredibly wasteful as a MRSI mission of DPICM will achieve far better results. SMArt however replaces large frontage fires of DPICM to destroy armour to reduce the number of rounds fired (significantly) and increase lethality.

DPICM and other cluster munitions are off the table however for a whole lot of armies in the near future, due to the cluster munitions ban.

The US Army is pretty much alone in extreme use of DPICM btw (with a typical 60:20:20 CM/HE/other mix), perhaps along with Israel with a similar mix. The Bundeswehr, and a lot of other NATO armies, use a 40:30:30 mix, with SmArt of course belonging to the last 30%, and DPICM use still being relatively massive.

Btw, SmArt ejects at between 800 and 300m, depending on mission profile. DM702A1 ejects in the later part of that and affects a search area of 15,000m², DM702A2 ejects earlier and affects 35,000m².

With regard to "wasteful" - a double-skeet SmArt shell comes in at 20,000 €. 155mm Double-skeet SADARM costs around 16,000€. 155mm M483A1 DPICM comes in at around 2,000 € per shell nowadays, with self-destruct upgrades - that's not even factor 10. And i'm relatively sure a EFP from a SmArt or SADARM penetrates more than the 70mm RHA of M42/M46, so we're getting something out of that too.

Yes, i know the skeet is vulnerable against a HK APS. For its roughly 1.5 to 2 seconds of searching if ejected at lower altitude. How many skeets can a HK APS successfully engage in 1.5 to 2 seconds? 2? 3? 4? And can it engage skeets successfully if a blinding or obscurant (WP) misson is fired first? What if ECM/localized-counter-radar shells are developed and used for such purposes, which shouldn't really be any problem?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What kind of HK APS are we talking about anyway that has a IP for MDD beyond 50 meters (against skeets before EFP detonation)?

There are basically two types of HK launchers. Those that fire the interceptor effect from the launcher (Trophy, Quick Kill – the later is tethered to the launcher) and those that launch the interceptor towards the target for latter effect initiation (Iron Fist, AWiSS – the later is very short range, 10m only). While all these systems work in different ways some can have quite long range intercept profiles, especially the launched systems. E Quick Kill can have a much longer IP than 30m, especially with the larger long range HK interceptor (it has two sorts). As APS are required to cover more and more threat options, including C-RAM and KE penetrators and soft kill resistant ATGMs, longer range engagement is required. Those systems that launch an interceptor towards the target that initiates its effectors at the target (like Iron Fist) can do so at long ranges that are a product of sensor range, response time and respective velocities. This is well within the ballpark for a bomblet/skeet during the separation to targeting profile.

Sure, if there was a APS specifically built to handle this threat - and that's not really a problem to design - we'd be talking something solid. But current and developing HK APS are not built to handle such threats as a primary function, and in a lot of cases not as a secondary function either.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. C-RAM, skeet and bomblet protection is filtering into all sorts of weapon systems, including certain APS.

DPICM and other cluster munitions are off the table however for a whole lot of armies in the near future, due to the cluster munitions ban.

Which is another example about how rushing to partial disarmament can severally hamper military performance. There is nothing wrong with cluster bombs in how they are supposed to be used it’s just that many bomblets don’t explode. Remove this technical failing and there is no moral issue with using these weapons. But those countries that have rushed to outlaw them will be at a military disadvantage when the ethical dilemma could have been delt with by technology.

With regard to "wasteful" - a double-skeet SmArt shell comes in at 20,000 €. 155mm Double-skeet SADARM costs around 16,000€. 155mm M483A1 DPICM comes in at around 2,000 € per shell nowadays, with self-destruct upgrades - that's not even factor 10. And i'm relatively sure a EFP from a SmArt or SADARM penetrates more than the 70mm RHA of M42/M46, so we're getting something out of that too.

But you were talking about firing 80 rounds of SMArt to achieve the same concentration of skeets to bomblets onto a single AFV target (~80) as a single DPICM round. [So to overwhelm an APS] That’s 1.6 million Euros to 2,000 Euros or a cost ratio of 800 to one. Even if you only fire enough SMArt to overwhelm the number of HK devices (say 10) that is still a cost difference of 100 to one.

And can it engage skeets successfully if a blinding or obscurant (WP) misson is fired first? What if ECM/localized-counter-radar shells are developed and used for such purposes, which shouldn't really be any problem?

Virtually all APS are now using a combination or radar and EO. If you are going to saturate the target with countermeasures then these will also defeat the skeet’s own sensors so you won’t achieve much.

You have basically built up an enormously complex fire mission in order to defeat a single AFV armed with HK APS. It involves firing countermeasures and then a barrage of SMArt/SADRAM/BONUS type rounds onto a single point target (that is moving). To cover the options for the mobility of the target multiple target areas will need to be covered. The number of guns required and other artillery resources are immense. Against an APS equipped AFV DPICM is far easier and more effective.