New Russian Anti-Tank “Trick” overcoming ADS

[Firn]

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 really wonder if you understand the way a FO and the Artillery (or Air) cooperates and at what speed. The tools a FO has at its disposal are making such a fire mission very fast and easy. Read the following:

The Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder has been an essential piece of warfighting equipment in the U.S. Army's inventory. To make this highly effective equipment even more capable on the battlefield, the U.S. Army is funding system improvements that include decreasing system weight, increasing its ability to operate in low visibility conditions and replacing components no longer supported by vendors.

Weight is an issue with any man-transportable system and making a system lighter is a top priority. Through a number of innovations, the improved LLDR's overall weight will be reduced by nearly five pounds. The improved night vision capability will increase the stand-off distance and thus the survivability of forward observers and forward air controllers. In addition, by addressing several parts-obsolescence issues, warfighters will have access to state-of-the-art electro-optic sensor equipment.

"These improvements to the LLDR represent a significant leap in capability while reducing the overall weight," said Gregory Williams, general manager of the company's Laser Systems business unit. "Giving our customer more capability in a smaller package has been a true technological feat. Our designers and engineers have used leading-edge technology to give our warfighters exactly what they want...an even smaller and better system than what they are currently using."

Northrop Grumman's LLDR accurately targets enemy positions during the day, at night and in nearly all battlefield conditions including haze, smoke, fog and rain. It ranges to the targets at an eye-safe wavelength and calculates grid coordinates with built-in GPS, elevation and azimuth sensing capabilities. The system then provides this information to other digital battlefield systems. The LLDR can also be used with semi-active laser-guided munitions and laser spot trackers.

The system has been used in Afghanistan and Iraq to provide targeting information for laser-guided, GPS-guided and conventional munitions. As Williams pointed out, "Army Forward Observers have used the LLDR with extraordinary success in the global war on terrorism."

On a more general note:

a) We framed the question as a response against an armored spearhead, a much more realistic scenario as a single AFV wandering around the battlefield. Kato, Waylander and Eckerl posted within this framework. The massive use of fire-support units with quite cheap ammunition against such a thread is a non-brainer. To counter a single AFV in search of trouble is a different thing.

b) We should also start to name the type of ADS in question. We already discussed in general the possible abilities of them and so we should refer to a specific system like Trophy or AMAP-ADS

c) We also should try to distinguish between the potential of a system and its operational status and current capabilities.

This should make the discussion more focused.


I will continue later.

 

[kato]

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.

I'm thinking in standard 500x500 squares for fire missions when it comes to artillery battery-level missions, not single targets. Let's say we have two adjoining squares to cover, a relatively standard 1000x500 band.

Firing 48 DM702A1 - the smaller-coverage version for later ejection - into two adjoining 500x500 square at proper dispersion will create an overlapping field with a coverage of 1.44 million m², creating an average targeting overlap of 2.88 skeets onto every single target m² of the zone. With a DM702A1/DM702A2 mix, you'd have 4.8 skeets tracking every possible target, probably a better mix even.

You'll need a certain number of DPICM shells to provide the same target coverage. If we assume optimum dispersion, we're talking perhaps a bomblet in every 10 m² to achieve penetrating results on any armored object in the target zone. That's 5000 bomblets, or, depending on type, 70 to 110 DPICM shells. Let's say 80, nice round number, because then the battery will only have a single 1-minute fire mission before redeploying.
Which results in a cost ratio of 1:6, not that bad really - especially when you consider that you won't have to run cleanup on minimum 200 UXO duds in the target zone later.

c) We also should try to distinguish between the potential of a system and its operational status and current capabilities.

All western APS under development can currently be grouped into mid-range and far-range IP systems. Pure EFP systems, i.e. using directed charges, are not built for this thread so we can pretty much completely disregard them (ie AMAP-ADS). Trophy - and Iron Fist - have the problem that they use directional flat-panels as radar faces, which i suspect will possibly have problems tracking skeets above it (ie in the extreme sectors of the radar). Even if it doesn't the grenade launched has a stated IP in the 10-30m band. AWiSS is not really applicable as it uses relatively low-elevation directed grenade launchers, and only for certain targeting sectors. Saab LED-150 is a midrange IP system with a IP of 15m.

That leaves us with... right, Raytheon Quick Kill as the only possible intercept system. And i've yet to see any solid data or tests regarding the "long-range" interceptor of QK. The anti-RPG round does 30m IP max.

 

[Feanor]

Excellent discussion so far. I'm very interested. Does the XM-1202 carry an APS, and if so which one? The site you linked to doesn't go into very much detail. And, from what I can tell, it's not a full MBT. More like almost a medium/light tank, when compared with M1A2, or Leo 2A6, correct?

 

[kato]

Btw, i'd suggest we put this whole APS discussion in a new thread. Doesn't have much to do with "decoying RPGs" at this point anymore.

 

[Firn]

I agree. Thanks for the overview kato.

So let us take a detailed look at the status of the Hardkill components of the ADS:

General overview



Trophy

Overview

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044"]Video[/ame]

According to the marketing video in youtube there is high elevation coverage which basically means it is defenseless against the artillery launched submunitions.

They are developing the ability to counter kinetic penetrators - given the moving parts I wonder how far away the shooter can be to allow an intecept.



AWiSS

Overview

Still in the testing phase. The launcher units are as far as I can tell not able for the very high elevation needed to reliably shoot down the submunitions. Detects the threats with radar around 75m. Given the reaction time of 355 milliseconds and slewing rate of 600 degrees per second it needs at least 0,4 (or 0,35) sec to react if one of the launchers must rotate just 30°. As shown above a EFP jet travels 75m in 0,04 sec. If we assume that a rod of tank is reaching the target after a long flight with 1000m/s it still travels the last 100m in 0,1 sec.




Iron Fist

Overview

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxPinJp051I"]Video[/ame]

As with Trophy the reaction times are unknow.



AMAP-ADS

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obgAYvLI2Zw"]SEP Test[/ame]

Info

A very interesting and rather unique systems.



Quick Kill

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5dIaDGUfLI"]Video[/ame]




LEDS-150

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2008/sections/daily/day2/leds-gathers-momentum.shtml

 

[kato]

As with Trophy the reaction times are unknow.

From Strategie und Technik, issue 10/08

System reaction times:

AMAP-ADS/AAC/SHARK - 560 µs (no launcher redirecting)
AWiSS (for symmetric threats) - >355 ms (limited field)
AWiSS Light (for asymmetric threats) - >300 ms (limited field)
Quick-Kill - 350-400 ms (vertical launch)
Trophy/T. Light - 300-350 ms (360° launcher)
Iron Fist - 300-350 ms (360° launcher)
LEDS-150 - 200 ms supposed (360° "high-speed" launcher)

Minimum engagement distance (engagement decision) and Intercept Point:

AMAP-ADS: 10m (any target speed); IP: 1.5m
AWiSS: RPG > 50m, ATGM > 100m, KE > 600m; IP: 10-30m
AWiSS Light: RPG > 30m, ATGM > 100m; IP: 10-20m
Quick Kill: RPG @100m/s: 70m, @200m/s: 100m, @450m/s: 170m; IP: 30m
Trophy/T. Light: RPG @100m/s: 50m, @200m/s: 80m, @450m/s: 150m; IP: 10-30m
Iron Fist: RPG @100m/s: 45m, @200m/s: 75m, @450m/s: 150m; IP: 5-20m estimated
LEDS-150: RPG @100m/s: 30m, @200m/s: 50m, @450m/s: 100m; IP: > 5-15m, all values estimated

RPG @ 100m/s reflects older RPG-7 ammunition
RPG @ 200m/s reflects newer RPG-7 ammunition
RPG @ 450m/s reflects RPG-29 ammunition

Of the above, all except Trophy and Iron Fist are regarded by SuT as "capable of handling non-RPG threats" including ATGM, EFP, HEAT, APFSDS, Top Attack munitions etc; Quick Kill only if using the post-launch-guided projectiles, AWiSS Light only in a limited fashion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I really wonder if you understand the way a FO and the Artillery (or Air) cooperates and at what speed. The tools a FO has at its disposal are making such a fire mission very fast and easy.

Actually I think you’ll find the exact opposite. I’m intimately familiar with forward observation and artillery fire control. I think you will find that no matter how much better the new observation and geolocation systems networked with the fire control system and the guns is this doesn’t help that much when trying to engage a moving target. The time on target is still going to be effected by the time of flight even if the cycle from call to fire to shoot is slashed. Which means if you are trying to concentrate rounds onto a single moving target you are going to need to fire a lot of them to cover its options.

This also applies to an armoured spearhead, if you are trying to achieve a high density of skeet type bomblets above every tank of the spearhead because they have HK APS then you are going to have to fire a massive amount of rounds. A typical company sized armour force will have a frontage of 2.5km and a depth of 3km and advance at 15kph. That is 90 155mm battery frontages to cover the frontage of the company taking into account where it could be within one minute to first round time on target (a very impressive kill cycle time) and two minutes last round time on target (assuming one minute of firing form the guns)

Firing 48 DM702A1 - the smaller-coverage version for later ejection - into two adjoining 500x500 square at proper dispersion will create an overlapping field with a coverage of 1.44 million m², creating an average targeting overlap of 2.88 skeets onto every single target m² of the zone. With a DM702A1/DM702A2 mix, you'd have 4.8 skeets tracking every possible target, probably a better mix even.

So to take out a company of armour with HK APS you are looking at 2160 SMArt/SADRAM/BONUS rounds. To achieve the kind of density to ensure destruction. Of course to fire that mission you will need 216 PzH2000s to drop the mission in a minute. That’s 12 battalions of artillery to destroy one company of armour. Like I said before a huge allocation of resources for the target.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Excellent discussion so far. I'm very interested. Does the XM-1202 carry an APS, and if so which one? The site you linked to doesn't go into very much detail. And, from what I can tell, it's not a full MBT. More like almost a medium/light tank, when compared with M1A2, or Leo 2A6, correct?

The XM1202 will carry the Quick Kill APS. It is just as much a MBT as the tanks you mention but many people continue to think it's protection and combat power should be judged by its gross vehicle weight in direct comparison to the older MBTs as if it was designed and built in the 1970s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From Strategie und Technik, issue 10/08

Of the above, all except Trophy and Iron Fist are regarded by SuT as "capable of handling non-RPG threats" including ATGM, EFP, HEAT, APFSDS, Top Attack munitions etc; Quick Kill only if using the post-launch-guided projectiles, AWiSS Light only in a limited fashion.

They have a lot of wrong information in that table. No surprise that they know a lot more about the European systems compared to the US and Israeli systems.

 

[kato]

A typical company sized armour force will have a frontage of 2.5km and a depth of 3km and advance at 15kph.

... heavily dependant on terrain. The above might apply in desert or other open terrain, where distances of 2-3 km between platoons do not prevent mutual fire support. In most European or American terrain, such distances might even blank out the reliability of radio communications between platoons on occasion, and will definitely prevent the platoons from observing or supporting each other.

If we're talking 2x3 km bands, that's what MLRS is for. Just pull a MLRS fire mission with AT-2 over the 3 km band. With a single mission from a battery of 8 launchers, that'd be a 1 km deep and 3.2 km wide minefield with 2688 AT mines - pretty standard operation. Cost is roughly 4 million euro, so not exactly cheap either.
Or we just dump a MW-1 over the band, e.g. with 896 MIFF over 2.5 km width and 300 m depth. Not like we don't have over 100,000 of those left over that need to go one way or another.

 

[Firn]

@Kato: thanks for the informations. Can I perhaps later merge them with my post?

@Abraham: if you think part of the data is wrong, why don't should say us which and why and post your take?

I will continue later.

 

[Waylander]

Sure it's not that easy to hit a moving spearhead with an artillery fire mission.
But that's what our FOs train for. And even while I am as sceptical of the fire support guys as every tanker or infantryman is I witnessed them hitting moving targets.

And Kato already said it. Apart from some really open terrains, be it Iraqi desert or Australian bush your numbers of dispersion are too big.
One is not even able always get the whole company into the broad wedge (ahem, I have no idea what the english translation for the Breitkeil formation is...) not speaking of being able to disperse an attacking company over some kilometers while retaining the ability of a unified fire zone.

And I still think that you get it wrong. Everybody here admits that a modern ADS is going to increase the survivability of a vehicle and forces the OPFOR to use more resources for every kill.
But you make it look like it is going to be the ultimate defense rendering enemy actions totally ineffective. And that's were we disagree.


As for FCS.
I already said that the FCS saves weight and space compared to a more traditional design like the Puma by using a hybrid propulsion system. That's were one can make the FCS lighter and smaller. It is obvious that the Puma is heavier than a proposed FCS vehicle.
So we might assume that the FCS is better armored while being smaller and lighter. That doesn't make it very well armoured for a tank substitue either.
Even if we assume that it is substantial better armoured than a Puma it is still not going to withstand even a blunted KE.
BTW, I am relatively sure that the Puma uses multi-material armor on it's front. I am going to dig for a source apart from talks from KMW guys.

A Puma is going to cost roughly 7million €. That's damn expensive.
And while the FCS features a much bigger production run I expect it to be even more expensive.

And that's were the FCS meets my criticism. It's an overambitious programm.
They already axed the original weight requirement. They went back from a two men to a 3 men crew for the ground combat vehicles.
The amount of time and resources poured into this project is insane. Instead from going an evolutionary way the US tries to leapfrog some generations and produce the ultimate goldplated ground system family.

The recent plans to have the heavy brigades (And with them heavily upgraded versions of current systems) serve together with the FCS brigades tells you something about the ability of the FCS system to totally substitute the current vehicles...

 

[eckherl]

Sure it's not that easy to hit a moving spearhead with an artillery fire mission.
But that's what our FOs train for. And even while I am as sceptical of the fire support guys as every tanker or infantryman is I witnessed them hitting moving targets.

And Kato already said it. Apart from some really open terrains, be it Iraqi desert or Australian bush your numbers of dispersion are too big.
One is not even able always get the whole company into the broad wedge (ahem, I have no idea what the english translation for the Breitkeil formation is...) not speaking of being able to disperse an attacking company over some kilometers while retaining the ability of a unified fire zone.

And I still think that you get it wrong. Everybody here admits that a modern ADS is going to increase the survivability of a vehicle and forces the OPFOR to use more resources for every kill.
But you make it look like it is going to be the ultimate defense rendering enemy actions totally ineffective. And that's were we disagree.


As for FCS.
I already said that the FCS saves weight and space compared to a more traditional design like the Puma by using a hybrid propulsion system. That's were one can make the FCS lighter and smaller. It is obvious that the Puma is heavier than a proposed FCS vehicle.
So we might assume that the FCS is better armored while being smaller and lighter. That doesn't make it very well armoured for a tank substitue either.
Even if we assume that it is substantial better armoured than a Puma it is still not going to withstand even a blunted KE.
BTW, I am relatively sure that the Puma uses multi-material armor on it's front. I am going to dig for a source apart from talks from KMW guys.

A Puma is going to cost roughly 7million €. That's damn expensive.
And while the FCS features a much bigger production run I expect it to be even more expensive.

And that's were the FCS meets my criticism. It's an overambitious programm.
They already axed the original weight requirement. They went back from a two men to a 3 men crew for the ground combat vehicles.
The amount of time and resources poured into this project is insane. Instead from going an evolutionary way the US tries to leapfrog some generations and produce the ultimate goldplated ground system family.

The recent plans to have the heavy brigades (And with them heavily upgraded versions of current systems) serve together with the FCS brigades tells you something about the ability of the FCS system to totally substitute the current vehicles...

Maybe in English terms you would be referring to a combat wedge formation.

FCS vehicles still need some maturing, as evident inregards to the M1A2 SEP still being around for quite some time, General Dynamics has just recieved another 80 million to convert 30 additional M1 series to A2 V2, this will help augment them into the overall FCS program. While we have made great strides in certain technologies we still have aways to go. Within the next few weeks will be a crucial time for this program, U.S Army gets to appear before congress and offer justifications on keeping the program around, how this review meeting goes will say alot on much progress has been made.

 

[kato]

Breitkeil is usually translated as a "broad wedge" formation.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sure it's not that easy to hit a moving spearhead with an artillery fire mission.
But that's what our FOs train for. And even while I am as sceptical of the fire support guys as every tanker or infantryman is I witnessed them hitting moving targets.

There are many variables in defeating moving targets with artillery fire. It’s not impossible but at the far more typical combat situation (as opposed to close range training missions) of deep fires from STA inputs rather than nice convenient in front of the FO OP it requires a lot of rounds to make sure your cover where the enemy force is going to be.

And Kato already said it. Apart from some really open terrains, be it Iraqi desert or Australian bush your numbers of dispersion are too big.

OK so fighting tanks in the Middle East isn’t relevant? I don’t know what you’re smoking if you think that but you can count me out. Besides the orders of magnitude of SFM against APS vehicles able to intercept skeets are so high that even with lower tank unit frontages the overkill will remain.

But you make it look like it is going to be the ultimate defense rendering enemy actions totally ineffective. And that's were we disagree.

We have only been talking about SFM rounds. You may have noticed my conclusion is that against a tank with APS able to defeat skeets DPICM is a far more effective option. It’s plain and simple anyway SFM tactics are not about high density fires to overwhelm some kind of active defence. I’m often amazed at how far people will go to argue a point just because they think they have some kind of ownership with that point.

And that's were the FCS meets my criticism. It's an overambitious programm.
They already axed the original weight requirement. They went back from a two men to a 3 men crew for the ground combat vehicles.

Neither are issues caused by over ambition but specification changes from the user. The weight went up to add more armour. The XM1202 mounted combat system (MCS, ie tank) has an extra crewman because the users are more comfortable with driver-gunner-commander, rather than pilot-battle captain. Once they realise with the autonomous driving capability they can operate with only two the third will probably become a sub-unit or unit command position.

The recent plans to have the heavy brigades (And with them heavily upgraded versions of current systems) serve together with the FCS brigades tells you something about the ability of the FCS system to totally substitute the current vehicles...

That has nothing to do with capability of FCS; it’s a completely wrong argument in fact and even reasoning. It’s because the US Army doesn’t have enough money to replace all Heavy BCTs with FCS BCTs. If it was an issue of tactical capability as you suggest then all heavy and FCS BCTs would be mixed to provide both M1, M2 and XM1200 vehicles.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

FCS vehicles still need some maturing, as evident inregards to the M1A2 SEP still being around for quite some time, General Dynamics has just recieved another 80 million to convert 30 additional M1 series to A2 V2, this will help augment them into the overall FCS program. While we have made great strides in certain technologies we still have aways to go. Within the next few weeks will be a crucial time for this program, U.S Army gets to appear before congress and offer justifications on keeping the program around, how this review meeting goes will say alot on much progress has been made.

That is no evidence of your argument. The US Army has a capability assurance program to keep the M1 in service for decades. The maturity of the FCS is MGVs is quite advanced thanks to the extensive prototyping. But first deliveries of a BCT equipped with production standard XM1200s isn’t programmed until 2014.

 

[Tavarisch]

A bit off topic but, does anyone know if the XM 1202 will be amphibious? Should provide Army guys with some landing advantage. Crossing rivers without the use of a bridge can be possible. IMO, crossing a bridge is quite dangerous anyway. All it takes is a few GBUs or some really High-Ex IEDs to make the bridge unstable. To exacerbate the problem, some bridges are on mountain top highways, but ones closer to the ground are not unheard of. (Penang Bridge and Singapore's causeway come to mind) But, crossing rivers can also be dangerous, who knows what awaits on the other side of the river?

In any case, it's all up to the Army's requirements. They make the final decision.

 

[eckherl]

That is no evidence of your argument. The US Army has a capability assurance program to keep the M1 in service for decades. The maturity of the FCS is MGVs is quite advanced thanks to the extensive prototyping. But first deliveries of a BCT equipped with production standard XM1200s isn’t programmed until 2014.

No evidence to my argument, having decades worth of upgrade packages for the M1 series tanks and forced to use them due to the fact that we cannot get our FCS program to give us a capable tank just shows at the current time that we still need heavy armor and will need it for some time to come, again we can sit here and discuss all the great things that the U.S Army envisions with this program but if the entire package deal doesn`t work properly it will not be up and running by 2014, this is in terms to our XM1200. You know very well that the M1A2 SEP versions are being upgraded for this very purpose, or are you under the assumption that the M1A2 SEP version will be running along side the XM1200, kinda defeats the purpose doesn`t it.

 

[Firn]

We have only been talking about SFM rounds. You may have noticed my conclusion is that against a tank with APS able to defeat skeets DPICM is a far more effective option. It’s plain and simple anyway SFM tactics are not about high density fires to overwhelm some kind of active defence. I’m often amazed at how far people will go to argue a point just because they think they have some kind of ownership with that point.

I'm also amazed how far people will got to argue a point just because think they have some kind of ownership with it. Abraham, I will repeat what not only Waylander said: ADS are a great step forward to enhance the protection of AFV. They make it harder to kill the AFV in question. But until today no ADS has shown the ability to defeat the thread posed by the operational intelligent submunitions. It might be possible in the near future, but then again we don't know the counter-countermeasurments either. But right now operational AFVs encounter in operational systems like SMart a very dangerous threat. And a operational threat which is very suited to be delivered by long-range missions with STA input against moving targets thanks to a tri-mode sensors, a large scanning and targeting area and it's fire-and-forget nature.

BTW: Depending on the ISTAR the movement of AFV can also be extrapolated and the grid adjusted to it, greatly increasing the lethality of conventinal rounds unless they don't change abruptly their direction in the first minute(s) of the firing mission.

OK so fighting tanks in the Middle East isn’t relevant? I don’t know what you’re smoking if you think that but you can count me out. Besides the orders of magnitude of SFM against APS vehicles able to intercept skeets are so high that even with lower tank unit frontages the overkill will remain.

Read again what Waylander and Kato said. They never said that open terrains aren't relevant, but pointed out that in great amount of theaters the dispersion of AFV is greatly reduced. Natural features and terrain greatly restrict the space suited for AFV and the ability to give direct fire support. Man-made obstacles come in huge numbers and shapes and also most heavily influence the military operations. MOUT becomes ever more important. The enemy might seek to channel movement and create killzones so many did since WWII. All this affects negatively the dispersion of AFV. So Waylander certainly "doesn't smoke things unknown to you" but shows a broader understanding of the influences of terrain on military operations.

 

[eckherl]

Breitkeil is usually translated as a "broad wedge" formation.

We like our combat wedge, makes it easier to conduct echelon movements.