Military Review

Active protection systems for armored vehicles

119



Protection of armored vehicles is designed to withstand various damaging elements, primarily kinetic projectiles, shaped charges and strike nuclei, each of which has its own unique method of destruction. Protection is divided into contact, showing their properties in direct collision with striking elements, and contactless, acting at a certain distance from the combat vehicle. The first type is inert and reactive armor (dynamic protection), the second type is active protection.

In turn, inert armor is divided into homogeneous and composite. Homogenous armor was originally used in the form of riveted, cast or welded bodies and towers of combat vehicles made of steel. Possessing all the qualities of a protective and at the same time structural material, it has the only drawback - great weight, which deprives the mobility of armored vehicles. Therefore, at present, homogeneous armor plays the role of a carrier base with minimal weight and protective properties, on which composite or reactive armor is hung.

Composite armor consists of individual modules, mounted or inserted into the cavity of a homogeneous armor in the frontal part of the hull and turret of a combat vehicle. If the bearing capacity of the surface on which the armored vehicles move allows, the armored modules are also hung on the sides of the hull and turret. As a rule, a separate module consists of a set of reflective screens separated by air gaps and fastened together by bolted connections. The most effective solution is a combination of various types of materials - metal, ceramics and polymers. For example, reflective American screens tank Abrams M1 A2 SEP are made of ceramic plates (uranium oxide), coated on both sides with synthetic rubber and lined with thin sheets of titanium alloy.

Active protection systems for armored vehicles


Composite armor due to the use of the most optimal materials and the presence of air gaps between reflective screens has the best combination of protective properties and weight. However, it has an unavoidable drawback — one-time use — after the very first impact of the striking element into the module, the bolt-shaped set of reflecting screens collapses and loses its protective properties. The consequence of this is the complete vulnerability of armored vehicles during the second hit in the destroyed module, the need to have in each advanced unit stocks of modules for the replacement of failed, as well as large material and labor costs for the production of spare modules, in the event of a military conflict of high intensity surpassing the cost of production armored vehicles.



Reactive armor also consists of separate modules - the elements of dynamic protection (EDS), hung on the main homogeneous armor. However, the size of these elements is several times smaller than the size of the modules of composite armor, while each element is simple in design and consists of relatively cheap components - an explosive and missile metal plates (such as Russian "Kontakt" and "Relict") or metal facing cumulative charges ( like Ukrainian "Knife" and "Duplet").



Unfortunately, the possibilities of this type of protection are limited:
- EDS, as well as modules of composite armor, are one-time protection, removed from the occupied area after the first hit;
- EDS should be located at the sharpest possible angle to the flight path of the striking elements to increase the impact area on the latter, which is possible only in an inclined frontal projection of the hull and turret without increasing the dimensions of the combat vehicle;
- EHRs should be the longest to reduce the number of cases of hitting damaging elements in the lower half of the throwing plate / shaped charge with a multiple decrease in the contact area and protective ability;
- with an increase in the length of the ELD with a simultaneous decrease in their width (according to the “Duplet” type), the durability of protection significantly decreases when a striking element approaches from a non-zero angle.



The indicated disadvantages of inert and reactive armor are exacerbated by the changed conditions for the combat use of armored vehicles in modern armed conflicts. Urbanization of flat territories in the form of buildings and structures, the expanding practice of warfare in wooded and mountainous areas, the saturation of infantry with rocket-propelled grenade launchers (such as the Russian RPG-32), the adoption of special ammunition used aviation and MLRS (such as self-guided elements with a strike nucleus) and man-portable missile systems that attack armored vehicles from the upper hemisphere (such as the American ATGM Tow 2B) expanded the range of directions of attack on armored vehicles to a full-angle view.

To date, the only unrealized to the end solution in the field of protection of armored vehicles remains active protection. It consists of the following elements:
- radar target sensors - attacking striking elements;
- computer equipment that calculates the coordinates, speed and direction of flight targets;
- protective ammunition fired in the direction of targets;
- launchers of protective ammunition.



The composition of the complexes and active protection systems (respectively KAZ and SAZ) includes target sensors, protective ammunition and electronic automatic control equipment. The main difference is the type of protective ammunition. Below are descriptions of typical representatives of complexes / systems of active protection.

One of the first KAZ "Rain" was developed in Leningrad VNIITM in 1970-ies. It consisted of separate modules, each of which included two tubular guides, retractable charges with ready striking elements, a radar target sensor located between them, electronic equipment and a mechanism for the promotion of charges. One module was located in the bow and stern of the tank, two modules - on each side of the tank. In a combat situation, one of the protective ammunition of each module is constantly in the extended position. The radar target sensor was triggered at the turn of the 2,2 meter from the perimeter of the tank hull. After that, for an 0,001 second, the extended charge closest to the flight path of the target was undermined. The radially scattering splinters could reject and / or destroy the attacking element flying up at speeds up to 1200 m / s.



The probability of deflection and / or destruction of the target fell in proportion to the distance of the fragmentation of fragments from the longitudinal axis of the sliding charge. A set of six modules provided for interception in the 360 ° sector up to two targets attacking from the front / rear and up to four targets attacking from each flank. The interception of targets attacking from the upper hemisphere was possible in the case of a vertical installation of an additional module, albeit with the destruction of the radio antenna, observation devices and turret machine-gun installation on the roof of the combat vehicle. The short-range complex with radial fragmentation of the fragments did not provide a guaranteed interception of artillery shells with an approach speed exceeding 900 m / s.



After testing, KAZ "Rain" was transferred to the Kharkov KMDB with the aim of using it in a promising Soviet tanker "Boxer / Hammer". In 1990-s, on the basis of this complex, the Ukrainian KAZ Zaslon was developed, having advanced retractable charges and electronic equipment, distinguishing large-sized attacking targets from bullets, fragments and small-caliber projectiles that are not dangerous for armored vehicles.

The first complex of active protection, put into service, was the Soviet KAZ "Drozd" development of Tula TsKBSOO. It consisted of four twin-caliber 107 mm launchers, unguided 9 kg missiles with a fragmentation warhead, a radar and an electronic fire control unit. Launchers were installed in pairs on the sides of the tower, the radar was located on the roof of the tower, the control unit - inside the tower. The radar target detection threshold was 330 meters, the target tracking line was 130 meters, and the target interception line was 6 meters. The complex provided protection for the tank in the sector in azimuth 80 ° and elevation angle 20 °, depending on the angle of rotation of the turret. After the missile warhead was detonated, a directed beam of fragments with an opening angle of 30 ° was formed. The maximum target speed did not exceed 700 m / s, the time between two missile launches was 0,35 seconds.



The Drozd complex was put into service in 1983 and was installed on T-55AD tanks. A small part of these tanks participated in the hostilities in Afghanistan, where for the first time in the world in combat they were repeatedly used against rocket-propelled grenades fired from RPG-7. The actual probability of interception of defeating elements was 80 percent.

Due to the limited defensive capabilities of KAZ “Drozd” at the end of 1980-ies, the most famous domestic model of active protection KAZ “Arena” was developed in Kolomna KBM. It consists of foam-type 26 guides located around the perimeter of the tower at an angle to its vertical axis, protective ammunition embedded in them - explosive blocks with metal lining of a given crushing, expelling powder charges, a radar installed in the center of the tower, and an electronic control unit. When an attacking target is detected, the expelling charge of the nearest unit is triggered, along an oblique trajectory, it flies up to the height of 2 meters above the roof of the combat vehicle, after which it is undermined and a directed beam of fragments hits the target. The complex provides protection in the 270 ° sector horizontally and 45 ° vertically. The turn detection target is 50 meters, the line of destruction - 25 meters. The maximum target speed does not exceed 700 m / s, the reaction time of the complex is 0,07 seconds, the time between two shots is 0,2 seconds.



KAZ Arena was the first to solve the problem of protecting a radar with low radiation power (in order to reduce the radio-visibleness of a combat vehicle) from interference from high-power electronic warfare agents. For this purpose, the method of correlation belts for target detection was applied - the radar receives the reflected signal from a distance of no more than 50 meters, accepting it, switches to a closer correlation belt, and waits for a new signal from a smaller distance. This is achieved resistance to natural interference and ignored the formulation of artificial interference from the enemy.



There is a Russian modification of the KAZ Arena-E, which is distinguished by several guide boxes distributed over the surface of the tower, each loaded with three protective ammunition, with a set of phased antenna arrays also distributed over the tower surface instead of a single radar. Despite the lower vulnerability of bullets, fragments and shells, KAZ "Arena-E" is not adopted because of the delayed reaction and the inability to repel attacks from the upper hemisphere.

One of the first foreign models, called the Active Protection System (SAZ), is the Israeli Iron First developed by IMI. The system consists of a multi-barreled mortar mounted on a carriage in the possibility of rotating in horizontal and vertical planes, fragmentation grenades, a radar and an electronic fire control unit.



Iron First provides all-round protection of armored vehicles against subsonic anti-tank missiles and rocket-propelled grenades at the turn of the 10 meters interception. The system response time is not announced. The number of intercepted targets is limited by the number of mortar barrels.

The most well-known foreign model of active protection and the second one adopted for service is the Israeli SAZ Trophy developed by Rafael and Elta. The system consists of two gun carriages rotating in a vertical and horizontal plane, protective ammunition in the form of blocks of explosive with a metal lining of a given crushing, mechanized stacking, a radar with four phased antenna arrays mounted on the edges of the tower, and an electronic fire control unit. The carriages are installed on the sides of the tower and are separated from it by protective fences. Intercept subsonic anti-tank missiles and rocket-propelled grenades within the radius of 10 meters and in the 360 ° sector horizontally and 55 ° vertically. The system response time is 0,05 seconds. The reload time and the number of protective ammunition in the mechanized packing are not announced.



The first combat use of the SAZ Trophy dates back to March 2011 of the year on the Israeli border with the Gaza Strip, where the system successfully intercepted a rocket grenade fired from a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher on a Merkava Mk.4 tank.

The German company ADS - Gesellschaft fur aktive Schutzsysteme developed SAZ AMAP-ADS, mainly focused on the protection of lightly armored vehicles. The system consists of a set of passive long-range infrared radiation sensors, short-range laser emitters, protective ammunition in the form of fixed explosive blocks with metal facing of a predetermined crushing, mounted obliquely around the perimeter of the combat vehicle hull, and electronic control equipment. Infrared radiation sensors are used to determine the direction of attack, laser emitters - to determine the coordinates and speed of movement of the target when approaching the protected perimeter at a distance of 10 meters. At the intersection of the specified frontier, an appropriate protective munition is initiated, creating a curtain of fragments.



The main disadvantage of SAZ AMAP-ADS is the partial protection of the projection of the combat vehicle — only the surface located below the line of attachment of the explosive blocks. In addition, the operation of any unit completely removes protection from the surface area over which the unit was fixed.

Until recently, the American SAZ Quick Kill, developed by Raytheon as part of the FCS armored platform program, was considered the most promising active defense model. The task for its development involved the creation of an active defense system for interception (up to 150 / 800 meters) of all types of attacking ammunition - artillery shells, anti-tank missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and striking elements with attack cores. In this regard, the Quick Kill has an original design, which consists of 16 vertical guides, two types of homing missiles of different radius of action, equipped with non-directional fragmentation warhead, propulsion engine and inertial guidance system, as well as a radar and electronic unit fire control. Provides vserakursnaya protection armored vehicles. The system response time is 0,02 seconds.



Despite the many years of improving the Quick Kill SAZ, it has so far not been able to demonstrate the interception of targets with a flight speed of more than 700 m / s. The main reason is the accumulation of errors in the inertial rocket homing system as the distance from the protected combat vehicle increases and the associated increase in the deviation of the rocket’s flight path from the target’s flight path.

The most recently developed model of active protection is the Russian KAZ Afganit of the Kolomna KBM designed for installation on combat vehicles created in the framework of the prospective Armata armored platform. From open sources of information, only the millimeter range of his radar is known, the near line of interception and the maximum rate of interception of armor-piercing sub-caliber shells - 1700 m / s. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that, unlike domestic and foreign predecessors, for the first time in “Afganit” it is planned to use protective ammunition with a warhead of the shock core type, described in the Russian patent RU 2263268. The launcher consists of a carriage rotating in a vertical and horizontal plane. Additional targeting of the shock core to the target is carried out using a programmed initiation of one of the fuses located in the form of a matrix on the back side of the explosive unit of the warhead.



On the one hand, this innovative solution is the most effective for defeating small-sized high-speed armor-piercing sub-caliber shells. On the other hand, the use of a compact shock core instead of the spatial flow of fragments requires the radar and the KAZ fire control system to realize a higher level of accuracy in determining the coordinates, speed and direction of flight of the targets.

A promising active defense system is faced with an even more difficult task - intercepting high-speed kinetic rockets and attack nuclei with an approach speed from 2500 to 3000 m / s. If we proceed from the best reaction time achieved in KAZ Zaslon and equal to 0,001 seconds, then the minimum allowable line of interception can be estimated at 4 meters (with a margin). This means that all potentially dangerous projectiles / missiles / rocket grenades flying above the roof of the combat vehicle’s turret below a specified height should be intercepted without fail as far as the car.



A radar (using a millimeter-wave phased antenna array) and an electronic unit (equipped with a high-performance multi-core processor) of a prospective active protection system should be able to detect and track many potentially dangerous targets, including tandem ammunition, which are divided into parts in the immediate vicinity of the interception line, and eject false goals after overcoming this milestone. To repel a salvo attack or a line of projectiles fired from an automatic cannon, it is necessary to ensure: in the first case, the possibility of simultaneous launch of several protective ammunition and in the second case, their launch in accordance with the rate of artillery firing.



The greatest danger to the functioning of the active protection system are anti-radar ammunition (such as AHEAD projectile), the combat units of which are equipped with ready-made attack elements in the form of tungsten shrapnel. The ammunition homing system is aimed at radar radiation, the warhead is undermined outside the intercept line, and a directed beam of striking elements is guaranteed to disable the phased antenna arrays. In this regard, a promising active protection system will necessarily require a set of measures, including overlapping adjacent antenna viewing sectors (up to 50 percent) and transition from metal planar to semiconductor printed antennas with an excess amount of radiating / receiving elements (up to 100 times) .

The improved design of active protection will help armored vehicles, primarily tanks, to maintain their place as the main striking force of the ground forces in full compliance with the changing conditions of combat.
Author:
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 12 August 2013 08: 46 New
    +9
    Always interested in the option of the Arena with spaced phased arrays, it is more preferable for the survival of the complex, but protecting the upper sphere from aviation ammunition is one of the most important priorities of active defense after an RPG.
    To finish it yet.
    It is interesting how they will cope with guaranteed interception of targets at a speed of 1700 m / s in the created Afghanistan. If possible, it will be very goodit will be a breakthrough.
    Armed combat elements spaced apart, antennas spaced apart and duplicating each other, reducing the complex’s response to the “tandem” of shots, protecting the landing from its own fragments - this is the desired direction in the complex for mass use in the troops. Since the 90's they promise to linear units, it would be faster already ...
    We cannot be left behind in this area.
    Unfortunately, the Americans are already working on Drozd.

    Indeed, soon problems with radar ammunition aimed at destroying active defense will come to the forefront, they will have to be fought with.

    Thanks to the author for bringing together interesting and relevant material.
    Such information does not happen much, I want more.
    1. Professor
      Professor 12 August 2013 12: 11 New
      -20
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Unfortunately, the Americans are already working on Drozd.

      In fact, the Americans created the first prototype KAZ on their M-60 even before Drozd. So do not be killed about this. hi
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 August 2013 12: 29 New
        +7
        More specific if possible.
        1. Professor
          Professor 12 August 2013 13: 55 New
          -7
          Quote: Spade
          More specific if possible.

          It is possible, but unfortunately did not save the link. I will find it again and immediately lay it out. In my opinion they did this in the 1968 year.
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 13 August 2013 00: 45 New
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            It is possible, but unfortunately did not save the link. I will find it again and immediately lay it out. In my opinion they did this in the 1968 year.

            Well, at least some kind of "leading question" was given to "poor students",Professor ! Perhaps we ourselves are "negligent", with our labors we would have found "Old"
            about the "miracle - overseas yuda" ... what
            1. Professor
              Professor 13 August 2013 21: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: Corsair
              Well, at least some kind of “leading question” was given to “poor students”, professor! Perhaps we ourselves are “negligent”, we would have found “info” by our efforts

              Only for you and only today
              http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol13/no2/doc/MacNeill-Pages1725-eng.pdf
              1. Corsair
                Corsair 14 August 2013 01: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                Only for you and only today

                Professor! Well just exhausted waiting lol (small "modest" (+))
          2. sania0413
            sania0413 13 August 2013 12: 42 New
            -3
            Professor, how did you get everyone already ...
            1. Professor
              Professor 13 August 2013 12: 45 New
              -1
              Quote: sania0413
              Professor, how did you get everyone already ...

              There is an excellent Black List tool. Feel free to add me and no longer see any of my comments. bully
        2. Professor
          Professor 24 August 2013 18: 12 New
          -4
          Quote: Spade
          More specific if possible.

          I finally found it:

          1. Bryanskiy_Volk
            Bryanskiy_Volk 23 July 2014 12: 46 New
            +9
            http://www.dogswar.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=77&start=490#p21615
            An example of falsification of history in an attempt not to recognize Soviet priority in the military-technical sphere
            On topwar.ru, one of the Israeli commentators posted a photograph from a photo of the Breadboard automatic defense system equipped with a radar and smoke / dazzle lenses dating from the 1960s, the American optical-electronic counteraction complex (COEP), claiming that this device It is evidence of the western priority in the development of active protection systems (SAZ) for tanks on the basis that according to the Western classification, KOEP is classified as soft protection (softkill) in contrast to the actual SAZ, which are classified as "hard" (hardkill)
            http://topwar.ru/37220-konec-tankovoy-ery.html

            This is not only an attempt to pass off a mock-up as a working device, it is primarily an attempt to distort the USSR’s world priority in developing a fully functional system (KAZ Dozhd, 1970), as well as adopting and using a serial system in combat situations (KAZ Drozd , 1983) long before the creation (2005) and application (2011) of the Israeli SAZ Trophy
            http://topwar.ru/31710-sistemy-aktivnoy-zaschity-bronetehniki.html
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 12 August 2013 13: 05 New
        +5
        Quote: Professor
        So do not be killed about this.

        You won’t wait.
        hi
        Just annoyed by this fact, that’s FSE.
        1. smirnov
          smirnov 12 August 2013 16: 15 New
          +7
          As always, professors ...
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 12 August 2013 19: 08 New
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        In fact, the Americans created the first prototype KAZ on their M-60 even before Drozd.

        Which did not work, the prototype is not a finished product, somehow we do not see this KAZ on the abrams!
        1. Professor
          Professor 12 August 2013 21: 03 New
          -2
          Quote: Setrac
          Which did not work, the prototype is not a finished product, somehow we do not see this KAZ on the abrams!

          Something we don’t see on teshes ....
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 August 2013 21: 32 New
            +6
            Quote: Professor
            Something we don’t see on teshes ....

            What does the tricks have to do with it? You have just praised the advanced American system, but we don’t even see it at the demonstrators (unlike the teshes), and this is irrespective of our technology.
            Where is you?
            1. Professor
              Professor 12 August 2013 22: 08 New
              -5
              Quote: Setrac
              We just praised the advanced American system, but we don’t even see it at the demonstrators (as opposed to teshes), and this is irrespective of our technology.

              Read carefully. I did not praise anything, but only stated the fact that the first in this business were the Americans.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 13 August 2013 00: 06 New
                +5
                Quote: Professor
                Read carefully. I did not praise anything, but only stated the fact that the first in this business were the Americans.

                An idle system can not be considered the first, they wanted, but failed.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 13 August 2013 08: 46 New
                  -7
                  Quote: Setrac
                  An idle system can not be considered the first, they wanted, but failed.

                  Share information, really interested. Especially about the fact that it did not work.
              2. Shtyn dwarf
                Shtyn dwarf 22 November 2014 10: 42 New
                +3
                Yes, yes, and the Americans defeated Hitler, and the first to go into space. You just calm down professor =)))
  2. Kars
    Kars 12 August 2013 10: 16 New
    +4
    It’s better to have at least some kind of active defense than no. As for the danger to the tank Against radar missiles, I think as long as it is exaggerated, the radar radiation of the tank will be weak. Then they can come up with something.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 12 August 2013 10: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      It’s better not to have any active defense than any.

      Ага.
      If only there were no additional problems in use and maintenance, and so - but at least some kind of one had already been placed in the troops.
  3. report4
    report4 12 August 2013 11: 12 New
    +7
    Good, quality selection. More to such a site.

    And then already illiterate letters from the professor of acidic cabbage, where Israel is the birthplace of elephants, are tired of.
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 12 August 2013 11: 43 New
      -7
      Quote: report4
      where is Israel the birthplace of elephants.

      To do this, you have something to indicate how it really was, who invented KAZ, and which country is really the birthplace of elephants. I give a hint


      Z.Y
      Thank you for the article.
  4. Lopatov
    Lopatov 12 August 2013 12: 36 New
    +1
    One of the first KAZ Dozhd was developed at the Leningrad VNIITM in the 1970s.

    After the tests, KAZ Dozhd was transferred to the Kharkov HKBM for use in the promising Soviet Boxer / Hammer tank.


    Here it turns out, like ...

    By the way, it turns out that KAZ refused this principle of action back in the 80s. Most likely with the development of detection tools and electronic components of the complex.
    1. Kars
      Kars 12 August 2013 14: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      By the way, it turns out that KAZ refused this principle of action back in the 80s.

      Why did you get this?
      Quote: Spade
      Most likely with the development of detection tools and electronic components of the complex.

      vryatli. As the components appeared, an improved barrier turned out. Although Drozd Ukraine even sold in the USA.
  5. Lopatov
    Lopatov 12 August 2013 12: 42 New
    +7
    The article is not quite complete.

    In the West there is a fairly correct classification system. There KAZ are divided into "hard-kill" and "soft-kill".
    About the former, the article is written in sufficient detail, the latter are not affected at all, which is not entirely correct.
    They are already in service, as, for example, our "curtain", they are being actively developed. "Tricking" precision weapons is sometimes easier than destroying anti-aircraft ammunition on approach.
    1. Akim
      Akim 12 August 2013 13: 08 New
      +5
      Quote: Spade
      The article is not quite complete.

      I agree. There and DZ are divided into: ERA, SLERA, NERA, NxRA and promising ElRA.
      Here they relate KOEP to KAZ active protection system. In the beginning, I could not even understand what it was about.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 August 2013 13: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Akim
        Here they relate KOEP to KAZ. In the beginning, I could not even understand what it was about.

        I’m about this. And I think this formulation of the question is correct.
        1. Akim
          Akim 12 August 2013 13: 20 New
          +1
          a complex of optoelectronic suppression they relate to Soft kill active protection systems "soft killing" - go guess it before you explain.
        2. Andreas
          14 August 2013 00: 44 New
          0
          For over 25 years (from the 1980s until the mid-2000s), the Soviet Drozd remained the only active defense model put into service.
          Western developers bit their elbows, but could not create anything workable. Therefore, they came up with an ideological excuse - they called their COEPs the term soft active protection system.
          After the introduction of the Trophy, this neologism went out of circulation.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 12 August 2013 13: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      the second ones are not affected at all,

      Yes, only classical KAZ in our usual sense are considered.
      1. Andreas
        12 August 2013 15: 26 New
        +3
        The Russian-language analogue of the term "Soft kill active protection systems" is the term "Optoelectronic Counteraction Complex" (COEP).

        According to the Russian classification, KOEP refers to passive counteraction systems, as well as electronic warfare or infrared / radar traps in military aircraft.

        According to the Russian approach, only those solutions that physically destroy / damage the damaging element before it collides with the protected object can be classified as active protection.

        The list of damaging elements for armored vehicles (with the exception of mines and IEDs) includes ATGMs, homing elements with shock nuclei, anti-tank grenades and BOPS. In this case, the CEP can protect with a certain degree of probability only from the first two (aiming at the target after the shot), i.e. passive protection is very specialized in contrast to universal armor, DZ and KAZ / SAZ.

        In addition, obsolete infrared illuminated optical photoelectric sensors, which act against the first and second generation ATGM guidance systems, are useless against the third and fourth generation guidance systems with radio guidance.

        Modern COEPs that create multispectral aerosol curtains by volley firing of smoke grenades are effective only for a few seconds, until the temperature of the finely dispersed aerosol particles intensively transferring heat to the surrounding air decreases to a level below the temperature of the exhaust tract / MTO / barrel of the armored vehicle’s gun. After that, the aerosol curtain becomes transparent to the infrared homing anti-tank guided missiles and elements with an impact core.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 August 2013 16: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: Andreas
          ATGMs of the first and second generations, useless against guidance systems of the third and fourth generation

          ?

          There are only three generations, and there will be no fourth. It’s impossible to come up with anything easier than “shot-forgot”.
          1. Akim
            Akim 12 August 2013 17: 18 New
            +3
            Quote: Spade
            It’s impossible to come up with anything easier than “shot-forgot”.

            "Thought and hit."
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 August 2013 17: 25 New
              +2
              And fifth, “thought, and decided not to shoot”?
          2. Andreas
            12 August 2013 18: 19 New
            +2
            Count the generation of ATGMs:
            the first is manual rocket control by wire;
            the second is manual missile control over the air;
            the third is missile homing by reflected laser radiation;
            fourth - homing missiles by thermal radiation of the target (taking into account the signature of the radiation, samples of target images in different projections stored in the memory of the homing system, speed characteristics of the target, etc., etc.)
            1. Akim
              Akim 12 August 2013 18: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: Andreas
              the first is manual rocket control by wire;
              the second is manual missile control over the air;
              the third is missile homing by reflected laser radiation;

              This all refers to the second generation and is called "semi-automatic control"
              Manual control is when you visually hold a rocket and aim it at a target. Heavy shooting without training.
              1. Andreas
                12 August 2013 19: 56 New
                +1
                With this approach, four generations of ATGMs are also obtained:
                the first is manual control
                the second is semi-automatic control
                the third is automatic control
                fourth - robotic control (kamikaze rocket) am
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 12 August 2013 21: 01 New
                  +2
                  The first generation is guidance on three points: the target-missile-target. The operator must combine them
                  The second generation - at two points: the target sight
                  Third generation: shot-forgot. The operator does nothing at all.
                  1. Andreas
                    12 August 2013 22: 43 New
                    0
                    The third generation, direct fire (manual aiming missiles): he aimed the sight at the target - shot - forgot.
                    Fourth generation, shooting from a closed position (rocket self-aiming): - set the coordinates of the target location area - shot - forgot.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 12 August 2013 22: 59 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andreas
                      Fourth generation, shooting from a closed position (rocket self-aiming): - set the coordinates of the target location area - shot - forgot.

                      And what's the point of these? Armored vehicles are ranked according to the degree of danger depending on the tactical situation. And this can only be done by observing the battlefield. And a missile working in accordance with its target designation will be a 3rd generation missile.
                      1. Andreas
                        12 August 2013 23: 51 New
                        +1
                        The point is to increase the launch range of ATGMs and / or to ensure the location of the launcher in a closed (protected) position. In this case, target designation is to transfer to the missile homing system approximate (in the case of a moving target) or exact (in the case of a stationary target) coordinates and type of target (tank, self-propelled guns, missile launcher, KNP, etc.)

                        With a long launch range, a low-power GOS missile is not capable of capturing a low-contrast ground target against the background of the environment until the launch, especially on the battlefield with burning armored vehicles, dusty air pollution, artificial aerosol curtains, etc. Therefore, the capture of the target is carried out by the missile independently when approaching the target location at a minimum distance.

                        The fourth-generation ATGM includes the American JAGM with inertial control in the initial part of the flight, active radar, passive thermal and reflected laser homing systems in the final part of the flight, as well as built-in algorithms for automatic target recognition by their radar and thermal signatures.
                        A missile can be equipped with one of three types of warheads - cumulative, fragmentation, or high-explosive. The launch range of JAGM from an airplane is 28 km, from a helicopter / land - 16 km. The planned deployment date for 2016.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 12 August 2013 23: 57 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andreas
                        American JAGM with inertial control in the initial part of the flight, active radar, passive thermal and reflected laser homing systems in the final part of the flight, as well as built-in algorithms for automatic target recognition by their radar and thermal signatures.

                        Pure third generation with elements of the second.

                        And the Israeli Spike NLOS, in general, has elements inherent in the first generation missiles. Nevertheless, this is the third generation ATGM.
                      3. Andreas
                        13 August 2013 00: 18 New
                        +1
                        Naturally, each subsequent generation incorporates the capabilities of the previous ones.
                        JAGM is significantly different from the third generation - this rocket has a self-targeting mode, and after launch. No third-generation ATGM has such an opportunity.
                      4. Professor
                        Professor 13 August 2013 08: 44 New
                        -3
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Fourth generation ATGM

                        Nobody belongs because there is still no such generation. Show links or believe the word?
              2. Bort radist
                Bort radist 13 August 2013 09: 15 New
                +2
                Quote: Andreas
                set the coordinates of the target location area - shot - forgot.

                I don’t remember anything further.
    3. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 April 11 2015 22: 35 New
      +1
      How? Fourth - "forgot to shoot!" For stupid and dumber.
  • neznayka
    neznayka 12 August 2013 13: 07 New
    0
    Question to KAZ specialists. Is there such a way to combat KAZ: is it possible to launch ATGMs not at an armored object, but at a point located at some distance from it (for example, 10-20 meters to the right), KAZ detects flying ammunition and identifies it as not dangerous (flying by), the operator at the last moment redirects the ATGM directly to the armored object. It is clear that the bottleneck here is the “last moment”, which depends entirely on the ATGM operator, but if you really want to, this can be programmed as one of the functions in the ATGM.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 August 2013 13: 12 New
      +2
      This makes no sense. KAZ will have time to react.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 12 August 2013 19: 50 New
      +1
      KAZ monitors the movement of the projectile throughout the flight. When a shell flies into a certain "red zone - it is destroyed."
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 12 August 2013 21: 08 New
        0
        in my opinion, unfortunately, the capabilities of KAZ are greatly exaggerated, because, otherwise, for a long time, one generation would succeed another
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 12 August 2013 14: 02 New
    +4
    Guys! So I read these publications on active defense systems and I understand more and more that the best defense is an attack. KAZ is good for everyone, they have one significant drawback - they know hell when they enter service. Not so much on paper, but so that seriously and permanently. This is a time. Secondly, how many crews and vehicles would a tortured remotely controlled anti-aircraft machine gun with a normal sighting system save? This is me at least about the same Chechnya. Now I’m watching reports from Syria and the commander of government troops speaks about the T-72 about the same thing: "The machine is excellent, but a remote machine gun would sharply increase the firepower of the tank." There are tons of videos on Youtube that are shot by terrorist kurvas where they shoot at Assad’s tanks from an RPG, peering over a parapet on the roof of a house. One line of turrets and a mercenary is not. Where is all this? I see from the photographs that the samples exist and they are installed on separate machines. But why not in droves. T-72 tanks, which are still full of troops, in principle, will not allow the installation of such a machine gun?
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 12 August 2013 14: 39 New
      +6
      Quote: Iraclius
      T-72 tanks, which are still full of troops, in principle, will not allow the installation of such a machine gun?

      The remote control of the ZPU Utes cliff is the DREAM of all those who served on the T-72 ...

      Installation is simple, but at the same time painfully difficult to use.
      Having leaned out (!!!) from the hatch, it is necessary to rearrange the "turret" in conjunction with the ZPU, insert the tape, cock the NSVT.
      Shooting - finally death to the flies. To lock the vertical and horizontal with the hand wheel and lever while pressing the electric trigger ... - two hands are missing at first, without any skill at all.
      It is several times more difficult to fire at a moving target.
      If necessary, "dive" into the "armor" and throwing everything as it is, the commander is almost blind, since the TKN is blocked from the ZPU and all this crap will hang from side to side as the machine moves.
      We’ve been talking about this for twenty years ...

      The T-80 has a remote control, but I really didn’t shoot it, I didn’t have to, I don’t know how effective it is, I hope they will tell you who used it.
      In addition to remote control, a stabilizer is also desirable.

      So you touched a very painful topic, Andrei, although it is a little off topic.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 13 August 2013 00: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      "The machine is excellent, but the remote machine gun would dramatically increase the firepower of the tank."

      Moreover, at the current level of development of optoelectronic systems and telemechanics, the task looks quite solvable and inexpensive ...
    3. Bort radist
      Bort radist 13 August 2013 09: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Iraclius
      Secondly - no matter how many crews and vehicles rescued by a tortured remotely controlled anti-aircraft machine gun

      I want, of course, to carry everything with me but ......, "Terminator" BMPT is probably a good solution.
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 12 August 2013 16: 38 New
    +1
    Aleks tv, yes, I understand that it’s boiling ... We, from the last century, have been stubbornly preparing for a big war and can’t prepare for a small one. request KAZ is all the same protection against a more or less technologically equal adversary. Whose anti-tank defenses are not improvised land mines and RPG-7 with first series shots. I exaggerate, but the essence, I think, is clear.
    I’m still interested to know how much KAZ shots cost in comparison with weapons.
    Well, and how it is done now with "Cliff" - there’s nothing to add here, Aleks tv. negative
    That is why in Syria, the very commander says that most often the ZPU has to be removed. sad
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 12 August 2013 16: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      KAZ is all the same protection against a more or less technologically equal adversary. Whose anti-tank defenses are not improvised land mines and RPG-7 with first series shots. I exaggerate, but the essence, I think, is clear.

      Конечно.
      The remote and stabilized T-90ms module, installed behind the commander’s turret, is a real example of what you need to protect yourself from a technologically weak enemy.
      There, it seems, it is possible to stick a FCT or NSVT, of your choice.
      PCT gives a shower of bullets without reloading.
      NSVT takes point fortified or distant targets.
      But this module is clearly not cheap and comes with the T-90ms commander’s system. ("panoramic" is a super thing for him).

      And KAZ - we are waiting.
      It is also interesting how much the complex itself and the modules used cost.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 August 2013 17: 00 New
        +3
        Quote: Aleks tv
        here is a real example of what you need for your own defense against a technologically weak opponent.

        Everything is relative. On the Israeli "mercenaries" KAZ was not without reason installed, the "Cornets" appeared at the technologically backward enemy
      2. Iraclius
        Iraclius 12 August 2013 18: 11 New
        +1
        How is the machine gun aimed and aimed at the T-90mi? Is there any NVD? Any system for detecting infantry in shelters? Alas, I never had a chance to shoot such a thing, and it’s unlikely to happen. And how to recharge it? In any case, have to get out of the tank?
        Everything is relative. On the Israeli "mercenaries" KAZ was not without reason installed, the "Cornets" appeared at the technologically backward enemy

        I also meant that these facilities are quite expensive and I suspect that not all Merkavas KAZ are equipped.
        KAZ and a remotely controlled machine gun solve different problems, but intersect in one - they increase the survivability of the crew and tank.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 August 2013 18: 20 New
          0
          I suspect the installation is cheaper than a tank. And comparable in cost to the cost of training a good crew
          1. Iraclius
            Iraclius 12 August 2013 18: 43 New
            0
            This is so.
            On the other hand, the system has not received mass distribution in any country. What is it? Technical imperfection? Lack of efficiency or still the development and serial production costs do not justify themselves?
            I remember the frames that they once showed us. It seems to be an Arena test. There, a thick armor plate was leaned against the side of the tank and, in turn, shot at the tank with RPG, PTO and ATGM shots. The RPG shot left a stain of soot, the VET shell did not reach, and after the ATGM a shallow channel appeared.
            The people only delightedly clicked their tongues. Several years have passed.
            There are still no tank systems. Therefore, I asked about the cost of the system.
            At least the same Arena.
            And yet - a lot of attention is paid to the fact that KAZ is dangerous for its own infantry.
            I do not quite understand how it is supposed to reduce or eliminate this danger. After all, the liquidation of an approaching object in any case is carried out by ready-made striking elements of KAZ.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 August 2013 20: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: Iraclius
              On the other hand, the system has not received mass distribution in any country.

              Not all countries are now facing an adversary with anti-tank weapons with such penetration as the Cornet, because there is no special boom so far.
              You can protect yourself from RPG much cheaper. But the world is changing ...
            2. Andreas
              12 August 2013 23: 19 New
              +2
              The cost of KAZ Arena, which is capable of intercepting rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles, is about 300 thousand dollars, which is several times more than the cost of a DZ set.

              The meaning in the installation of KAZ appears in the case of expanding the capabilities of active protection to the level of intercepting the BPS with an approach speed of at least 1700 m / s. In this case, you can save on the cost of anti-shell composite armor modules, which are replaced after each hit.

              Judging by the available information, the KAZ Afganit, intended for installation on the Armata tank, will have such an opportunity.
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 12 August 2013 21: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Iraclius
          How is the machine gun aimed and aimed at the T-90mi? Is there any NVD? Any system for detecting infantry in shelters? Alas, I never had a chance to shoot such a thing, and it’s unlikely to happen. And how to recharge it? In any case, have to get out of the tank?

          Remote module on T-90ms?
          The commander has a multi-channel (television and thermal imaging) panoramic sight with two-plane independent stabilization. Plus a laser rangefinder.
          (Accordingly, he doesn’t have a PNV, Like the taunted everyone worse than the bitter radish TKN-3.)
          From him, then he controls the remote module.
          "Cheburashka" he has this remote "8", it seems there is no other. (photo clickable)
          How does this happen in real life, accordingly - hell knows, few have tried it, but ochochenie - that this is a very good unit.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 12 August 2013 22: 06 New
            +3
            Quote: Aleks tv
            As well as zadolbavshy everyone worse than the bitter radish TKN-3

            Here he is, malicious ...

            FIG what you see, your own body works instead of a stabilizer, you get tired quickly. With a regular shot, if you gape, then the eye sockets will so shy ... it will not seem enough, he does not have a soft kickback.
            It is not bad for general observation from armored vehicles, but not as the main instrument of the tank commander.
    2. 123456789
      123456789 13 June 2018 19: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Iraclius
      Aleks tv, but I understand that it’s boiling ... We, here, from the last century, have been stubbornly preparing for a big war and can’t prepare for a small one.

      Generals prepare for the past war laughing
  • solomon
    solomon 12 August 2013 17: 40 New
    +2
    Differences in ammunition and methods of their impact, non-traditional functions for tanks, which he sometimes has to perform, do not give a definition of the appearance of the future tank, the requirements for it and, in fact, its place in the future.
    Therefore, such a long service life of the tanks of the last generation (Abrams, T-72).
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 12 August 2013 19: 46 New
    0
    I remember that in the journal Technika-Molodezhi for, it seems, the 1990th, in an article devoted to the protection of BTT, there was a mention of the development of the KAZ system for the Challenger, consisting of a machine gun train designed to destroy flying missiles.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 12 August 2013 20: 10 New
      0
      Yeah. The most that. And I’m thinking - why are Americans removing strategic artillery bombers from strategic bombers? In vain - they, it turns out, can shoot down missiles. wassat
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 12 August 2013 20: 43 New
    +2
    Of course, such a system on armored vehicles is necessary! She must be:

    - modular - mounted on any armored vehicles;
    - with rechargeable destruction elements - the ability to repel several shells / missiles at once;
    - with a backup detection system - radar / optical (thermal) channel.

    I hope Russian designers will surprise me! hi
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 August 2013 21: 21 New
      0
      Quote: sergey158-29
      with a duplicate detection system - radar / optical (thermal) channel.

      With ultraviolet. Thermal will not give anything. A better multispectral. Then by the torch it will be possible to determine what kind of rocket it is.
    2. Alexander Kirov
      Alexander Kirov 13 August 2013 11: 34 New
      +1
      Sergey, good afternoon! How close you came to solving the KAZ problem, well done! I won’t surprise you. 1983 I described until block-type execution the KAZ system of the RAIN type, but ... nobody knew then. The principle of operation is multi-spectral, the hemisphere viewing system is 360X180. The range is optical IR, visible, UV, Rn. Lesions by type SHIELD, but again. The possibility of calculating and hitting the launcher immediately with return fire, comparing in memory the images of equipment and soldiers of the enemy. Element base of the CCD, weight 40 kg. A special department. Records and drawings were removed, thank you didn’t be sent. Here is the system’s worthy response. How many people put it? Own price is a Chinese jeep, and ARENA is 400 thousand greenery. That’s the reason. They’ve protested ARENA, but there’s no attendants. Mayachnya? I can tell you about how the USA and others work and how it will end, and in details.
  • castle
    castle 12 August 2013 21: 23 New
    -1
    Poor infantry near the tank. Nothing! Mothers of new foot soldiers give birth.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 August 2013 21: 31 New
      0
      And the foot soldiers here on which side? They have nothing to do in front of the tank.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 12 August 2013 21: 35 New
      0
      Quote: hrad
      Poor infantry near the tank. Nothing! Mothers of new foot soldiers give birth.

      The infantry is sitting inside the BMP, what will it become?
      1. Andreas
        12 August 2013 23: 01 New
        +1
        The radius of the "dead" zone around a tank armed with an active defense system is about 100 meters, taking into account the expansion of debris from intercepted rocket-propelled grenades / anti-tank missiles / artillery shells.

        A known case of the KAZ type Rain, installed on an experimental Boxer / Hammer tank, was used to intercept a high-explosive fragmentation projectile in the late 1980s with the participation of General Varennikov. KAZ worked normally, the OFS was shot down when approaching the tank, but one of the fragments of the shell wounded the officer who accompanied Varennikov and was 200 meters from the tank.

        T.O. infantrymen should be no closer than 100 meters from the tank, essentially depriving it of rifle cover. Therefore, the effectiveness of the KAZ in terms of intercepting rocket-propelled grenades (in urban combat conditions fired from almost any azimuth) should be 100 percent.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 August 2013 23: 11 New
          +3
          Quote: Andreas
          A known case of the KAZ type Rain, installed on an experimental Boxer / Hammer tank, was used to intercept a high-explosive fragmentation projectile in the late 1980s with the participation of General Varennikov. KAZ worked normally, the OFS was shot down when approaching the tank, but one of the fragments of the shell wounded the officer who accompanied Varennikov and was 200 meters from the tank.

          That is precisely why everybody refused KAZ with such a principle of action. Except Ukraine.
          1. Kars
            Kars 12 August 2013 23: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            That is precisely why everybody refused KAZ with such a principle of action. Except Ukraine.

            And what does the type of action have to do with it? Or if the Arena knocks down the OFS and it will not detonate the fragments? Or, if the OFS tank gets into the tank, there will be no fragmentation of shell and tank fragments

            At the same time, statistical calculations on fragments give great chances. I already mentioned the F-1 grenade, the danger of which is described as 200 meters, with a real calculation, the affected area is about 10 meters.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 August 2013 23: 19 New
              0
              Will be. But the damage will be similar compared to a gap on the armor. In addition, the probability of detonation is very small. The task is to destroy or change the trajectory, and not to explode, and therefore use a directed stream of fragments.
              1. Kars
                Kars 12 August 2013 23: 30 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                There will be

                Then where
                Quote: Spade
                KAZ with this principle of action all refused

                Quote: Spade
                The task is to destroy or change the trajectory, and not to explode, and therefore use a directed stream of fragments.

                And? I don’t understand your thought - KAZ Rain and KAZ Barrier do not hit with ammunition splinters? Or because the orientation - the fragments do not fall into the approaching ammunition? And can not detail it like KAZ Barrier fragments?

                So develop the thought of why a directed stream of fragments does not work.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 12 August 2013 23: 35 New
                  0
                  The probability of infantry defeat in systems using ammunition fired towards the rocket is an order of magnitude lower.

                  Quote: Kars
                  And? I don’t understand your thought - KAZ Rain and KAZ Barrier do not hit ammunition splinters?

                  They are also amazing. But in one case these are fragments directed away from the infantry, in the second they are undirected, and therefore dangerous
                  1. Andreas
                    13 August 2013 00: 10 New
                    0
                    Kars is right - the flying distance of the fragments of attacking grenades / missiles / shells does not depend on the type of KAZ.
                    In the case of the Boxer / Hammer KAZ test, the officer was wounded by a fragment of a shell, and not a fragment of a protective munition. Since there was no explosion of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, most likely the shell of the projectile flying at a speed of 900 m / s was destabilized and split into pieces after hitting the armor. One of the fragments ricocheted toward the test participants.

                    Strictly speaking, all the known KAZ / SAZ are equally dangerous when protecting the upper hemisphere in terms of the expansion of their fragments. The only exception is the innovative KAZ, stated in the Russian patent (see article), which uses not a stream of fragments as a protective munition, but an impact core.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 13 August 2013 08: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andreas
                      Kars is right - the flying distance of the fragments of attacking grenades / missiles / shells does not depend on the type of KAZ.

                      only in the case when the detonation of ammunition occurs, but in most cases the ammunition is destroyed without detonating.
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 August 2013 08: 54 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andreas
                      Kars is right - the flying distance of the fragments of attacking grenades / missiles / shells does not depend on the type of KAZ.


                      And the expansion of the fragments of their own ammunition depends on the type of KAZ?
                    3. Grigory_78
                      Grigory_78 April 11 2015 22: 59 New
                      0
                      I think nothing will change. A tank with KAZ / SAZ, when fired upon, will always be a danger to infantry. Flying ammunition, after its defeat, will partially reach the armor (in the form of fragments that are harmless to it, but still). And here where these fragments will fly further ... Near it is anyway better not to stand. And even so - in the case of a stream of fragments - it is possible to get under it anyway, the “impact core” will pass at least nearby - it will not seem enough either. So the infantry must either be under cover of armor (in the armored personnel carrier, BMD) or at a distance ... The issue to be solved.
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 13 August 2013 10: 33 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Spade
                    systems using ammunition fired towards the rocket are an order of magnitude lower.

                    Why is this? And what order? 5-10 meters?
                    Quote: Spade
                    They are also amazing. But in one case these are fragments directed away from the infantry, in the second they are undirected, and therefore dangerous

                    Really? Actually before that you said that directed fragments do not undermine the object of attack.
                    Quote: Spade
                    The task is to destroy or change the trajectory, and not to explode, and therefore use a directed stream of fragments.


                    I understand wants to say something against the Barrier, but it’s not good for you.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 12 August 2013 23: 21 New
          0
          It all depends on the system.
      2. Iraclius
        Iraclius 13 August 2013 12: 27 New
        +1
        The infantry sits inside the infantry fighting vehicle and armored personnel carrier only at ostentatious exercises.
  • castle
    castle 12 August 2013 21: 47 New
    0
    This is when front to front. What about clearing settlements? When you do not always know where and what will fly. And how does the SAZ (I mean active defense) armored vehicles on the BMP (for example), which will be 15 meters (10 meters) from the tank. Was it tested, actually?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 August 2013 22: 01 New
      0
      Quote: hrad
      This is when front to front. What about clearing settlements? When you do not always know where and what will fly. And how does the SAZ (I mean active defense) armored vehicles on the BMP (for example), which will be 15 meters (10 meters) from the tank. Was it tested, actually?

      How many bukof, where is the point? Everyone can ask questions, hear answers if you don’t know why write?
      1. Kars
        Kars 12 August 2013 22: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: hrad
        which will be 15 meters (10 meters) from the tank. Was it tested, actually?

        If a tank explodes from a hit by Pturs, an infantry fighting vehicle that is 15-10 meters away is also not very good.
        Although KAZ should also be on the BMP, therefore, the projectile that flies from the BMP side should be intercepted by the KAZ BMP. By the way, it hints that the current trend of uniting information flows of connections is a good idea. And the machines of one detachment should mutually support each other.
        It is also necessary to refuse connections of dissimilar combat vehicles. In conjunction with the tank there must be a heavy BMP. Well or light BMPs should not be in the tank protection sector. Yes and the intercept line should be no further than 20 meters from the tank.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 August 2013 22: 36 New
          0
          Better on the contrary. As far as the capabilities of the equipment allow.
      2. castle
        castle 13 August 2013 00: 33 New
        +1
        This is the answer for Setrac. I don’t know, that's why I ask. In your answer I see that you do not know. And how did you deserve the general there ?!
        1. Andreas
          13 August 2013 00: 58 New
          0
          An infantry fighting vehicle, which is in the same battle formations with the tank, should be equipped with armor of the appropriate level to protect from shards of KAZ protective ammunition and fragments of intercepted grenades / missiles / shells.

          In other words, the BMP should be made on the basis of the same tank.
        2. Essenger
          Essenger 13 August 2013 01: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: hrad
          And how did you deserve the general there ?!

          It does not depend on the level of intelligence. Write comments like "death am" or "curse of little shave" and all general shoulder straps are provided to you;) Regards.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 August 2013 22: 34 New
      +1
      And when clearing settlements, the infantry itself plays the role of KAZ. She is the main character there, not armored vehicles.
      In addition, even in the city in front of the tank, the infantry have nothing to do. He sometimes shoots.
      1. Kars
        Kars 12 August 2013 23: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        In addition, even in the city in front of the tank, the infantry have nothing to do. He sometimes shoots.

        And sometimes the gun turns on board and also shoots.
        Quote: Spade
        Better on the contrary. As far as the capabilities of the equipment allow.

        The most realistic way is to use a fixed intercept distance, and then on - this is the time, it’s a quick wind, it’s more powerful propelling charges, and so on.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 August 2013 23: 30 New
          0
          I’m talking about the maximum possible range for the equipment. So that the infantry does not suffer. In addition, KAZ itself should be used only when the soft-killing system of protection cannot lead-deceive the missile. For me, they are preferable, able to work not only for themselves, like the “hard-call” KAZ, but also for the entire unit. For example, "clogging" the optics of an infrared seeker rocket.
          1. Kars
            Kars 12 August 2013 23: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            I’m talking about the maximum possible range for the equipment. So that the infantry does not suffer.

            Is it 2-3 km?
            Quote: Spade
            In addition, KAZ itself should be used only when the soft-killing system of defense cannot lead-deceive the missile

            Moreover, how can this be determined to a minimum distance? And by the way, where will the ATGMs be taken away? Are there definitely no friendly infantry?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 August 2013 23: 48 New
              0
              No, it’s 200 meters from the force. Otherwise, the tank will become too noticeable on the battlefield due to the radar of the active defense complex.


              Quote: Kars
              Moreover, how can this be determined to a minimum distance? And by the way, where will the ATGMs be taken away? Are there definitely no friendly infantry?

              Probability theory will help to define such a boundary.

              Where will it lead? According to those striking “from the hill” like “Javelin” - I will not lie, I do not know. But for missiles flying horizontally, the procedure for force majeure is standard: a cabrio and self-destruction missile. A couple of times I saw wire breaks at the Bassoon, and read that the Americans also.
              1. Kars
                Kars 13 August 2013 10: 30 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Yes, not, from the strength of 200 meters

                And there will be no infantry? And the foot soldiers will have to know for sure that they are 220 meters or 180 from the tank? It is not a fact that they will see the tank.

                Quote: Spade
                Probability theory will help to define such a boundary.

                Strange it seems you do not like the theory of probability, but here you are.
                Quote: Spade
                Am the procedure for force majeure is standard: rocket for cabriolet and self-liquidation
                So it’s a break, and not the fact that the procedure will not be revised after the widespread use of jamming systems.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 12 August 2013 22: 25 New
    0
    all this active protection is garbage. first - the radar can be destroyed in one gulp from small arms or our ZSU Shilka. the second - the echo is close with such a tank is dangerous. Hitting elements can hit their support infantry. it is necessary to intercept either at other physical properties or at a greater distance.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 12 August 2013 23: 26 New
      -1
      How do you imagine this?
  • Andreas
    13 August 2013 14: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Nobody belongs because there is still no such generation. Show links or believe the word?

    If possible, a link about which generation ATGM with self-targeting after a flight under the control of its own inertial system belongs to.
    1. Professor
      Professor 13 August 2013 21: 03 New
      -2
      Quote: Andreas
      If possible, a link about which generation ATGM with self-targeting after a flight under the control of its own inertial system belongs to.

      Are you talking about Javelin who aims after a flight under the control of his own inertial system or about Spike?
      The fourth generation will be when the rocket itself can detect and identify the target. That is, a fighter simply launches a rocket in the direction of the alleged area of ​​the enemy’s tanks, and the rocket does the rest.
  • Andreas
    13 August 2013 14: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    only in the case when the detonation of ammunition occurs, but in most cases the ammunition is destroyed without detonating

    SAZ Trophy and Quick Kill demonstrate the interception of cumulative grenades and rockets at a speed of 100-200 m / s with the formation of lightweight and low-speed fragments.

    In contrast, KAZ Dozhd and Barrier demonstrate interception, including high-explosive fragmentation shells at a speed of 900 m / s with the formation of high-speed and heavy debris after destabilization (rotation) of the projectile and hitting it against the armor even without firing and detonation of explosives. The expansion of metal fragments of the shell of the shell in this case is much more dangerous.

    When using KAZ with a protective munition in the form of a shock core (a compact striking element weighing up to 1 kg and a speed of up to 3000 m / s), BPS weighing up to 6 kg and a speed of up to 1700 m / s will also be destabilized. The scattering of their metal debris will occur even faster.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 13 August 2013 16: 30 New
      0
      But is it really possible to get there - by firing a charge in the direction of the approach of the projectile, which, in turn, will shoot a 3-4 cm bullet at the projectile?
      1. Professor
        Professor 13 August 2013 21: 05 New
        -1
        Quote: Andreas
        SAZ Trophy and Quick Kill demonstrate the interception of cumulative grenades and rockets at a speed of 100-200 m / s with the formation of lightweight and low-speed fragments.

        Trophy does not form fragments for interception, there is another media.
        1. Andreas
          14 August 2013 00: 48 New
          0
          It's about the wreckage of intercepted grenades and missiles.

          What do you mean by the striking elements of a protective ammunition SAZ Trophy?
  • Andreas
    13 August 2013 15: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Spade
    And the expansion of the fragments of their own ammunition depends on the type of KAZ?

    All existing SAZ / KAZ use fragments as destructive elements - in the form of a radial curtain (Rain, Barrier, Iron First, Quick Kill), a vertical curtain (AMAP-ADS) or a directional beam (Drozd, Arena) , Trophy).

    At the same time, they have different protective ammunition (delivery vehicles, so to speak) - retractable charges (Rain, Barrier), rocket-propelled grenades (Drozd), mortar grenades (Iron First), rockets (Quick Kill) and explosive blocks Substances (Arena, Trophy, AMAP-ADS).

    The spread of the destructive fragments depends on the direction of the protective munition at the time of its detonation (with the exception of AMAP-ADS, the vertical direction of which is set at the time of installation on the armored vehicles). The separation distance of fragments for all types of protective ammunition is maximum when protecting the upper hemisphere, when the expansion vector is directed not sideways, but sideways. The magnitude of the expansion in the worst case (the slope of the vector is 45 degrees to the horizon) can reach several hundred meters.

    The only way out of the situation is to switch to the use of damaging elements in the form of an attack nucleus, which in the case of a miss on an attacking target has the point-like nature of a possible defeat of friendly forces (unlike a beam of fragments), which can be recognized as a justified risk.
  • Andreas
    13 August 2013 17: 07 New
    +1
    ramsi: but is it really possible to hit it by firing a charge in the direction of approach of the projectile, which, in turn, will fire a 3-4 cm bullet at the projectile?

    Firstly, the media has already announced the ability of KAZ "Afghanistan" (tank "Armata") to intercept BPS at a speed of 1700 m / s.

    Secondly, the only reliable way to destabilize a BPS flight (6 kg, 1700 m / s) is to hit a concentrated mass with approximately equal kinetic energy (1 kg, 3000 m / s).

    Thirdly, the task, of course, is very non-trivial - quickly and accurately determine the five parameters of the BPS movement (three coordinates, direction and speed) and calculate the meeting point of the projectile (length 800 mm, diameter 20 mm) and the impact core (length 100 mm, diameter 40 mm).

    Most likely, in the KAZ "Afganit" in order to solve this problem, in addition to increasing the radar resolution and processor performance, they also reduced the interception distance - from 25 to 5 meters.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 14 August 2013 08: 43 New
      0
      Thank you for your work, although it’s all the same, as they say, “I don’t believe”
  • Andreas
    13 August 2013 21: 37 New
    0
    Professor: Are you talking about Javen who aims after a flight under the control of his own inertial system or about Spike?
    The fourth generation will be when the rocket itself can detect and identify the target. That is, a fighter simply launches a rocket in the direction of the alleged area of ​​the enemy’s tanks, and the rocket does the rest


    Actually, I meant JAGM ("Jagm"), but I completely agree with your definition of the fourth generation ATGM.
  • Professor
    Professor 14 August 2013 10: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Andreas
    It's about the wreckage of intercepted grenades and missiles.

    What do you mean by the striking elements of a protective ammunition SAZ Trophy?

    The greatest danger to the infantry is the striking elements of the KAZ itself. Trophy has no fragments, and according to the developers, the probability of detonation of the warhead of the attacking ammunition is very small, and therefore they especially emphasize the “safety” (collateral damage) of the Trophy for infantry.
  • Andreas
    14 August 2013 12: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Trophy has no fragments

    The question remains - what does Trophy have?
    1. Professor
      Professor 14 August 2013 22: 17 New
      0
      Rafael mentions shock nuclei.
  • Andreas
    14 August 2013 23: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Rafael mentions shock nuclei

    The Trophy launcher is designed as a rectangular frame mounted on a rotating carriage. Behind the frame is a metal shock wave reflector. In the photo you can see the structure of the outer surface of the Trophy protective munition, divided into segments.
    On the video frame, Trophy striking elements are visible on approaching the attacked target, which are point objects that are not stabilized in flight. In this regard, they cannot be microshock nuclei, requiring the exact orientation of the longitudinal axis to the target

    Therefore, the Trophy manufacturing company means that the enclosed ammunition as a whole represents a single impact core, the metal lining of which is segmented into parts using a notch or a honeycomb screen. And the damaging elements themselves are fragments of the lining of the shock core - i.e. splinters.
    1. Professor
      Professor 15 August 2013 10: 32 New
      -1
      Quote: Andreas
      In this regard, they cannot be microshock nuclei, requiring the exact orientation of the longitudinal axis to the target

      In their last pamphlet, they mentioned shock nuclei, not a directed explosion. We discussed it here a year ago.

      http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf
      Trophy HV-MV neutralizes all types of Chemical Energy (CE) threats in flight, addressing them in four major stages: Threat detection, threat tracking, Hard Kill (HK) countermeasure (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators MEFP) activation, and threat - neutralization.

      Concerning the side effect: The systems' average collateral damage is estimated at a <1% chance of a dismounted soldier being injured by Trophy or an incoming threat.
      1. Andreas
        15 August 2013 15: 29 New
        +2
        I am signs with this statement by Rafael and I am not going to contradict it.

        Judging by the photo from the Eurosatory 2012 exhibition, where the SAZ Trophy mounted on the Rheinmetall Gavial armored car for the first time was demonstrated, the protective ammunition of this system is a set of explosive blocks, each of which is equipped with a metal lining and a separate electric fuse.

        With the simultaneous undermining of all blocks, a directed flow of shock micronuclei is formed, which differs from the directed flow of fragments (for example, KAZ "Arena") only by a greater focus on the calculated meeting point with the target.

        In the case of intercepting a target attacking from the upper hemisphere at an angle of up to 55 degrees to the horizontal, this micronucleus flow (moving along a ballistic trajectory) will inflict exactly the same damage to the tank’s infantry cover as any other protective munition of existing active defense systems.

        The only way out of the situation is the transition from a stream of fragments / micronuclei to one shock nucleus of normal size. Even in the event of a flight along a ballistic trajectory, it will be able to hit with friendly fire no more than one infantryman, which can be recognized as limited damage / justifiable risk.
        1. Professor
          Professor 17 August 2013 15: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          Judging by the photo from the Eurosatory 2012 exhibition, where the SAZ Trophy mounted on the Rheinmetall Gavial armored car for the first time was demonstrated, the protective ammunition of this system is a set of explosive blocks, each of which is equipped with a metal lining and a separate electric fuse.

          Please note that Rafael has at least three KAZ, HV and MV use shock nuclei and the probability of defeating their infantry is less than 1%, LV apparently uses fragments and, accordingly, the probability of defeating the infantry is described as Minimal.

          Quote: Andreas
          In the case of intercepting a target attacking from the upper hemisphere at an angle of up to 55 degrees to the horizontal, this micronucleus flow (moving along a ballistic trajectory) will inflict exactly the same damage to the tank’s infantry cover as any other protective munition of existing active defense systems.

          Rafael lives off by exporting his products and values ​​his reputation very much. Therefore, if they write Collateral Damage- chance of a dismounted soldier to be injured from Trophy or the incoming threat <1%, then they know what they are talking about.
          1. Andreas
            17 August 2013 16: 32 New
            +1
            I specially posted below the photo of the combined ammunition (shock core + honeycomb) to show the conventions of the concepts of micronuclei and fragments. There are also multinuclear warheads - this is when a lot of spherical recesses are applied to the surface of the metal cladding of the explosive block.

            I mean that the approval of the manufacturer refers only to the case of firing micronuclei from top to bottom - on a horizontally flying rocket-propelled grenade / anti-tank missile. In this case, the flow of micronuclei will be directed to the ground directly next to the tank.

            In the case of firing from the bottom up at a maximum angle of 55 degrees - for example, from an ATGM like Javelin or Spike attacking from above - the micronucleus flow will be directed up / sideways and will fly a long distance along the ballistic trajectory. On the descending part of the trajectory, the flow can cause damage to manpower, including friendly.

            If I have not convinced you, ask a direct question to Rafael.
            1. Professor
              Professor 17 August 2013 20: 24 New
              0
              In the case of firing from the bottom up at a maximum angle of 55 degrees - for example, from an ATGM like Javelin or Spike attacking from above - the micronucleus flow will be directed up / sideways and will fly a long distance along the ballistic trajectory. On the descending part of the trajectory, the flow can cause damage to manpower, including friendly.


              You did not convince me. For example, to intercept Jewelin or Beal, the nuclei will be directed upwards and nothing will threaten the infantry. The shock core "does not live long" and loses its energy with tremendous power. Therefore, there is no need to talk about any ballistics at all.
              Ask at Raphael does not work. All those whom I know from there (and this is not so little) gave a non-disclosure subscription ...
              1. Andreas
                17 August 2013 21: 53 New
                +1
                Quite right, micronuclei will move up and lose kinetic energy, just like fragments, but to a much lesser extent due to their regular aerodynamic shape.

                Therefore, the lethal force of micronuclei at the end will be greater than the lethal force of fragments at the end.

                PS Rafael employees can simply read out loud this information as a statement while watching their reaction laughing
                1. Professor
                  Professor 17 August 2013 22: 53 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andreas
                  Quite right, micronuclei will move up and lose kinetic energy, just like fragments, but to a much lesser extent due to their regular aerodynamic shape.

                  The impact core loses its energy by orders of magnitude faster than a solid-state fragment. It is impossible to hit anything with an impact core, say at 200 meters, but a fragment can.

                  Quote: Andreas
                  Therefore, the lethal force of micronuclei at the end will be greater than the lethal force of fragments at the end.

                  Exactly the opposite. request

                  Quote: Andreas
                  PS Rafael employees can simply read out loud this information as a statement while watching their reaction

                  Rafael is working simultaneously on hundreds of projects and the likelihood that one of my former colleagues is working on KAZ is very small. wink
                  1. Andreas
                    17 August 2013 23: 25 New
                    0
                    An impact nucleus loses energy faster than fragments at the beginning of expansion, when the speed of the nucleus exceeds the velocity of fragments. After the speeds of the nucleus and the fragments are compared, the latter begin to lose kinetic energy faster due to their shape (increased aerodynamic drag).

                    As a result, the core rises above the fragments in the ascending section of the trajectory and, due to this, has a larger supply of potential energy, which goes into the kinetic energy in the descending section of the trajectory.

                    Thus, at a distance of 200 meters, you can roughly estimate the speed of the core at 600 m / s, and the fragments at 300 m / s. The evidence that the core does not have a damaging ability at this distance refers solely to its armor penetration, and not to the lethal force in relation to the infantry.

                    The participation of Rafael employees in the discussion is desirable, but not necessary - from the moment they illuminated the design of the Trophy protective munition at an international exhibition, its characteristics are quite amenable to logical decoding bully
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 18 August 2013 09: 55 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andreas
                      An impact nucleus loses energy faster than fragments at the beginning of expansion, when the speed of the nucleus exceeds the velocity of fragments. After the speeds of the nucleus and the fragments are compared, the latter begin to lose kinetic energy faster due to their shape (increased aerodynamic drag).

                      Interested in where such information? I really doubt it. If this were the case, then the strike nuclei would be used against the infantry, and its darling more and more with fragments.

                      Quote: Andreas
                      relate solely to its armor penetration, and not to lethal force in relation to the infantry.

                      What is the energy at the end of the shock nucleus (in J)?
                      Is Raphael lying claiming less than 1% risk?
                      1. Andreas
                        18 August 2013 16: 48 New
                        0
                        The impact core has a regular (symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis) aerodynamic shape with a conical tail, which reduces air resistance and stabilizes the longitudinal axis of the core along the flight direction. The drag coefficient can be estimated as 0,4 units.

                        Any splinter has in the best case the form of a parallelepid with jagged edges, so it flies, randomly rotating around all its axes, braking about the air. The drag coefficient can be estimated as 1 unit.

                        The reason why shock micronuclei are not used as damaging elements against infantry is simple - in order to organize the flow of micronuclei, the development company had to significantly complicate (and raise the cost of) the protective munition.

                        Instead of one explosive unit with one fuse and one metal cladding (it is the ammunition body), it was necessary to make a set of N-number of blocks, each with its own cladding and fuse, plus a common case for the whole structure.

                        Moreover, to defeat a group infantry target, you need at least a small angle of flight of fragments (to cover a dispersed target), which we see in fragmentation mines with directional action with a given fragmentation of the shell.

                        For a tank active defense system designed to destroy a concentrated target such as a projectile / rocket / grenade, on the contrary, an almost parallel flight of the striking elements is required, and here the strike nucleus is beyond competition. The price of the issue of protective ammunition is less important, since the cost of the protected tank is at stake.

                        I’ll try to roughly calculate the kinetic energy of one shock microkernel of the protective ammunition SAZ Trophy:
                        - the size of the protective ammunition frame 250x250 mm;
                        - weight of metal cladding 2,5 kg;
                        - the number of micronuclei 25 units;
                        - weight of one micronucleus 0,1 kg;
                        - the speed of micronuclei after completion of their formation 2500 m / s;
                        - average speed drop for every 100 meters 400 m / s;
                        - ballistic flight distance when fired at an angle of 45 degrees 600 m;
                        - final speed of 100 micronuclei m / s;
                        - kinetic energy is equal to (0,1 kg x 100 m / s x 100 m / s): 2.

                        Rafael, claiming that less than one percent of the risk of defeating friendly infantry by the SAZ Trophy, means that potential opponents do not have ground anti-tank weapons attacking from the upper hemisphere, and the probability of their use by helicopters and aircraft of potential opponents is equal to 0,01.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 19 August 2013 07: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andreas
                        I’ll try to roughly calculate the kinetic energy of one shock microkernel of the protective ammunition SAZ Trophy:
                        - the size of the protective ammunition frame 250x250 mm;
                        - weight of metal cladding 2,5 kg;
                        - the number of micronuclei 25 units;
                        - weight of one micronucleus 0,1 kg;
                        - the speed of micronuclei after completion of their formation 2500 m / s;
                        - average speed drop for every 100 meters 400 m / s;
                        - ballistic flight distance when fired at an angle of 45 degrees 600 m;
                        - final speed of 100 micronuclei m / s;
                        - kinetic energy is equal to (0,1 kg x 100 m / s x 100 m / s): 2.

                        You forgot about the most important thing. Considering the kinematics of a shock nucleus, solid-state physics cannot be used. Try to disperse a pellet and a drop of lead and see what happens to them through 10, 20, 100 meters. Accelerate a drop of water at least at 10 km / s and at a distance of a hundred meters it will be harmless, which can not be said about a piece of ice.

                        Quote: Andreas
                        Rafael, claiming that less than one percent of the risk of defeating friendly infantry by the SAZ Trophy, means that potential opponents do not have ground anti-tank weapons attacking from the upper hemisphere, and the probability of their use by helicopters and aircraft of potential opponents is equal to 0,01.

                        If your theory were correct, then due to the very high position of the PU Trophy on the tank, even with a strictly horizontal interception, it would kill all the infantry within a radius of hundreds of meters.
                      3. Andreas
                        19 August 2013 12: 44 New
                        0
                        The material of the impact core is a metal alloy, steel, or based on tantalum. After the explosion of the explosive protective munition under the influence of a detonation wave, its metal lining passes into the fluidized state (below the melting temperature of the metal) only for a split second or, alternatively, at a distance of about one meter from the detonation point.

                        After overcoming this distance, a solid striking element is formed from the metal lining - a kind of bullet that stabilizes in flight with its tail part - an aerodynamic cone.

                        The high location of the SAZ Trophy launchers is chosen specifically to hit top-down rockets / grenades flying horizontally into the projection of the tank. In this case, the flow of damaging elements is directed down into the ground. The danger zone around the tank is about 25 meters.

                        If a rocket / grenade attacks from the upper hemisphere (above the location of the SAZ launcher), then the flow of damaging elements is directed upward, which expands the danger zone to several hundred meters (maximum when shooting at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizon).
                      4. Professor
                        Professor 19 August 2013 15: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andreas
                        After overcoming this distance, a solid striking element is formed from the metal lining - a kind of bullet that stabilizes in flight with its tail part - an aerodynamic cone.

                        I have met in several places a description of the shock nucleus as a quasi-fluid body up to its dispersion. The emphasis is on dispersion.


                        The shock core is formed precisely at a distance of about 1 meters from the place of the explosion of the ammunition and then flies unchanged about 30-40 meters, after which, due to friction against the air, it loses its kinetic energy, heat and dissipates.

                        I knew the grandson of academician Lavrentyev, also a talented eccentric, though I went into microelectronics and worked at Intel in Haifa. Sorry the connection was lost, maybe he could clarify the work of his grandfather. smile

                        PS
                        http://piroforum.info/vzryvnye_ustrojstva/kmta-t-aoe-o-aaee/
                      5. Andreas
                        19 August 2013 16: 56 New
                        0
                        If the quasi-liquid state of the material of the impact nucleus persisted even after completion of its formation, the damaging element would have the shape of a drop, rather than a hollow “bullet” with a conical skirt.

                        The quasi-liquid state is preserved only during the period of action on the metal cladding of the huge external force of the detonation wave (up to 8 m / s). A few tens of centimeters from the point of detonation, the action of the wave ceases and the metal begins to behave like a solid.

                        Material from an English source, the lifetime of the quasi-liquid state of the nucleus shown in the figure. The scale of the span of the core with respect to the initial diameter of the metal cladding of the explosive block is also preserved
                      6. Andreas
                        19 August 2013 17: 12 New
                        0
                        In air-to-air missiles, multi-nuclear warheads with a small opening angle (Fig. 7a and 7b) and multi-nuclear warheads with a large opening angle (Fig. 8) are used.

                        Most likely, something similar to the latter solution (only with a directed lesion field and the number of detonators equal to the number of micronuclei) was used in the protective ammunition of the SAZ Trophy.
                      7. Professor
                        Professor 20 August 2013 12: 21 New
                        0
                        In short, all these are just guesswork and assumptions. The manufacturer has not yet been caught in a lie and he claims a probability of less than one percent that the infantry will suffer. Let's stop there. hi
                      8. Andreas
                        20 August 2013 14: 22 New
                        0
                        Advertising is not a lie, but a trading engine laughing
                      9. Professor
                        Professor 20 August 2013 14: 26 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Advertising is not a lie, but a trading engine

                        Without it, no way. laughing Marketing in Raphael does not sleep, but does not engage in cheating. Reputation is everything.
                      10. Andreas
                        20 August 2013 15: 57 New
                        0
                        Half-truths are not cheating, but marketing strategies (on the slang of managers), definitely lol
      2. Bort radist
        Bort radist 19 August 2013 08: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Professor
        If this were the case, then the strike nuclei would be used against the infantry, and its darling more and more with fragments.

        Shrapnel.
      3. Professor
        Professor 19 August 2013 08: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Bort Radist
        Shrapnel

        What with her? She changed the state of aggregation and became fluid?
  • Andreas
    17 August 2013 15: 05 New
    0
    A simpler solution is the warhead of an experimental shot for an RPG-7 with a shock core and a honeycomb barrier segmenting the core into separate fragments
  • Tungsten
    Tungsten 5 September 2013 11: 24 New
    0
    The greatest danger to the functioning of the active defense system is carried by anti-radar ammunition (such as an AHEAD shell), the warheads of which are equipped with ready-to-use striking elements in the form of tungsten shrapnel. The ammunition homing system is aimed at radar radiation, the warhead is detonated outside the intercept line, a directed beam of damaging elements is guaranteed to disable phased antenna arrays

    the author is a stubborn animal. Let him drink a glass of polonium.

    WHERE in the 30 mm AHEAD "radiation guidance system" projectile ?!

    Read what AHEAD ammunition is: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/buckley.pdf
  • rednuht
    rednuht 22 November 2013 23: 47 New
    +2
    A very superficial article, a lot of inaccuracies, nothing is said about the LEDS-150. In 2008, six manufacturers of active defense systems participated in the competition for equipping 987 Indian T-90S + and T-90M tanks. Based on the test results, the Swedish LEDS-150 active protection system was selected. The contract with the company was signed in February 2009.
  • Korsak
    Korsak 17 June 2014 03: 01 New
    0
    There is really little information on LEDS-150. Wikipedia says that it intercepts missile defense, probably expensive. Although the tank repair will come out more expensive.
    And what are we doing? And do they do anything?
  • IAlex
    IAlex 9 May 2015 12: 26 New
    0
    Something the Jews are excited again today, to see the Massat on holidays working around the clock for a tidy prize :)))))))))))))))
  • leon1204id
    leon1204id 26 July 2015 18: 05 New
    0
    Normal heroes always go around. Think about how a plane with a stealth system was shot down over Yugoslavia. For KAZ there are weaknesses: the size of the target, its speed, recognition in the radar range. This trend has already been outlined in Javelin-recognition of the shape of the target, the search for thin armor. It is not surprising if a small UAV with a small speed will bring an impressive charge anywhere.
  • 123456789
    123456789 13 June 2018 20: 11 New
    0
    Professor,
    According to the technical description, the MMP missiles belong to the fifth-generation ground-based combat systems with a combined type guidance system, including a heat and television homing head, an inertial system and having the ability to be guided through a fiber optic cable. This will allow launching from closed positions, retargeting missiles during the flight, and also performing complex maneuvers during the flight to the target.
  • 123456789
    123456789 13 June 2018 20: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Andreas
    Fourth generation ATGM

    Nobody belongs because there is still no such generation. Show links or believe the word?

    According to the technical description, the MMP missiles belong to the fifth-generation ground-based combat systems with a combined type guidance system, including a heat and television homing head, an inertial system and having the ability to be guided through a fiber optic cable. This will allow launching from closed positions, retargeting missiles during the flight, and also performing complex maneuvers during the flight to the target.