Military Review

Israeli complex of active protection of armored vehicles "Meil Ruah"

44
Active protection is hosted on tanks and other armored vehicles, special systems for shooting projectiles, combined with a local-action radar system. In case of detection of an ammunition approaching a tank (for example, an anti-tank missile), the system gives a command to shoot off a charge, which explodes at the moment of approaching the projectile, forming a cloud of fragments that destroy or at least significantly weaken the effect of the ammunition on the tank. Experts believe that the use of active protection systems can significantly (2-3 times and more) increase the survival rate of tanks on the battlefield.


The idea of ​​creating an active armor protection belongs to representatives of the Soviet tank building. In the USSR, back in 1950-1960-ies, the Central Design Bureau No. 14 in the city of Tula was developing an active protection complex (KAZ) called Drozd. In 1983, a similar system was mounted on the T-55А tank, which received a new index - the T-55AD. The T-55AD tank was the first in the world to have active protection installed. The complex was manufactured 6 for years, but in 1990 was removed from service in connection with the signing of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), according to which the T-55 tank was included in the list of weapons to be eliminated. At that time, the cost of KAZ "Drozd" was 30 thousand dollars. At the end of the 1980-s, the KAZ Drozd-2 was also created, which, due to economic difficulties, did not go into mass production, and KAZ Arena, which became a frequenter of weapons exhibitions, also shared the same fate. The most advanced complex of Russian-made active protection is the KAZ "Afganit", which was created in 2010-ies and appeared on the main battle tank T-14 and BMP T-15, built on a unified heavy tracked platform "Armata".

T-55AD with Drozd active protection complex


The Soviet Union did not become the only country that showed interest in such developments. In the USA, France, Israel and Germany also began active research in this direction. At the same time, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a reduction in the threat of a full-scale military conflict, which led to the fact that developments in this direction were suspended. Actively engaged in these works again only after the war in Iraq in 2003 and the Second Lebanon War 2006, in which armored vehicles of the US Army and the Israeli army regularly came under fire from anti-tank grenade launchers and suffered losses.

Currently, the American KAZ Quick Kill is under development and testing, while Israel has already been able to create two types of KAZ - Meil ​​Ruach (windbreaker, Hebrew, export name Trophy) and Iron Fist. At the same time, the Meil ​​Ruah complex is already in service with the Israel Defense Forces. The Israelis, who have been struggling for a long time to improve the safety of armored vehicles, realized that it was impossible to further increase the armor of combat vehicles without a significant reduction in the mobility and transportability characteristics, which also stimulated work to create active protection.

This complex of active protection was the result of a joint 10-year-old operation of the companies Israel Aircraft Industries / Elta and the Rafael Armament Development Authority, which was managed by the R & D department of the Israel Defense Ministry, and also financed the project. At the same time, the concern RAFAEL became the main contractor for this program. The active protection complex was officially unveiled on 8 March 2005, as part of the second international conference / exhibition on low-intensity conflicts, which was held in Tel Aviv. Developed by the Israelis, the complex is designed to protect armored vehicles against anti-tank missiles and cumulative shells. This system creates a protective hemisphere above the tank, tracking potential threats using radar and eliminating anti-tank missiles fired at a combat vehicle. The scheme of action is standard for systems of this type - a special sensor determines from which direction the fire is fired, after which the on-board computer calculates the trajectory of the ammunition and gives a command to the device that hits the ATGM or a rocket grenade on approaching the target.

Elements of the complex "Meil Ruach" on the tank Merkava


The Meil ​​Ruach active defense complex consists of a radar station that is responsible for detecting and identifying anti-tank guided missiles, HEAT, and rocket-propelled grenades aimed at an armored vehicle. The radar triggers launchers, throwing in to meet the interceptors, which must hit and destroy the warhead before it meets with the tank at the maximum possible distance from it. After launch, the charge-interceptor generates a directional stream of fragments, which allows you to cope with the threat with the least risk to your own troops. Used radar known Israeli company Elta, which is associated with four antennas located on the front and aft parts, as well as the sides of the platform and is able to provide protection in the sector 360 degrees. Also used are two mechanisms for destroying RAFAEL’s production vehicles that fly up to the tank and are located along the sides of the platform.

Currently, the Israelis offer three options for their active defense complex: the heavy version, the middle one and the light one. The basic version of the TROPHY-HV is designed for installation on the main Merkava battle tanks, its weight is 850 kg (volume 0,69 м3), the system is characterized by the presence of automatic recharge. The TROPHY-MV system can be placed on armored vehicles weighing from 15 to 30 tons and also has an automatic reloading system, but has a reduced launcher and weighs 520 kg (volume 0,42 м3). Both systems provide protection for an armored vehicle from anti-tank systems, RPGs and tank-shaped cumulative shells. The youngest system TROPHY-LV is designed for installation on light wheeled vehicles, for example, cars Humvee. It weighs 200 kg (volume 0,26 m3) does not have an automatic recharge system and is designed to protect only against RPGs.



It is worth noting that the Israeli "windbreaker" differs quite a decent price. Put on her all the armored cost a lot of money. According to information from open sources, the cost of one active protection complex for the Merkava MBT was 350 thousand dollars, provided that a significant lot of KAZ was acquired. That is why, at the first stage, the Israelis planned to equip only “Merkava” Mk.4 with the “Meil Ruach” complex, in the long term considering the issue of refitting the entire tank fleet. The first combat vehicles that received this active defense complex were tanks from the 401-th armored brigade.

According to the specialists of the Israeli manufacturer, their active protection complex guarantees protection of the tank against all types of anti-tank missiles. According to them, during the ground tests of the system, 100% destruction of all ATGMs and RPG grenades launched on protected armored objects was achieved. This emphasizes the fact that this complex can be used in urban environments, where it will not harm the infantry interacting with the tank. In the 21st century, Israel became the first country in the world to adopt the system of active protection of tanks and bring it to mass production, starting to equip her armored vehicles with a mass scale. In Russia, the complex of active protection of tanks "Arena", created by engineers of the Kolomna machine-building design bureau, was fully tested and ready for mass production 20 years ago, but this development was not used in any conflict in which the Russian army took part.

In 2010, the Israeli Self-Defense Army successfully tested the complex, firing anti-tank missiles at the Merkava Mk.4 tank with the crew. As part of the test, the military used kinetic guided missiles that did not contain the warhead. These munitions simulated the trajectory of a real rocket, so that the system could intercept them and destroy the threat approaching the tank. For the first time in combat conditions, the complex was tested as early as next year.

Tank Merkava Mk.4, equipped with the system "Meil Ruach"


The baptism of fire took place on March 1 on the 2011, when the 9 Battalion of the 401 Tank Brigade of the Israeli army patrolled the territory bordering the Gaza Strip. During the patrol of one of the Israeli tanks, Palestinian terrorists fired from a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher from a short distance. The complex of active protection "Meil Ruach" successfully dealt with the threat, neutralizing it. The anti-tank ammunition was destroyed at a safe distance for the Merkava, while the tank and its crew were not harmed. The crew of the combat vehicle heard an explosion next to the tank and at first did not even understand what exactly happened. 19 days after the incident, the system again successfully hit an anti-tank missile that was fired at an Israeli tank. This time it happened in the Western Negev, located near the border of the Gaza Strip.

Vladimir Korenkov, who headed the Federal State Unitary Enterprise GNPP Basalt from 2000 to 2009, one of whose areas of work was the creation of an RPG, notes that the Israeli active protection complex can be overcome like any other similar system. The standoff of armor and projectile will never be stopped. At the same time, he agrees that the installation of active defense complexes on armored vehicles increases its survivability on the battlefield.

Speaking about the development of "Basalt", he mentioned the RPG-30, which was originally designed to overcome such systems of active protection of tanks. All active protection complexes that exist at the moment have the same ideology. This is a radar threat detection and at some distance (far or near) the destruction of a flying ammunition with the help of combat units, using a stream of fragments and a high-explosive field from an explosion. In this case, all such systems have common disadvantages. First of all, they include the duty ratio. We are talking about the time interval of the reaction of the complex to the threat. According to Korenkov, the RPG-30 "Hook" is able to overcome such protection systems installed on armored vehicles.

RPG-30 in the foreground


This disposable RPG was adopted by the Russian army in 2012 year. Structurally consists of two parallel tubes in which missiles are located. In the larger pipe diameter is located the means of destruction - tandem cumulative ammunition caliber 105 mm. In the smaller pipe diameter is a missile-simulator target. This projectile possesses radar signatures and trajectories identical with the main grenade and is classified by KAZ as an attacking tank object, causing the complex to fire, then using the resulting “window” after defeating the simulator projectile uses the main ammunition. In 2013, the Russian army purchased a batch of 1000 RPG-30 for a total of 83 million rubles. But what is in service with the Russian army is currently lacking among the opponents of the Israel Defense Forces, which allows Israeli tank crews to feel relatively safe.

Information sources:
http://nevskii-bastion.ru/trophy
http://pro-tank.ru/blog/1429-israel-optimal-protection-tanks
http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/archive/izrail-skaya-trofi-preodolima14-11-2009-11-05-00
http://nnm.me/blogs/yalot/pervoe_v_mire_boevoe_ispytanie_aktivnoy_zashity_tankov
Open source materials
Author:
44 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 18 December 2015 07: 31 New
    +2
    a special sensor determines the direction from which the fire is being fired, after which the on-board computer calculates the flight path of the ammunition and gives a command to the device that hits the ATGM or rocket-propelled grenade when approaching the target.


    It’s interesting whether electronic warfare systems can block these sensors and even these complexes themselves.
    1. SD3
      SD3 18 December 2015 20: 22 New
      +4
      After starting, the charge-interceptor forms a directional stream of fragments, which allows you to cope with the threat with the least risk to your own troops.

      Does the author have problems with English? He provided a screenshot from Rafael’s PDF, but didn’t find it necessary to read the principle of operation?

      From the Rafael Brochure:

      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.

      http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf

      “Trophy” uses multiple impact cores (MEFP - Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators).

      (open in a separate window)

      Since the shock nuclei are formed by the explosion of blasting explosives (RDX / HMX, etc.), they gain their speed almost instantly, in contrast to the "Arena" counter-ammunition thrown with gunpowder.
      Impact cores can be formed in a narrow sector, and the GGE covers a large area, which poses a great danger to their own infantry.
      According to Rafael, the likelihood of defeating KAZ Trophy’s own infantry does not exceed 1%.

      The principle of operation of a warhead type Mefp:

      watch from 1:23

      1. SD3
        SD3 18 December 2015 20: 27 New
        -2
        This projectile has the same radar signature as the main grenade ...

        From wikipedia?
      2. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 18 December 2015 22: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: SD3
        Does the author have problems with English?

        You know how better, show how to do it. Translate the article by yourself and offer it for reading. It will be better this way!
      3. Operator
        Operator 18 December 2015 23: 48 New
        0
        About the reaction time of the two systems, the situation is exactly the opposite:
        - after calculating the point of meeting of the counter-ammunition and the attacking ammunition, KAZ "Arena" shoots up a block of explosives with ready-made striking elements sealed in plastic, which is many times faster than the SAZ "Trophy" mechanically turns the launcher with an explosive block lined with profiled metal towards the approach of the attacking ammunition (the so-called microkernels);
        - KAZ "Arena" does not need time at all to reload the launcher, since all blocks of explosives are located in individual launch cells, the SAZ "Trophy" takes time before the next shot to turn the launcher to the position for loading and supplying the next block of explosives from the mechanized stack ...

        The weight of one ready-made striking element of the KAZ "Arena" is greater than the weight of one microkernel of the SAZ "Trophy", which allows the first system to hit attacking ammunition such as artillery shells with a strong metal body.

        KAZ "Arena" has a smaller radius of danger for its own infantry, since the flow of ready-made submunitions is directed from top to bottom at a large angle (taking into account the take-off height above the tank of the explosives) in comparison with the flow angle of micronuclei of the SAZ "Trophy" the height of the tank.
        1. SD3
          SD3 19 December 2015 04: 21 New
          +3
          Quote: Operator
          which is several times faster than the "Trophy" mechanically expands towards the approach of the attacking ammunition, a launcher with an explosive block lined with profiled metal (the so-called micronucleus);

          In your opinion, is there a "black man" who turns everything with his own hands?
          Trophy probably uses high-speed electric motors.

          The “Arena” counter-ammunition does not adjust its position after the firing, and the anti-tank weapon (RPG / ATGM) can change its trajectory at the very end, therefore, the “Arena” counter-ammunition should cover a considerable area of ​​the GPE. That is, it should contain a significant number of GGE.
          Judging by the video, the “Arena” counter-ammunition is not very large - that means there is no place for a large number of explosives.


          That is, to give GGE a high speed will not succeed. For example, the speed of tungsten balls in 40 mm NATO grenades does not exceed 1000 m / s.

          The speed of conventional (full-sized) impact nuclei is more than 2000 m / s. Most likely, the speed of micronuclei is close to this value (2000 m / s). Since shock nuclei are formed by the explosion of blasting explosives (RDX / HMX, etc.), they acquire their speed almost instantly.

          Therefore, the reaction rate of the “Trophy” can be higher than that of the “Arena”, since the “Trophy” only needs to deploy the counter-ammunition in the direction of the threat and initiate an explosion of a blasting explosive.

          Quote: Operator
          - KAZ "Arena" does not need time at all to reload the launcher, since all explosives are located in individual launch cells

          Arena counter-ammunition can destroy anti-tank weapons only in a certain sector.

          KAZ Arena can instantly repel an attack only from a different angle.
          1. SD3
            SD3 19 December 2015 04: 26 New
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            The weight of one ready-made striking element of the KAZ "Arena" is greater than the weight of one microkernel of the SAZ "Trophy", which allows the first system to hit attacking ammunition such as artillery shells with a strong metal body.

            Yep ...

            As already mentioned above, the “Arena” GGE cannot have a high speed.
            The speed of micronuclei should be close to 2000 m / s.

            In addition, according to Textron Systems, micronuclei SPBE Skeet Warhead capable of hitting light and medium armored vehicles of Russia in the upper projection.





            watch from 2:05

  2. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 December 2015 08: 01 New
    +7
    But someone (I don’t remember, Professor, Atalef or anyone else) from his Israeli colleagues proved to the end that RPG-30 could not overcome this defense. At the same time, it did not become clear whether there were any real tests with such shells.
    1. atalef
      atalef 18 December 2015 08: 29 New
      +5
      Quote: inkass_98
      But someone (I don’t remember, Professor, Atalef or anyone else) from his Israeli colleagues proved to the end that RPG-30 could not overcome this defense. At the same time, it did not become clear whether there were any real tests with such shells.

      I never prove what I don’t know.
      And no one (until they pass the test) knows.
      1. Lex.
        Lex. 18 December 2015 08: 52 New
        +4
        It is interesting whether similar systems protect the tank if a rocket flies to the top of the tank?
        1. Ezhaak
          Ezhaak 18 December 2015 11: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Lex.
          if a rocket flies to the top of the tank

          Everything should depend on the direction of the shots of the protective ammunition. While it is noticed that they are fired in the horizontal direction. And the main threat, as a rule, comes precisely from these directions.
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 18 December 2015 09: 08 New
      +6
      Quote: inkass_98
      But someone (I don’t remember, Professor, Atalef or anyone else) from his Israeli colleagues proved to the end that RPG-30 could not overcome this defense. At the same time, it did not become clear whether there were any real tests with such shells.

      This I, in my opinion, gave a link to the opinion of one of the developers of the system. Since I myself am a complete zero in this, I rely only on open publications. It was about the fact that there are no insurmountable systems at all. But in the "Meil Ruach" production facility, the possibility of repelling a shot from two anti-tank devices simultaneously from one side was laid. Since 360 ​​* protection is, as I understand it, the protection systems located on one side duplicate each other. Again, this is not my knowledge that I read, then retold.
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 18 December 2015 11: 16 New
        0
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        the possibility was laid for repelling, on one side, a shot from two anti-tank weapons at the same time.

        And here it is necessary to know the characteristics of the system. How, at what pace, with what speed, reloading is performed. Does the system last 0,1 seconds, or even less, to respond to the second goal?
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 18 December 2015 10: 24 New
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      But someone (I don’t remember, Professor, Atalef or anyone else) from his Israeli colleagues proved to the end that RPG-30 could not overcome this defense. At the same time, it did not become clear whether there were any real tests with such shells.

      There was a very specific interview with the creators of the system, in which tandem ammunition was discussed. Here the creators clearly indicated that when creating the system, tandems were taken into account
      1. Massik
        Massik 18 December 2015 14: 30 New
        +8
        Quote: Pimply
        Quote: inkass_98
        But someone (I don’t remember, Professor, Atalef or anyone else) from his Israeli colleagues proved to the end that RPG-30 could not overcome this defense. At the same time, it did not become clear whether there were any real tests with such shells.

        There was a very specific interview with the creators of the system, in which tandem ammunition was discussed. Here the creators clearly indicated that when creating the system, tandems were taken into account
        Tandem ammunition and target simulator + tandem ammunition are not the same thing.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 18 December 2015 14: 55 New
          -2
          Quote: Marssik
          Tandem ammunition and target simulator + tandem ammunition are not the same thing.

          Basalt's statements are even more controversial
      2. umah
        umah 18 December 2015 15: 22 New
        +3
        Tandem ammunition is when there are two ammunition in a single enclosure. Even the RPG-7 has tandem ammunition. And in the RPG-30 there are two separate shots: the first simulator, and after it the main tandem flies.
    4. Wiskar
      Wiskar 22 December 2015 20: 52 New
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      argued that the RPG-30 could not overcome this defense.


      They wrote about Trench Coat

      The RPG-30 anti-tank rocket, Israel Defense noted, is a revolutionary innovation. Just before the rocket is launched, a decoy missile is launched which causes the tank's active defense system to act. Only then is the real rocket launched. Experts have estimated that the RPG-30 can penetrate through steel at a thickness of 65 cm.

      Israel Defense also reported that the Rafael weapons development authority has developed a similar system, the "Trench Coat", which takes the RPG-30's defense system a step further. The “Trench Coat”, the report noted, consists of a 360-degree radar that detects all threats and launches 17 pieces of metal, one of which should strike the incoming missile.
  3. aviator1913
    aviator1913 18 December 2015 10: 14 New
    +1
    Well that apply. For such expensive cars, there is no extra protection.

    I hope our KAZ "Afghanit" will still appear in the army, and not only in ceremonial vehicles.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 18 December 2015 11: 28 New
      0
      In the program "Military acceptance about the T 14, they did not even say a word about the KAZ, which intercepts ammunition, they said that the tank has 4 levels of protection, it is abuse, dynamic protection, aerosol grenades and an electronic warfare complex.
  4. Pimply
    Pimply 18 December 2015 10: 37 New
    0
    A couple of points. To begin with, KAZ tests began in different countries back in the 60's.
    According to Drozd, a huge amount of conflicting information. Outside the training ground, only one photograph of T-55AD surfaced - in Azerbaijan. Accordingly, the issue of seriality is still open.
    According to "meil ha-ruach" at the moment there is information about several dozen cases of combat use without prejudice to the crew and accompanying soldiers.
    There is also information about one abnormal operation of the system and the injured soldiers.
    I already wrote about the tandem - the development was carried out taking into account the tandem ammunition
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 21 December 2015 03: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Pimply
      A couple of points. To begin with, KAZ tests began in different countries back in the 60's.
      According to Drozd, a huge amount of conflicting information. Outside the training ground, only one photograph of T-55AD surfaced - in Azerbaijan. Accordingly, the issue of seriality is still open.
      According to "meil ha-ruach" at the moment there is information about several dozen cases of combat use without prejudice to the crew and accompanying soldiers.
      There is also information about one abnormal operation of the system and the injured soldiers.
      I already wrote about the tandem - the development was carried out taking into account the tandem ammunition


      Pimpy, let's take it in order, firstly, Drozd is the world's first operational KAZ system and produced in series, secondly T-55AD was even in Afghanistan (I don’t know how you searched for information, there are links and photos on the network) and thirdly all KAZ systems have the same problems, namely the impossible use in a full-fledged military battle. In essence, KAZ is more effective for local operations with low intensity and the absence of heavy, anti-tank weapons in the enemy. I had a chance to visit the comparative tests of the Arena and Drozd 2, active defense systems, in principle, do their job well, but in what conditions you are going to use it, it’s one thing when you are on the field and somewhere the grenade launcher has settled down, and if the enemy is hammering with artillery , it uses aviation, everything boils and smokes, rubbish of the earth and stones, constant flare, fire of small arms and heavy machine guns, then the efficiency of the KAZ is reduced to zero and it becomes just a ballast, if you use it with counter-partisan actions There is no sense in it, since any more or less prepared group of fighters copes with this better than a tank and as a result its task is only to support fire from safe distances, in the second Chechen there were two 80s with Arena on tests in battle conditions, half of the ST worked to nowhere, although the manufacturers claimed that it works selectively and did not respond to low-speed objects (birds, clods of land, etc.), a land mine exploded and a piece from the car door flew towards the tank, the ST worked and so on so its Application is especially effective in conditions of local conflicts (which, in principle, is observed on the borders of Israel) when the opposing side has only light anti-tank weapons, so the decision of the commission decided not to recommend mass production, and there are still a lot of shortcomings, but , for this money, DZ can be taxed to heels, so for large military operations, the thing is useless, maybe with the development of electronics, target selection, it will turn out something worthwhile. All systems are active for shields have common flaws. It is unclear how the system will operate with strong shaking. Many ATGMs (for example, FGM-148 Javelin) hit the roof of the tank, bypassing the protected area. A gap a few meters from the tank is likely to damage the equipment located on the roof, including the protective system. Also, the final performance of the system with the need to recharge does not allow to repel multiple attacks from one direction. This feature was taken into account when creating the RPG-30 with a leading projectile designed to ensure the operation of the tank protection system at a safe distance for the rocket-propelled grenade.
  5. sa-zz
    sa-zz 18 December 2015 10: 51 New
    +2
    May God grant that such effective systems stand on the Armata.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 18 December 2015 11: 24 New
      0
      Who knows, maybe the T 14 series will go without this system - they will save on production.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. sa-zz
        sa-zz 18 December 2015 12: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        Who knows, maybe the T 14 series will go without this system - they will save on production.

        Non-economical savings can be obtained after the first battle, it’s better to set up a system than to build a new tank. I hope they won’t do it.
        The question is system efficiency
      3. nemets
        nemets 18 December 2015 21: 02 New
        0
        stupid to save 30 - 50 thousand on the protection of equipment worth several million
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 18 December 2015 21: 12 New
          +2
          In our country, such stupidity is expressed in the absence of such systems not only on tanks, but also on infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers - and the lack of not only KAZ, but also dynamic protection. We believe that KAZ armored vehicles are not needed, in view of the enemy’s use of artillery and aviation - one devil will destroy the equipment even with the KAZ, even without it, and if there is no difference why pay more.
    2. sssla
      sssla 18 December 2015 13: 22 New
      0
      Quote: sa-zz
      so that such effective systems stand on the Armata.

      These are not necessary!
      Will be better
  6. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 18 December 2015 11: 57 New
    +4
    By the way, Oleg Granovsky put out a translation of the article on the topic of Israeli KAZ.

    : //www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/t-594600- מיגון_אקטיבי_לרקם_סרטן_ועקרבוט_הסבא_רבא_של
    _המעיל_רוח

    David Laskov came up with the idea of ​​such a system back in the late 60s, but the technology of that time did not allow it to be implemented. After the IRR and the losses of the BTT AOI in this war, Laskov returned to this idea. In 1975, the GEFEN sector (Mador) was created as part of IFTAH. The sector was not full-time (only in April 1979, the General Planning Department approved the staff of this project, as part of the IFTAH development unit, Anaf a-Pituach). At the head of the sector was Captain Oded Hafni.
    12.01.77 Laskov submitted to the General Staff a report on the work under the project. The report summed up all the work of 1975-1976.
    1) Protection of tanks and armored personnel carriers from missiles and shells. The main theme of the project. A working prototype will be ready soon.
    2) Protection of buildings from bombs and missiles, in cooperation with the Air Force (implied the protection of aircraft hangars - DATAKs and early warning radars). Close to the creation of the necessary technologies, the first experiments have already been carried out, in the coming months - new tests.
    3) Protection of aircraft from missiles "in-in" and "z-in", also in cooperation with the Air Force. Primary experiments were carried out.
    4) Protection of ships and ships. No promotion. As you can see, the Navy decided to work in this direction on their own or buy protection systems in the United States.
    All work is carried out in collaboration with MAAL (Maabada Electronit), led by Dr. Israel Ben-Artsi (Serge Landsman, also known as Mr. Radar). This company developed Doppler radars for all operations within the framework of the "Gefen", according to the link above, that later the company was bought by IAI / ELTA. Civilian companies were involved in the project (except for MAAL - IMI, Rafael, IAI) and various command inside the IDF and Moscow Region, for example, the Merkava tank directorate. In January 1979, as part of the R&D of the Ministry of Defense (MOS), the "Headquarters of Héfen" ("Mate Héfen") was created.
    During the tests of 1976-1977. managed to intercept RPG-7 grenades and the Israeli 82-mm RPG, but not the Malyutka ATGM. In other tests, miniature cumulative charges (apparently talking about a “cumulative impact core”, KUYA) were able to destroy ATGM “Baby” and 105-mm shells of various types (cumulative, armored high-explosive and sub-caliber), but the talk is about destruction, not full-fledged interception. The MAAL developed Doppler radar system was gradually improved. At the final tests in that period, the system successfully intercepted an RPG-7 grenade.
    At the end of August 1978, 4 systems were being created within the framework of the Gefen project:
    1) "Sartan" - protection of the static positions of tanks, for example ramps;
    2) "Acrav" - a system with a missile and a radar for intercepting shells;
    3) "Sandalim" - the creation of a compact mobile system for protecting tanks;
    At that time, it was possible to successfully intercept in the air the English M52 projectile with a velocity of 1000 m / s.
    In 1978, the developments were presented to the NGS and the head of the AGAM (Ikutiel Adam). To Adam’s question “when can a working system be created” Laskov answered - “In a year”.
  7. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 18 December 2015 11: 58 New
    +4
    In September 1978, a meeting was held to establish specific tasks for practical work on the creation of ground and air systems, the division of responsibilities between MOP, IFTAH, Air Force, IAI and other organizations. In the future, there were many more meetings, in parallel with work and testing.
    In December 1978, the headquarters of the chief officer of the brt troops replicated the terms of reference for the Sartan system. At the same time, the Acrav system was being tested. However, later brt troops rejected the Sartan and work focused on the Sandalim system - a complete analogue of the Windbreaker, which entered service at the beginning of 2010. Israel Tal was against this system, considering that it was enough to improve the passive defense and DZ tanks, no less Laskov insisted on the continuation of work.
    3 subsystems were created with the money of MOS and in collaboration with MAAL and IAI: radar (MAAL), interceptor (IFTAH) and turret ("pedal", according to other sources, this part was created by IMI) for quickly and accurately deploying the interceptor to a point targeting (IAI). In 1981, the moment came to integrate all this into one system. It required a budget of tens of millions shekels and the work of dozens of engineers. At this point, the MNP transferred work from IFTAH to civilian firms: IMI and Rafael.
    According to Nadav Paz (since 1981 he had been Rosh Anaf Pituah as part of IFTAH), the MPS saw in the IFTAH a low-tech division - iron, explosives, rocket engines. But not the one who was able to create a complex system, including radar and computers. Financing from the MOSF was mainly from the missile department (Anaf Raketot ve-Tilim), but even they did not fully believe in this project. In addition, Israel Tal inserted sticks into the wheels. The third factor was that Laskov's ideas were too ahead of time and the technologies of that time lagged behind the level required for the system.
    “Rafael” received from IFTAH all of their developments in terms of CLE (at the same time, they declined to give their own developments in this area). After that, IFTAH actively collaborated with IMI, laying the foundation for what would later become the Iron Fist KAZ. Nadav Paz was discharged in 1990, and after 3 years he began working for IMI.
    In July 1984, the Gefen sector at IFTAH was officially closed at the direction of the General Staff Planning Office.
    1. corporal
      corporal 18 December 2015 13: 01 New
      +2
      1975-2010 Oh how. I thought that only we like to delay deadlines.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 18 December 2015 13: 03 New
        +3
        Quote: Corporal
        1975-2010 Oh how. I thought that only we like to delay deadlines.

        Break in the project.
        1. corporal
          corporal 18 December 2015 19: 37 New
          0
          Quote: Pimply
          Break in the project.

          No comment indicated. I thought this is an ongoing process .....
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 18 December 2015 20: 41 New
            +3
            Quote: Corporal
            Quote: Pimply
            Break in the project.

            No comment indicated. I thought this is an ongoing process .....

            Have you finished reading? It says that the project was closed in 1984, apparently the result with the technologies of that time did not give the desired result.
      2. sssla
        sssla 18 December 2015 13: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Corporal
        I thought that only we like to delay deadlines.

        But don’t think like that about your own !!
  8. MACCABI-TLV
    MACCABI-TLV 18 December 2015 17: 09 New
    +2
    pictured is a training (blue) complex.
  9. avdkrd
    avdkrd 18 December 2015 18: 02 New
    +1
    I’m wondering about our KAZ. Afghanite is more like Drozd than Arena, at least ideologically, I don’t see the difference. Logically, the Arena gives a greater radius of protection, in view of the location almost around the tower, with Afganit and Drozd about 30 degrees from the axis. Why did you choose Afghanistan? Whoever owns the question? I mean exactly the shock part of the complex - with Afganit, all systems are combined into a single complex (smoke grenade launchers, launchers with an impact core and electromagnetic weapons), but the choice and location of the mortars raise questions.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 23 December 2015 12: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: avdkrd
      Logically, the Arena gives a greater protection radius, in view of the location almost around the tower, for Afghanistan and Drozd, about 30 degrees from the axis ......

      From the descriptions of the work of "Afganit", I understood that it is all-aspect (covers the upper hemisphere, as well). Something like a kick is fired from the guide tube, after which an impact core is formed, flying sideways from the direction set by the guide tube. It is this core that knocks down the enemy's incoming ammunition.
      They promise to shoot down even sub-caliber shells.
  10. leon1204id
    leon1204id 18 December 2015 20: 50 New
    0
    One reassuring thing is the idea and the first examples of active defense from the USSR (Russia), one must think that the designers did not stop there.
    There is always not enough money to translate into a series. Thought is ahead and new ideas are already ripening during the creation of weapons. winked fellow bully
  11. TOR2
    TOR2 18 December 2015 23: 03 New
    +2
    All active defense complexes existing at the given moment have the same ideology. This is a radar threat detection and at some distance

    It may turn out as in the well-known comedy: "the one who interferes with us will help us." Have a shot for the RPG to endow "brains". As soon as the rocket detects the radiation of the radar, it will begin to maneuver, which will complicate the work of the KAZ. Well, the radio beacon will help to turn on the target, the role of which will be played by the radar.
    1. Linkin
      Linkin 19 December 2015 03: 05 New
      +3
      it will no longer be a portable complex if all this is integrated there, and the price flies into space.
      1. TOR2
        TOR2 19 December 2015 14: 17 New
        +2
        The entire unit with built-in maneuvering algorithms and a millimeter-wave receiver will be the size of a matchbox + battery and rudder control unit. In a shot for RPG-7, stuffing it all is real. The cost of course will increase by 30%, but the demand will not be small considering the massiveness of the seven.
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 19 December 2015 17: 30 New
          +4
          TOR2 RU Today, 14:17 ↑ New

          The entire unit with built-in maneuvering algorithms and a millimeter-wave receiver will be the size of a matchbox + battery and rudder control unit. In a shot for RPG-7, stuffing it all is real. The cost of course will increase by 30%, but the demand will not be small considering the massiveness of the seven.


          This is an option for ATGMs, but not RPGs. and for ATGMs it’s not cheap, starting with R&D and ending with a series ... hi
          1. TOR2
            TOR2 19 December 2015 19: 04 New
            +1
            For an ATGM it will not be so interesting. But to shove all this into an RPG-7 grenade is already a skill. Moreover, the latest modifications of the shots were provided by the NPO "Basalt" with artificial intelligence. The grenade itself determines how much to delay the explosion time, depending on the hardness and thickness of the barrier.
            1. Ykrofashist
              Ykrofashist 24 December 2015 19: 32 New
              0
              And the wheels request that's it. Yes, and there will be a receiver and other details (which cost only 30% of the cost of the seven (and not some TOW for $ 60 thousand) I have big doubts).
              The problem is not to screw up anyway, but to bring down the cheap and cool RPG that people wear. But schA prove that this is possible.
              Waiting for
              laughing laughing laughing
        2. Linkin
          Linkin 20 December 2015 01: 39 New
          0
          Quote: TOR2
          The entire unit with built-in maneuvering algorithms and a millimeter-wave receiver will be the size of a matchbox + battery and rudder control unit. In a shot for RPG-7, stuffing it all is real. The cost of course will increase by 30%, but the demand will not be small considering the massiveness of the seven.

          you describe a short-range air force missile, it will be of the appropriate size, it will fit on a jeep, the soldier will not pick it up anymore.
    2. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 19 December 2015 21: 05 New
      +1
      TOR2
      As soon as the missile detects radar irradiation, it will begin maneuvering, which will complicate the work of KAZ


      At a distance of 10 meters from the target it will be impossible to do maneuvers with a shot.
      1. TOR2
        TOR2 19 December 2015 23: 14 New
        +2
        Everything will depend on the speed of the "brains" and the throttle response of the steering wheels. For example a "cobra throw" from 10m. very much even sincerely.
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 23 December 2015 12: 07 New
      0
      Quote: TOR2
      Have a shot for the RPG to endow "brains". As soon as the rocket detects the radiation of the radar, it will begin to maneuver, ...

      We tested (possibly already in service) grenade launchers that shoot at the target with an impact nucleus. And this thing is unlikely to intercept.
      I won’t say more (in the article from which there was no details).