Mysterious 'Forcefield' Tested on US Tanks

An anonymous reader writes "Not too long ago General Dynamics announced a successful test of their new Trophy Active Defense System (ADS). The Trophy ADS generates something similar to a force field around one half of a vehicle as a direct reaction to incoming fire. From the article: 'The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including flat-panel radars, placed at strategic locations around the protected vehicle, to provide full hemispherical coverage. Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance.'"

Force Field?

[rk]

Calling this a "force field" is a bit of a misnomer. It looks more like a point defense system for tanks and other armored vehicles. Very cool, but not as cool as a real force field.

As much as we might like to blame the summary, but the term occurs in the FA, too.

Reactive Armor

[mr100percent]

Hmm, sounds similar to reactive armor [everything2.com]. I wonder if it has the same weaknesses?

Re:Reactive Armor

[Zediker]

Its not realy similar at all to reactive armor... Its more like a miniature Phalanx system that uses a shotgun instead of a gattling gun. That still doesnt take away its cool factor though.

Not really

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Reactive armour is basically another layer of material on the outside of the vehicle. If I read TFA right, the Trophy system sends a stream of projectiles to intercept incoming threats at ranges of 10-30 metres. It's more attacking the incoming weapon ahead of time than waiting for the weapon to hit but trying to disrupt its effects when it does (though the basic principle - try to get it to explode early - is the same).

Direct Video Link

[Lord_Dweomer]

Direct Video Link [notlong.com] of the thing in action.

As you can see from the video, calling it a "forcefield" is nothing but an attempt to get free publicity. This thing is in reality a point defense system that uses radar to sense incoming projectiles and shoots out the equivelant of chaff to destroy the projectiles before it hits the vehicle.

Completely inappropriate use of the forcefield

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Sorry, force fields are fields made of energy that can repel matter. Anyone watching one episode of Star Trek understands this.

Call it protective field or simply coutermeasure device, but don't bastardize the concept of force field to sensationalize this story.

You get all us Trekkie geeks excited over nothing.

Re:Force Field?

[peragrin]

I think you mis read the grandparent. This tech isn't a force field, it's a Point defense system.

Basically shooting an RPG with a bullet before it get's to the target. Even with a 9mm round the kinetic energy of the two objects hitting each other would either cause the rpg to explode prematurely or be pushed off course. I think this system is using an explosive type round but the article is unclear on how. being automated with radar, and advanced computers, and really fast tracking means you can shoot one target and move on to the next faster than a person though it could still be overwhelmed.

It's still cool though. Oh and that plane laden laser system in another sashdot article today is also a point defense system. though at longer range

Uncanny

[JCAB]

This is _exactly_ like the shield systems used by warships in the game Independence War [wikipedia.org].

Re:Direct Video Link

[racermd]

Chaff does little to prevent ballistic projectiles from actually reaching their target. The purpose of chaff is, instead, to confuse radar receivers by overwhelming them with an abundance of reflected radar energy. It's like shining a bright light at a camera so it can't see anything through the glare.

This system, it appears, is a point-defense system. It's not unlike the Navy's CIWS (pronounced Sea-Wiz) defense guns. That system fires thousands of rounds per minute at an incoming ballistic target and essentially wears the casing down until it self-destructs at a safe distance from the ship. Employing such a system on a ground-based vehicle seems to be the next logical step.

However, it's definitely not a forcefield.

Armour Technologies

[DG]

This system is a point defence system, similar in concept to the system deployed on the French LeClerc tank, and sort of a scaled-down, simplified version of a naval point defence like Phalanx.

But you aren't all that mistaken by comparing it to reactive armour, as the functionality of reactive armour is getting more complex all the time. A new-generation Russian reactive armour uses a sequence of outward-facing, linear shaped charges inside the reactive armour "brick", all tied together with a common detonator. If one of the charges is initiated by a long-rod penetrator or via a HEAT jet, all the charges initiate simultaniously, producing a series of "blades" that shoot out of the brick, and either section the rod/jet (as it very rarely hits dead-on) or cause it to yaw to the point where penetration is greatly reduced.

Or going in the other direction, there are new "bulging" armours that use metal plates separated by blocks of rubber. When a penetrator hits, the plates bulge, forcing the penetrator to continuously cut through the plates as they are forced into the side of the rod/jet. If you get lucky, the side force on the rod may become so great as to yaw or snap the penetrator.

Reactive armour doesn't really have any weaknesses. It's lighter per mm/RHA equivelent protection than a steel block, it can be serviced/replaced in the field, and if new technologies are invented, you just replace the bricks with the new stuff. Yes, if you take two hits to the same brick space, the protection is weaker on the second hit... but that's true of any armour.

Early reactive armour tended to be somewhat less than friendly to local infantry, but anything made in the last decade or so has largely solved that problem. If you are close enough to a hit to be damaged by the effects of a reactive armour initiation, the splash of the hit itself was likely to be injurous anyway.

DG

Re:ScuttleMonkey gets an F for Reading Comprehensi

[erkokite]

Odd that you should mention Fox News. It was originally fox news that called it a force field. See here [foxnews.com]

Re:Force Field?

[TTK Ciar]

Just a little nit to pick: Drozd has been deployed on T-55 and T-80 family tanks, but T-90 uses the newer ARENA system. Also, using ARENA precludes mounting Explosive Reactive Armor modules, the latest versions of which are useful against APFSDS threats (which Drozd and ARENA are not), so it's not exactly a silver bullet.

ObPlug: more on various kinds of active defense systems can be found on this page [ciar.org].

-- TTK

Re:Force Field?

[crawling_chaos]

I don't think this is the same as the reactive armor sported by other countries. That armor is basically used to defeat shaped charge HEAP rounds by using an explosion triggered by the detonation of the round to distrupt the shape of explostion and has little value against purely kinetic rounds like the APFSDS used by most NATO tanks these days. This could actually have some effect against those rounds by diverting them well prior to their contact with the vehicle. In all it is a far more active system, more akin to the point defense systems used on Naval vessels than what is currently used on tanks.

And if this is does work, I'm pretty sure that much of the tech (replacing radar with sonar, of course) could be repurposed to disrupt supercavitating torpedoes as well, come to think of it. Maybe that's why the Navy hasn't seemed very concerned about Iranian developments along that front?

Re:reinventing the wheel... and making it a square

[E-Lad]

You're forgetting that reactive armor is a one-shot deal. Once the armor panel is used to counter the impact of a projectile, it's done. The vehicle is then vulnerable in that area until the spent reactive armor is replaced.

This new system makes it so that there is no impact. It's inherently reusable, so long the magazine of whatever launches the counter-projectile is large enough in capacity and/or can be safely reloaded by the vehicle crew. The only achilies heel that I can see is the damage or destruction of a radar panel... but I imagine those photos of test vehicle in TFA aren't of what the config will look like in production.

This is money well-spent, not reinventing the wheel.

Re:Force Field?

[wgnorm]

Just a guess, but I wonder if you could defeat it by shooting 3 RPGs from 3 different directions at it? Can it act that quickly against all of them?

From TFA:

The system can simultaneously engage several threats, arriving from different directions, is effective on stationary or moving platforms, and is effective against short and long range threats (such as RPGs and ATGM).

So yes, it can handle that... even while moving.

Re:Force Field?

[AKAImBatman]

I guess I would Improvise an Explosive Device of some sort.

IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank. You'd need an actual anti-tank mine to penetrate.

IEDs have mostly been deployed against Humvees, Supply Trucks, and Police vehicles. As we've been shipping more armored Humvees over, the insurgents have been forced to get more creative with the IEDs to target more vulnerable areas of the vehicle.

Re:Force Field?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

IEDs have little to no effect on an armored tank

Not really true. True for the REALLY unsophisticated IEDs, but they have IEDs that nothing we have can defeat. DoD is urgently working on this now, but the amount of high explosives (and shape charges) they are using in close proximity even an M1A1 cannot withstand.

example [abovetopsecret.com]
example [globalsecurity.org]
example [fromtheinside.us]

Re:Good news

[ElGanzoLoco]

No way. This tech is intended to destroy incoming long-range projectiles such as missiles and, maybe, shells.

In theory, it works against RPG fire, assuming the radar catches it fast enough, which is subject to discussion, since RPG 7 is typically fired from 100-200 m away. Regarding IEDs, it would probably be totally inefficient. IEDs cause damage pretty much like landmines do: blast, heat/fire (where their device is not effective), and shrapnel (too dispersed to be intercepted). Plus, the IEDs fire off at very close range, while this device is supposed to trigger when the incoming projectile is 20/30 metres away.

Plus, they're only planning to implement it on expensive, big-ass armoured vehicles such as M1s and Strykers: in other words, the ones that aren't really put at threat by RPG7's and IEDs in the first place. I don't see the Army deploying this multi-million-dollar tech on their Hummers anytime soon...

This is "just" some new kind of anti-missile technology, only miniaturized and applied to tanks. Calling this a "protective force field" reeks of astroturf and, worse, political propaganda. This is high-tech for high-tech wars between high-tech armies, not protection gear.

Assuming this kind of high-tech weapons systems helps the conduct of non-conventionnal warfare, low-intensity warfare and ground occupation in anyway it misleading, counter-productive, and ultimately, dangerous (not to mention tax-dollar-wasting):

1. It makes political leaders and citizens think they can send troops to war without putting them in harm's way (assuming they care about the soldiers' lives at all), while ignoring all warnings from experts (both in and out the Army) that no amount of tech will ever make asymetric warfare completely safe.

2. It facilitates entry into war by ensuring complete, total, casualty-less, blitz-style victory against the military opponent (such as during the first weeks of the Iraq war). This both allows to "sell the war" (politically speaking) more easily, and it makes political leaders and military planners believe they don't even need a post-war scenario (since, by their standards, they'll have won the war and will be able to retire in the following weeks).

3. And during actual occupation, all these gadgets are of absolutely no use whatsoever to protect the troops against guerillas/militias/terrorist cells and/or an angry populace.

Sure, tech can help, even in non-conventionnal warfare. But it will never replace diplomacy, non-conventionnal military skills, solid ground intelligence, negociations with the adversary (don't get me wrong, negociating doesn't mean you can't stab them in the back the next minute), and not pissing off all of the locals at once. All things which the US Army is arguably not very good at, but this is another debate entirely.

Hammers Slammers

[cc_pirate]

It seems that is nothing more than the active defense system that David Drake envisioned more than 30 years ago in his Hammer's Slammers book series. Impressive if it works, but notice how they don't really mention what happens to any friendlies near the "system" when it fires... Like all point defense systems, keeping the thing from killing your own guys is a major concern.

Video of similar system

[Anonymous Coward]

The video shows something being thrown at the incoming RPG (seems an explosive).

The video requires the swf plug-in which does not work on Linux (macromedia, foxnews, anyone?):
http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_3 00.swf [foxnews.com]

Here's the original discussion from 2 days ago:
http://digg.com/technology/Direct_Link%3A_Video_of _Israeli_Made_Forcefield_ [digg.com]

Re:Force Field?

[bjohnson]

for that matter, neither is an RPG, at least none in the field today.

RPG's are only effective against more lightly armored vehicles, such as trucks, Humvees and some parts of an APC.

Re:Force Field?

[Penguinshit]

Here you go.. [cnn.com]

So.. of 13000 to 17000 insurgents they've identified, some 500 are foreigners.

Let's see.. 500/17000 = .029 or 3% and 500/13000 = .038 or 4%.

Kiss my fact-filled ass.

Wild Weasel

[JetScootr]

The urban dictionary is wrong. It calls Wild Weasels a "crazy" mission. It wasn't. It was dangerous, but so is everything else in warfare. I used to work on the F4D and F4G - The Phantom F4G was called the "Wild Weasel" in its day. af.mil/museum [af.mil]. It was a cool plane. In 1984, when the US bombed Libya, F111's were the Wild Weasels, and one didn't come back. I don't think it was the result of enemy action, tho, IIRC it had mechanical problems.