PDA

View Full Version : Israeli Trophy APC/Tank Defence System



Lordinajamjar
4th December 2006, 02:14
Here's an interesting article from Haaretz on Israel's latest avanced, active protection system capable of countering the latest anti-tank missiles called TROPHY

See TROPHY in action (my comment "definitely not a force field"): http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf

.. See Wikipedia link for more technical info and links (including Russian ARENA system):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TROPHY_Active_Protection_System


Last update - 03:53 04/12/2006
IDF tanks to be fitted with advanced anti-missile systems
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

The Israel Defense Forces will begin equipping its tanks with an advanced, active protection system capable of countering the latest anti-tank missiles.

The locally developed system, known by its export name as Trophy, will be installed on Merkava Mark IV tanks, partly in response to the experience of the recent war in Lebanon.

The new defense system creates a "canopy" that surrounds the tank, identifies the threat of the incoming anti-tank missile, and destroys that missile's warhead before it strikes.

The Rafael Armament Development Authority offered Trophy to the IDF several years ago, but the suggestion was turned down then due to other budgetary priorities.

The cost of installing the system on a single tank is estimated to be $200,000-$300,000, if a significant quantity is acquired.

While initially the system will be installed on tanks, the possibility is being considered of also using the Trophy system on armored personnel carriers (APCs).

The United States is also considering the use of the Trophy on its Stryker fighting vehicles.

During the recent war in Lebanon, Hezbollah's anti-tank missiles damaged dozens of IDF tanks; others were totally destroyed. The more sophisticated anti-tank missiles, such as the French Matis and the Russian Kornet, are capable of penetrating the armor of the Merkava Mark IV, which is considered to be the most heavily armored tank in the world.

There are some final touches left to be made on Trophy before it becomes fully operational.

Major General Benny Gantz, commander of the ground forces, confirmed the acquisition, but the matter still requires the approval of the General Staff.


US ARMY UPDATE:

September 2006: The US Army opted to pursue a different system. Earlier in 2006, Raytheon received a development contract to demonstrate and develop the Quick Kill APS, to be integrated into the future FCS systems. The Army faced mounting criticism about not considering the Trophy system for the protection of its armored vehicles deployed in Iraq. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A, Sorenson, the Army’s deputy for acquisition and systems management explained the decision (AFPS) saying the Israeli system is not a “produceable item.” The Israelis have been working on the Trophy system for 10 or 11 years, Sorenson said. “If this thing was ready to go, my question would be, why wasn’t it on the particular tanks that went into Lebanon?” he said. No Israeli Merkava tanks carried the Trophy system, he said.

Other problems include the fact that the system right now has no reloading capability. Once it fires, that side of the vehicle is vulnerable. Which brings up another shortcoming: the Trophy can only be mounted to protect one axis. This means officials would have to mount multiple missile systems on every vehicle. The Quick Kill missile has 360-degree capability and a reload capability.

Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.”

Barry
4th December 2006, 17:44
Calling it a forcefield is more than a bit misleading. It's simply a radar and projectile system with a fast enough response time to intercept incoming RPG rounds. Similar overall concept to mounting a Phalanx CIWS onto a flatbed trailer to intercept mortar rounds.

Lordinajamjar
4th December 2006, 22:25
I couldn't agree more.

Also the jury is out on its combat effectiveness until its seen action somewhere.

Barry
4th December 2006, 22:53
Using it in addition to existing armour, even if it only works 50% of the time, would be an excellent addition to the overall protection of a vehicle. However, if you start removing armour and replacing it with these systems, then you're asking for trouble.....