Jump to content


Photo

How Can Infantry Potentially Combat Aps Equipped Vehicles?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 12 January 2020 - 1358 PM

Several people have already touched on this, but having more complicated, expensive missiles/drones/whatever in order to get past an APS is a different proposition than just attacking the APS directly.  APS systems are vulnerable, expensive and if they are destroyed then all sorts of difficulties attacking the tank go away.

 

My analogy is to SEAD: SEAD works best by attacking missile sites and their radars, not by trying to defeat the SAM systems in some sort of 1 on 1 fight between one plane and one missile.  Conventional artillery fire, AHEAD type munitions, and even .50/14.5mm AMR and machine guns are all (relatively) cheap ways to attack an exposed APS.

 

For vehicle mounted ATGM systems, it's easy to envision a combined firing sequence that, for instance, fires a volley of AHEAD rounds and then automatically launches an ATGM at the same target; the whole sequence would only be half a second to a second longer than just launching a missile.  The AHEAD rounds will have a very good chance of knocking out the APS, just in time for a regular ATGM to hit the target.  If the AHEAD rounds mess up the tanks optics, that's just another survivability bonus for the ATGM vehicle.


  • 0

#42 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,185 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 0114 AM

A while back a Russian company fielded a LAW with a sub cal dummy rocket coaxial to it and that soon got canned when it was realised that an APS would be able to discriminate the sub cal rocket from the real one. 

WAT.
I presume you are talking about RPG-30. First - it wasn't "canned", but fully developed and supplied to GF. Second - there are none APS now that can "discriminate" false rocket and there won't be one soon because false rocket is not just slab of metal but proper imitator with RCS matching.
  • 0

#43 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 0251 AM

 

A while back a Russian company fielded a LAW with a sub cal dummy rocket coaxial to it and that soon got canned when it was realised that an APS would be able to discriminate the sub cal rocket from the real one. 

WAT.
I presume you are talking about RPG-30. First - it wasn't "canned", but fully developed and supplied to GF. Second - there are none APS now that can "discriminate" false rocket and there won't be one soon because false rocket is not just slab of metal but proper imitator with RCS matching.

 

Yes, and you also cannot hope to discriminate using the trajectory to estimate the areal density for obvious reasons, not least that  RPG projectiles are often still going to be powered when incoming, and you then have no tight band for 'expected' rate of deceleration. And moreover the dummy has very similar ballistics to the main round.  


  • 0

#44 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,093 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 1434 PM

We had quite a discussion about RPG-30 years ago - the conclusion was it was a pointless gimmick.

 

The decoy rocket is going to be smaller in cross section than a real one. An APS radar is going to detect that because it has to because it also has to discriminate all the other stuff flying about on the battlefield.

 

Apply some common sense to this. If it actually worked.

 

1. We would be seeing this system being purchased in numbers and standardised by many armed forces. AFAIK this is not the case.

2. Other LAW manufacturers would be clamouring to adopt this fabulously easy solution.

3. Major armies would not be spending hundreds of millions kitting their vehicle fleets out with APS.

 

Before someone pops up and says that the RPG-30 is some top secret wonder-weapon that the Russians wouldn't sell to anyone. If it was, they would not have revealed it. Also, this is something that is going to be (and must have been) dead easy to simulate, both in a virtual simulation and in real life. If APS manufacturers and armed forces have not done so I would be very, VERY surprised. Had they done so and their customers had gone ahead and purchased APS in large numbers, I'd be even more surprised.

 

Also, saying that no APS in the World can discriminate the dummy rocket from the real one. How did the Russians convince the APS manufacturers to let them test their LAW against their systems? If they have not done so, how can that claim be substantiated..


  • 0

#45 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,185 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 1622 PM

We had quite a discussion about RPG-30 years ago - the conclusion was it was a pointless gimmick.

It wasn't discussed, it was just claimed as is by Damian lol.
Why do you think that russian engineers are dumb or lazy? There is nothing too hard in RCS imitation, esp when it goes into increasing return, not decreasing it. Lenses on F-22/35 do that, MALD does that and so on. And further - there are no APS fielded with capability to discriminate targets that well. They don't have aperture, resolution or computing power for that. And they kinda don't need to: main point of APS is to intercept stuff in specified size range moving at above specified speeds. It doesn't need to distinguish between PG-7VR, 9M114 and TOW before interceptepting any of them.
As for further points - it is very easily explained by lack of anywhere wide proliferation of APS around the world. And for all things sane, stop thinking in 1970s cliche. Russian Federation is not SU. It doesn't put everything and anything into secrecy. It makes weapons for both itself and export, and for that it shows it. Otherwise you wouldn't see T-50, Su-35 with exactly known specification, T-14, K-17/25, BMD-4M, S-400, S-350, Verba MANPAD... Should I continue?
There ARE secreted things in Russia, as there are some everywhere. But they are secreted for a reason, and bloody double barreled RPG don't have any to be. Especially when it is proposed to export.
  • 0

#46 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,093 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 1012 AM

Millimetre wave radars can deduce shape of objects so allow their threat to be assessed - for processing power we are not talking thermionic valves anymore. There is no proof that this marketing gimmick proposed solution to APS, that strangely enough no one has copied, can work against APS as you originally claimed. Thanks for the clarification.

 

PS: Have you consulted the Russian designers that came up with the Armata and Kurganets on why they included an APS that could be defeated by a firework stuffed down a pipe? :)


  • 0

#47 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 1031 AM

One reason why we perhaps do not see a scramble for RPG-30 clones is that few nations think that RPG equipped infantry are suitable for use against armor in general  - i.e. they retain RPG for use against ACP and light vehicles and in their doctrine rely on other solutions for defeating armor - eg. air or ATGM or armor.


  • 0

#48 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 515 posts

Posted 15 January 2020 - 1518 PM

One reason why we perhaps do not see a scramble for RPG-30 clones is that few nations think that RPG equipped infantry are suitable for use against armor in general  - i.e. they retain RPG for use against ACP and light vehicles and in their doctrine rely on other solutions for defeating armor - eg. air or ATGM or armor.


One happy customer would be Hezbollah. But we don't see them buying those either.
Bazalt MAY have had access to Drozd and just maybe to Arena, so it could try to fool them. But since 2008 no update to the RPG-30 was made. No real mention of it in many years.

Rafael announced back in 2012 that the RPG-30's design is not suitable to defeat Trophy, and since then it was improved quite a lot.
  • 0

#49 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 0030 AM

 

One reason why we perhaps do not see a scramble for RPG-30 clones is that few nations think that RPG equipped infantry are suitable for use against armor in general  - i.e. they retain RPG for use against ACP and light vehicles and in their doctrine rely on other solutions for defeating armor - eg. air or ATGM or armor.


One happy customer would be Hezbollah. But we don't see them buying those either.
Bazalt MAY have had access to Drozd and just maybe to Arena, so it could try to fool them. But since 2008 no update to the RPG-30 was made. No real mention of it in many years.

Rafael announced back in 2012 that the RPG-30's design is not suitable to defeat Trophy, and since then it was improved quite a lot.

 

What is the supposed defeat mechanism ? The simplest is simply making two intercepts and most systems should be able to do this. But then the APS interceptors are depleted quicker.

Another possible counter to APS is to have some sort of semi automatic dummy launcher, i.e shooting lightweight but high RCS dummies to deplete the APS rounds.

 


Edited by KV7, 16 January 2020 - 0033 AM.

  • 0

#50 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,185 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 0133 AM

Millimetre wave radars can deduce shape of objects so allow their threat to be assessed - for processing power we are not talking thermionic valves anymore. There is no proof that this marketing gimmick proposed solution to APS, that strangely enough no one has copied, can work against APS as you originally claimed. Thanks for the clarification.
 
PS: Have you consulted the Russian designers that came up with the Armata and Kurganets on why they included an APS that could be defeated by a firework stuffed down a pipe? :)

Mkay, let's put that simple: if you want to BELIEVE that RGP-30 is useless, canned, cancelled and gimmick- your call, don't see any point in further discussion then. If you want to UNDERSTAND something based on not that fragmented info we have - it can always be discussed without all those shittalks and strawman pokes.
  • 0

#51 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 515 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 1312 PM


 

One reason why we perhaps do not see a scramble for RPG-30 clones is that few nations think that RPG equipped infantry are suitable for use against armor in general  - i.e. they retain RPG for use against ACP and light vehicles and in their doctrine rely on other solutions for defeating armor - eg. air or ATGM or armor.

One happy customer would be Hezbollah. But we don't see them buying those either.
Bazalt MAY have had access to Drozd and just maybe to Arena, so it could try to fool them. But since 2008 no update to the RPG-30 was made. No real mention of it in many years.

Rafael announced back in 2012 that the RPG-30's design is not suitable to defeat Trophy, and since then it was improved quite a lot.
 
What is the supposed defeat mechanism ? The simplest is simply making two intercepts and most systems should be able to do this. But then the APS interceptors are depleted quicker.

Another possible counter to APS is to have some sort of semi automatic dummy launcher, i.e shooting lightweight but high RCS dummies to deplete the APS rounds.

 

Specifically for Trophy, the defeat mechanism is MEFP. So 2 rockets flying on the same trajectory with only a slight offset, should be defeated with one interceptor. That is something confirmed by Rafael, and Rafael's reputation on marketing accuracy is quite high.

Such defeat mechanism can also be added to grenade based APS.

Second, it's not only the RCS that matters, but the exact shape, trajectory, speed, size, and possibly more. The RPG-30 is limited to 200m because the small rocket cannot ballistically match the larger rocket beyond that range.

Sure it can make itself appear bigger to the radar, but if its shape is all fucked up, it's not going to light up as a threat.
  • 0

#52 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,093 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0732 AM

To be fair, a 200 metre limit is not so bad, if the APS defeat thing works, which the jury is still out on.


  • 0

#53 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0743 AM

I thought the second projectile arrives at some significant delay - even just 5m behind should be enough to make a single intercept of both seem infeasible.


  • 0

#54 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,093 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0853 AM

Another approach is to launch a loitering obstacle.  At least one APS deploys a net like obstacle that "loiters" long enough to entrap multiple incoming projectiles.


  • 0

#55 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,986 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0956 AM

I thought the second projectile arrives at some significant delay - even just 5m behind should be enough to make a single intercept of both seem infeasible.

The Russians claimed that the minimum distance for separate intercepts is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.

 

 

"The RPG-30 was unveiled in 2008 by the State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt as a modern anti-tank grenade launcher, designed to address the threat of active protection systems on military vehicles. Active protection systems such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armour ammunitions by destroying them before they reach the vehicle. The RPG-30 is a response to the introduction of these systems. It has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russian state arms procurement program as of November 2008.
The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27. It is a man-portable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. However, unlike the RPG-27, there is a precursor round with smaller calibre in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target deceiving the APS into engaging it and opening the main round (following the precursor with a delay in the 100 ms range) a clear path to the target while the APS is stuck in the 0.2 – 0.4 second delay which it needs to start the next engagement. The PG-30 is the main round of the RPG-30. The round is a 105 mm tandem shaped charge and has a range of 200 meters and a stated penetration capability of more than 600 mm RHA"
quote source: Strategie & Technik, Autumn 2009, English Ed.

https://defense-and-...iral-grows.html

 

0.2 seconds against two 125 mm HEAT rounds would be much more than 150 metres.


  • 0

#56 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1037 AM

 

I thought the second projectile arrives at some significant delay - even just 5m behind should be enough to make a single intercept of both seem infeasible.

The Russians claimed that the minimum distance for separate intercepts is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.

 

 

quote source: Strategie & Technik, Autumn 2009, English Ed."The RPG-30 was unveiled in 2008 by the State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt as a modern anti-tank grenade launcher, designed to address the threat of active protection systems on military vehicles. Active protection systems such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armour ammunitions by destroying them before they reach the vehicle. The RPG-30 is a response to the introduction of these systems. It has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russian state arms procurement program as of November 2008.
The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27. It is a man-portable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. However, unlike the RPG-27, there is a precursor round with smaller calibre in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target deceiving the APS into engaging it and opening the main round (following the precursor with a delay in the 100 ms range) a clear path to the target while the APS is stuck in the 0.2 – 0.4 second delay which it needs to start the next engagement. The PG-30 is the main round of the RPG-30. The round is a 105 mm tandem shaped charge and has a range of 200 meters and a stated penetration capability of more than 600 mm RHA"

https://defense-and-...iral-grows.html

 

0.2 seconds against two 125 mm HEAT rounds would be much more than 150 metres.

 

Right so intercepting both with a single warhead seems totally impossible. It would perhaps be useful to be able to add variable delay and also even add some randomness to it, so that the typical flight profile is less uniform.


Edited by KV7, 17 January 2020 - 1213 PM.

  • 0

#57 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,986 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1210 PM

Maybe some fuzes might be triggered if they pass through a place where there was an explosion just 0.2 seconds earlier?

 

Standoff distance is important for HEAT, and I have been told that some ATGMs use proximity fuzes. That could be optical, RF, electrostatic...


  • 0

#58 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 515 posts

Posted 18 January 2020 - 1930 PM

Rafael does not claim that it can just intercept both with 2 interceptors. It claims 1 interceptor is sufficient to defeat both projectiles, and when they're only several meters apart it's very easy.
  • 0

#59 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,093 posts

Posted 18 January 2020 - 1941 PM

There's still the issue of whether the system can discriminate the decoy rocket from the real, based on size or configuration. If it can't then it would be easy for the decoy rocket and the real one to be more than a couple of metres apart and for the LAW to still hit. In actual fact, from an engineering perspective, it would be much harder to ensure that they were within two metres of each other.


  • 0

#60 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts

Posted 18 January 2020 - 2057 PM

In order to get only a 5 m separation, the delay needs to be ~ 40 ms. At the stated 200 ms delay the separation is 24 m.


  • 0