1 posted on
04/11/2006 5:33:15 PM PDT by
jmc1969
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: jmc1969
2 posted on
04/11/2006 5:39:52 PM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
To: jmc1969
Is this going to be available soon? Sounds great!
4 posted on
04/11/2006 5:42:45 PM PDT by
eddie2
(we're being tested)
To: jmc1969
9 posted on
04/11/2006 5:59:21 PM PDT by
Redcloak
(WARNING: This post may irritate John McCain.)
To: jmc1969
The system, dubbed "Trophy", uses radar to track incoming threats and then destroys them when they're in range by attacking the warheads with an "invisible force", according to Fox. Quite how it does this is, unsurprisingly, classified, but Defense Update understands Trophy is "designed to form a 'beam' of fragments, which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 10 metres to 30 meters from the protected platform".
A few years ago, the U.K. military publically tested such a "force field".
The U.K. military publically stated the field was an electromagnetic field. It was reported on Free Republic when it happened.
The U.K. test had ten RPG rockets fired at a tank with the em field turned. The tank suffered only minor damage.
To: jmc1969
The system, dubbed "Trophy", uses radar to track incoming threats and then destroys them when they're in range by attacking the warheads with an "invisible force", according to Fox. Quite how it does this is, unsurprisingly, classified, but Defense Update understands Trophy is "designed to form a 'beam' of fragments, which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 10 metres to 30 meters from the protected platform".
A few years ago, the U.K. military publically tested such a "force field".
The U.K. military publically stated the field was an electromagnetic field. It was reported on Free Republic when it happened.
The U.K. test had ten RPG rockets fired at a tank with the em field turned on. The tank suffered only minor damage.
To: jmc1969
It's not exactly a
state secret. This is fine on the battlefield, but can you imagine the uproar the first time this system is activated while a US convoy is driving past an Iraqi schoolyard?
12 posted on
04/11/2006 6:01:48 PM PDT by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: jmc1969
Gives "May the force be with you" REAL meaning.
14 posted on
04/11/2006 6:02:42 PM PDT by
righttackle44
(The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
To: jmc1969
Loose lips...not likely, it's old news...the test was from February...
"A few weeks back, Trophy, an Israeli active protection set-up, went through its first tests on an American Stryker vehicle. It's already being used to protect Israeli tanks against rocket-propelled grenades.
[In a] Feb. 28 test... two inert RPGs were fired simultaneously; one would hit the Stryker while the other was intentionally aimed for a near miss
Trophy was able to track the trajectory, discriminate among the two parallel targets, and determine which one would actually hit the Stryker before selectively unleashing its lethal countermeasures. The actual method used to destroy the targets is classified."
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002230.html
To: jmc1969; All
To: jmc1969
To: jmc1969; mmercier; DoughtyOne; Yo-Yo; eddie2; All
The article has already given away too much. The Trophy device is a better version of the Russian Shtora/Arena protection system. In particular the Arena Active Protection System uses radar to detect incoming projectiles (eg RPGs, anti-tank missiles like MILAN, TOW, HOT, Hellfire, AT4 and LAW-80 according to its specs) and then launches a projectile from locations around the tank which detonates and destroys the incoming target with a bunch of fragments. If you look at the Trophy system you will notice that in the videos there is a shower of fragments that hit the incoming round.
What I wonder though is whether the Israeli system has taken care of the biggest problem in the Russian system .....the fact that if the presence of any friendly soldiers around the tank when the system engages an incoming round would result in friendly casualties. If that thing goes off, and there are friendly soldiers around the tank, then the results (for the foot soldiers) is not exactly optimal (when it comes to their health). I wonder if that was taken care of.
Now, the British had come up with a system that had an electric current flowing through the apc. That is a new approach to the system (I believe it disrupts the white-hot molten copper jet) and is very different from the Israeli version above (or the Russian analogue).
25 posted on
04/11/2006 6:21:08 PM PDT by
spetznaz
(Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
To: jmc1969; All
Yeah! Great post. Thanks to all contributors.
27 posted on
04/11/2006 6:24:50 PM PDT by
PGalt
To: jmc1969
I have an idea how this system might work based on the article and advances in radar, microprocessor power/speed, & solid state electronics.
The article already mentions that the inbound RPG's are tracked by radar, and the countermeasure is actually a 'physical beam of fragments /paraphrased>
Here is my theory, the inbound RPG round being tracked by radar is indentified by the system as a hostile projectile, the system then launches opposing interceptor rounds that have built into them solid state electronics that allows the fire control system to communicate with the interceptor rounds.
At the optimum time (determined by the fire control system) the interceptor rounds are sent a detonation signal to interceptor round for the beam of fragments
Optimally this system would send out 2 or 3 rounds on a converging path from separate launchers to give a more effective cone of fragments. This cone of fragments would of course converge at the most effective range (probability of kill) to the hostile projectile but still have a wide range of varying effectiveness.
And now that we are at, it might as well track the RPG round to its source, and auto-fire 30 or so 5.56mm rounds back to the insurgent as a 'hello! dont do that again'
It would all happen in about ½ of one second.
Wolf
28 posted on
04/11/2006 6:27:17 PM PDT by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: jmc1969
As I recall, the principle--using a 'beam' of metal fragments--was considered during the Cold War for anti-missile defense, albeit on a much larger scale, obviously. Glad some of that very expensive research paid off, although disconcerting to note that our people didn't figure out its smaller-scale field application first. Necessity drives, I suppose.
To: jmc1969; KevinDavis
Shields at maximum, Mr. Sulu! Not completely sci-fi, but worthy of a *ping*
34 posted on
04/11/2006 6:38:31 PM PDT by
neodad
(USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
To: jmc1969
The Russians were also shopping a similar system around a several years ago.
35 posted on
04/11/2006 6:45:33 PM PDT by
jordan8
To: jmc1969
wonder how big the caps are in it...
38 posted on
04/11/2006 6:51:53 PM PDT by
Chode
(1967 UN Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT. American Hedonist ©®)
To: jmc1969
I got out of the Army in 1980. I was assigned to the Defense System Management College at Ft. Belvoir, Va.
Everything I've seen used over in Iraq, with the exception of the stealth fighters and bombers, we had in 1980.
This is the first new weapon I've seen since I got out. I had heard rumors of a weapon or two that could do what this one does by a couple of means. If this weapon is using one of the ways I heard about, you ain't going to get a countermeasure on an RPG since the amount of armor needed would render the RPG unable to fly.
40 posted on
04/11/2006 6:55:05 PM PDT by
GooberHead
(Those who don't demand their rights don't have any. - US Supreme Court)
To: jmc1969
Metal Storm holds promise, but is still under development.
To: jmc1969
Too bad it can't be deployed around Washington, D.C. against leftists.
44 posted on
04/11/2006 7:10:07 PM PDT by
WorkingClassFilth
(Di'ver'si'ty (adj.): A compound word derived from the root words: division; perversion; adversity.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson