Active Protection Systems: a Potential Jackpot to Future Army Operations

ON I NNOVAT I CAL I TECHNOLOG Photo courtesy of Yiftach Kleinman, Business Development Manager, Rafael Manager, Kleinman, Business Development Yiftach courtesy of Photo Israeli Merkava Mk 4 Main Battle Tanks with Trophy in operation. The Israeli Defence Forces has now equipped a full Merkava Mk 4 brigade with Trophy. ACTIVE PROTECTION SYSTEMS: A POTENTIAL JACKPOT TO FUTURE ARMY OPERatIONS by Michael MacNeill Introduction to improve communications, counter-improvised explosive device technologies and techniques, and countless other hether one looks at conventional state efforts limit the potential casualties incurred through both actors such as North Korea and Iran, or enemy contact and fratricide. Considerable effort has also nationalist and ethno-religious asymmet- been dedicated to improving the traditional armour protection ric threats, such as those found in the of our individual personal protective equipment with newer Sudan, Afghanistan and Somalia, many protective vests, and there has been an evolution of add-on Wwithin the wider academic community have identified a mea- armour packages for our older and up-and-coming combat sureable growth of instability within the international system vehicles. It is the position of this article that while traditional since the end of the Cold War in the early-1990s. This growth avenues of increasing armour protection to our fleets of com- in geopolitical instability, along with economic and domestic bat vehicles have merit, such considerations should also political factors, has resulted in a recent transition of embrace non-traditional protective measures. Any future Canadian foreign policy. Canada has witnessed a measurable Canadian expeditionary force should also include the intro- shift from largely lower-level conflict and United Nations- duction of Active Protection Systems. based peacekeeping operations, such as the Suez, Cyprus, Iraq, and even Bosnia, to now include more volatile opera- Captain Michael L. MacNeill, CD, holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in tions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya. But while the Political Science, a Bachelor of Education Degree, and a Master of Arts Canadian government has decided to slowly wind down oper- Degree in International Relations. He is a recent graduate of the year- ations in Afghanistan by temporarily shifting our remaining long advanced training Instructor-in-Gunnery course at the United forces from a ‘combat role’ to a presumably less dangerous Kingdom’s Royal School of Artillery. His two previous publications include “Ottawa, Human Security & NATO” through the Canadian training facilitation role with the Afghan National Army Institute of Strategic Studies’ Strategic Datalink series, and his Masters around the Kabul region, our activity in this turbulent region thesis entitled “Styles of Governance and Their Vulnerability to Trans- has nevertheless hammered home the need for greater protec- National Terrorism” at the University of Windsor. Captain MacNeill tion for our armoured combat vehicle fleet in future expedi- currently serves as an instructor at the Royal Regiment of Canadian tionary operations. Extensive resources have been provided Artillery School at the Combat Training Centre Gagetown. Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring 2013 • Canadian Military Journal 17 evident, but usually at the expense of an individual’s mobility and flexibility.1 This correlation of armour weight with limited mobility with regard to individual speed, endurance, and flexibility of movement represents what will henceforth be referred to as the armour conundrum. This same armour conundrum also finds expression with the advent of mounted armour. Both the heavily armoured mounted knights of the late- Middle Ages and the King Tiger tank of the German Wehrmacht during the Second World War provided considerable protec- DND photo AR2007-A072-0012 by Sergeant Craig Fiander Craig Sergeant by AR2007-A072-0012 DND photo tion against much of an enemy’s arsenal, but both were very slow LAV IIIs and a Leopard tank forming up for Operation Rear Entrance in the Panjwa’i district of Afghanistan, 8 June 2007. and cumbersome on the battlefield. Along with the weight fac- The Armour Conundrum tor, the armour conundrum also includes the constant ebb and flow of the technology gap. Whereas a formation of heavy ince the introduction of standardized armoured soldiers mounted knights could readily break a wall of well-disciplined S with Greek Phalanxes and Roman Legions, Western soci- infantry, the large-scale introduction of organized archers, ety has been fascinated with providing the greatest potential such as occurred at the Battle of Agincourt, eventually led to protection of its military forces to help facilitate victory. the end of the knight’s supremacy on the medieval battlefield. Historically, this focus upon introducing body armour was a Simply put, for each advancement in armour protection, there given regime’s effort to reinforce the myth of survivability in is an eventual leap in anti-armour weaponry, and vice-versa. order to boost their troops’ confidence and courage, even Throughout much of our history, this has revolved around add- when subjected to the carnage of close combat. Even today, ing additional heavier layers of iron or steal, which directly the use of the term ‘body armour’ serves somewhat as a mis- influenced armour conundrum’s weight factor yet again. nomer. While such systems may lend some increased potential protection for a soldier, it is by no means a guarantee. Regardless of the ultimate value of armour protection, Western military history has provided us with evidence of the continual ebb and flow of this line of thought through the evolution of the armoured knight of the medieval period, to the full introduction of standardized helmets and tanks during the First World War, and even the re-introduction of body armour variants for the average soldier by the 1960s. The inclusion of armour protection does, however, have one key physical limitation, that of weight. Throughout history, there have always been difficult problems which had to be addressed when introducing armour protection to either personnel or equipment. Whether as an individual Roman legion- ary carrying his heavy chain mail shirts, or lorica segimentata, to armoured foot Arts Library/Art NY Visual Resource, ART369918 knights of the Middle Ages, the advan- The Battle of Agincourt (1415). From the Chronicles of Saint Albans, Flemish, 15th Century. Note tages armour provided to protection were the archers. 18 Canadian Military Journal • Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring 2013 While some relatively new advances in composite armour did somewhat influence ON I the armour conundrum by slowing down the spiralling weight factor, it was only a tempo- rary victory, given the never-ending ebb and flow between technological advances in bal- listic systems and the inherent limitation of traditional protection schemes. A new avenue of approach was needed that would provide NNOVAT additional protection for armour vehicles and I their crews while not dramatically increasing the weight of the vehicle, thus allowing for improvements in both mobility and function- CAL ality in the modern battlespace. Even the I most advanced MBTs of today, such as the Leopard 2, have witnessed significant weight problems inherent to the armour conundrum. When first introduced into the German Army Library and Archives Canada PA-002946 Canada Archives Library and in the late-1970s, it had a combined weight A Mark IV tank getting ready to move out during the Amiens Offensive, 8 August 1918. of about 55 tonnes. This resulted in a power- to-weight ratio of 27 horsepower per tonne The armour conundrum has witnessed dramatic techno- (hp/t). The newest version, labelled the Leopard 2A7+, weighs logical advancements since the end of the Second World War. almost 68 tonnes “… when optimized for urban operations,” By the end of that conflict, advances were made in anti- and thus results in a decreased power-to-weight ratio now at TECHNOLOG armour weaponry with the development of 22.22 hp/t.2 This serves as one of many new weapons projectiles, such as the sabot “Even today, the use of examples of how increasing the weight of round. The sabot, which is largely composed combat vehicles by only including addi- of the exceptionally strong metal known as the term ‘body armour’ tional traditional armour will only continue tungsten, had the ability to punch holes serves somewhat as a to have an “… adverse effect on vehicle through all existing armour at the time. In misnomer.” mobility and can also mean that the power- consequence, advances were also made in pack (including the engine, transmission and composite and modular armour plating for cooling system) and suspension have to be armoured vehicles, which ultimately found expression in many upgraded to maintain cross-country mobility.”3 The sole utili- of the present-day battlefield giants such as the Challenger, zation of traditional armour protection schemes is no longer Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) of sufficient. Rather, a collaborative effort must be considered the west, as well as highly functional Infantry Fighting with both traditional armour technology and other avenues, Vehicles (IFVs), such as the Bradley and the Warrior. such as Active Protection Systems (APS). Only by a combina- tion of passive and pro-active armour protection can modern armies compensate for the armour conundrum, and thus make their combat vehicle fleets more mobile and deployable. The

Load more