Proceedings of the 2019 Hypervelocity Impact Symposium HVIS2019 April 14 - 19, 2019, Destin, FL, USA HVIS2019-050 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/hvis/proceedings-pdf/HVIS2019/883556/V001T03A004/6551083/v001t03a004-hvis2019-050.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Defeating Modern Armor and Protection Systems Markus Graswald *, Raphael Gutser, Jakob Breiner, Florian Grabner, Timo Lehmann, and Andrea Oelerich ** TDW GmbH, Hagenauer Forst 27, 86529 Schrobenhausen, Germany ** WTD 91, Schießplatz 1, 49716 Meppen, Germany Abstract An open source research and vulnerability study of main battle tanks and their protections systems revealed that current anti-tank weapons may not be suited to defeat modern threats. One example is the novel T-14 tank being developed and tested in the Russian army with its combined hard-kill and soft-kill active protection system AFGANIT / SHTORA, its new reactive armor MALACHIT as well as improved multi-component passive armor. Additionally, modern active protection systems currently developed in, e.g., Israel, the United States, and Germany feature also multi-sensor and multi-effector systems with drastically improved detection and intercept ranges, short system reaction times as well as protection against multiple threats attacking simultaneously and / or from similar directions. While known effectors and concepts may overcome fielded active protections systems, they are probably not suited in defeating such modern and even future systems. Countermeasures relying on high engagement velocities through improved kinetic energy projectiles or hypervelocity penetrators may provide a potential solution. Another promising concept generates directed, far-distance electromagnetic effects defeating sensors and communications systems of modern main battle tanks. After such a mission kill, a following salvo attack through an anti-tank or modern multi-role weapon will eventually lead to a catastrophic kill. Feasibility studies of these mobile electromagnetic effectors have already shown their high potential. Keywords: Main battle tank; active protection system; reactive / passive armor; kinetic energy / hypervelocity penetrator; high power electromagnetic. 1 Introduction The enduring competition between weapon effectiveness and platform protection has already entered a new act. The threat on main battle tanks imposed by various effectors such as anti-tank missiles (anti-tank (guided) missile, ATM / ATGM) or shoulder-launched rockets (rocket propelled grenade, RPG) with tandem-shaped charge warheads (e.g., TOW 2A, PARS3 LR), kinetic energy (KE) projectiles (e.g., M829 or DM 63), and top-attack munition with explosively formed projectile (EFP) warheads (e.g., TOW 2B or SMArt) has been drastically increased over the last decades [1]. This lead to recent developments with T-14 tanks (built on the standardized ARMATA track vehicle platform) in Russia using novel and / or improved active protection systems (APS), explosive reactive armor (ERA), and passive protection. Table 1 compares Israeli main battle tank MERKAVA 4 with Russian tanks T-90 and T-14 showing significant improvements in terms of both fire power and protection systems of the latter. It needs to be noted that data refers to 2013 sources and may be dependent also upon environmental conditions, i.e., weather, day vs. night time. The greatest challenge, however, is offered through the new generation of active protection system being developed. This paper presents major results of a comprehensive survey on trends in developments on new main battle tanks and their protection systems. Focussing on active protection systems, a classification scheme is provided and countermeasures assessed. Two promising concepts, a combined kinetic energy effector and a mobile high power electromagnetic effector, are introduced in detail along with simulation and experimental results of subsystems. 2 Technological trends in the field of main battle tank protection The novel T-14 main battle tank currently tested in the Russian army was first fully shown at a parade in Moscow on May 9th, 2015. After this initial rate, an ambitious series production of 2000+ units shall be completed in the early 2020s. Although not all details on its capabilities are known, it uses a comprehensive protection concept with indirect and direct measures: [1, 3] • Reducing or changing signatures through stealth technologies in infrared and radar spectrum such as special coatings, improved heat isolation, absorbing materials, cooling of exhaust gases, as well as an active, electromagnetic mine protection system * Corresponding author: Email [email protected], Tel. +49 (8252) 99-7264. 74 V001T03A003 Table 1. Overview comparing Israeli and Russian main battle tanks. [2] Technical data MERKAVA 4 T-90 (A,S,M) T-14 Main weapon, caliber in mm 120 125 125 ::: 152 Firing speed per min 4 8 10 ::: 12 Detection range in m 4500 >5000 >5000 Maximum engagement range in m 4000 ::: 6000 4000 ::: 5000 7000 ::: 8000 Mine protection Passive Active and passive Active Active protection system TROPHY SHTORA AFGANIT Reactive protection Yes Yes Yes Armor equivalent in mm 700 ::: 750 800 ::: 830 >900 Engine power in PS 1500 1130 1200 ::: 2000 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/hvis/proceedings-pdf/HVIS2019/883556/V001T03A004/6551083/v001t03a004-hvis2019-050.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Maximum mass in t 65 46.5 ::: 48 50 ::: 55 Maximum velocity in km/h 60 ::: 65 60 ::: 65 80 ::: 90 Range in km 500 500 >500 • Avoiding hits by soft kill active protection systems like SHTORA-1 • Avoiding both hits and penetration by hard kill active protection systems like ARENA, DROZD, or novel AFGANIT • Reducing the effectiveness through explosive reactive armor like KONTAKT-5, RELIKT, or novel MALACHIT • Reducing the system impact through passive, multi-component ballistic protection based on novel high-strength steels such as 44S-SW combined with non-metallic materials like ceramics, aramid fabrics, and plastics, e.g., PU (polyurethane) or PE (polyethylene), providing an RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) equivalent of more than 900 mm in the front section Active protective systems of main battle tanks and armored vehicles are typically classified into soft or hard kill systems. Their functionality is visualized in Figure 1. Based on a threat detected by sensors, a fire control solution will be determined dependent upon threat analysis, its predicted trajectory, and the counter measure. A soft kill system distracts the incoming threat either trough infrared (IR) emitters, jammer, or decoy/flares, or interrupts the line-of-sight by smoke shells, while a hard kill system is designed to destroy the threat in a distinct and safe distance to the tank through deployed or distributed blast/fragmentation projectiles, shaped charges or (multi) EFP, or directed high explosive (HE) charges. [1] In a comprehensive literature and online search, a total of 26 active protection systems have been found and categorized [3, 5]. Besides various Russian systems named earlier, SASLON/ZASLON as active and NOZH and DUPLET as reactive, Ukrainian made protection systems are supposed to be highly effective. Israeli Trophy APS installed on MERKAVA MK4 tanks are known as combat proven in several armed conflicts. In NATO countries like the United States and Germany, a number of both soft kill and hard kill active protection systems are developed and mounted onto main battle tanks or armored vehicles such as PUMA and STRYKER. Turkey and South Korea develop their own systems called AKKOR and KAPC for future integration on their main battle tanks ALTAY and K2, respectively. Table 2 shows a classification scheme of APS with their protection against threat types, their sensor and effector principle, and system aspects along with typical examples and essential data of Russian, Israeli, and American systems. It differentiates between classical state-of-the-art systems like DROZD or SHTORA and modern or future systems like AFGANIT or TROPHY since engagement concepts and weapon systems overcoming them may differ significantly. It reveals that modern and potential future developments • use a combination of sensors with different physical principles, long detection ranges, virtually no dead zones, and capabilities to track multiple threats simultaneously • rely on (a combination of) hard kill effectors with increased engagement ranges, and • provide drastically reduced system reaction times from threat detection to countermeasure interaction This allows the defeat of multiple { also high velocity { threats attacking simultaneously or successively from the same or different directions. Further development trends concentrate on both sensors and countermeasures and indicate to use active protection systems through cooperative engagements for other or even unprotected vehicles as well. Besides new and modern tanks, classical tanks like T-72 or T-90 may also be upgraded with modern APS. Figure 1. Principle of active protection systems visualized for hard and soft kill effectors. [4] 75 Table 2. Classification of active protection systems∗. [3] Classification Parameter Classical APS Modern APS Protection Single threats ATM, ATGM, RPG Most ATM, ATGM, RPG; in part KE against Multiple threats No Yes, simultanously and/or from different attack directions (AFGANIT, TROPHY, IAAPS, IRON FIST) Threat veloci- 70 ::: 700 m/s, up to 1200 m/s (DROZD- 1700 m/s (AFGANIT 1), 3500 m/s (AF- ties 2) GANIT 2) Threat detec- Sensor type Mostly radar AESA, laser (RUS); combinations