Hardkill APS: US Army buys Trophy, Europe is testing systems

On the 29th September 2017, the US Army has decided to purchase an unknown quantity of Trophy systems as urgent material request. General Dynamics Land Systems is responsible for fitting the system to the M1A2 SEP v2 main battle tanks (MBTs) of an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT). It was not revealed yet, if all ninety Abrams tanks of the ABCT will receive the Tropy APS - but it seems rather likely. The Jerusalem Post claims that the system has an estimated costs of about $350,000 USD per tank. By March 2019 all of the M1A2 SEP v2 covered by the contract are expected to have received the Trophy APS. The tanks are planned to be deployed to Europe by 2020.

M1A2 SEP v3 prototype fitted with the Trophy APS

Trophy is a hardkill active protection system (APS) developed by the Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. It uses four flat radar panels supplied by the IAI Elta Group to detect incoming anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Once the vector and velocity of an incoming projectile have been tracked and it reaches the interception distance, a MEFP countermeasure - i.e. multiple explosively formed penetrators - is fired at it, penetrating the projectile mid-air, damaging and detonating its warhead before it strikes the vehicle. Shaped charge warheads as found on the overwhelmig majority of current ATGMs and RPGs loose nearly their complete penetration power when the shaped charge liner is damaged. Studies have shown that a single perforation of the shaped charge liner by a metal fragment reduces the penetration power by more than 70% - the shotgun-like cloud of fragments created by Trophy's MEFP countermeasure should perforate the warhead multiple times and detonate it several metres away from the vehicle, leaving essentially no leftover penetration capacity.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the US Army will adopt the Trophy APS in a larger scale: this is just an urgent material request, the United States still are interested in developing and fielding a common modular active protection system (MAPS) architecture, which is planned to combine softkill and hardkill systems and could make use - due to its modular approach - of multiple different countermeasure types derived from currently available APS designs. It should however be noted that urgent material requests sometimes are used by the militaries of different countries to circumvent longer trials and - in some cases - also competition. However the latter doesn't seem to be the case with the US Army opting for Trophy. The US miltiary has been citing the maturity of the system as a key factor speaking for it. Unlike the other APS types tested by the US military, Trophy has been fitted to operational combat vehicles such as the Merkava 4M MBT and the Namer armored personnel carrier (APC) of the IDF.

Obligatory cheeky "it's like a force field" graphic

Before ordering Trophy, the US Army apparently found some issues when trying to integrate the components of the active protection system into the M1A2 Abrams MBT. A key factor were weight imbalances, which also were affecting the turret's performance as reported by Inside The Army in early September. At the end of August the Trophy APS had only been tested on a stationary tank, however the full tests representing several real-life scenarios including firing at a moving tank were expected to last only 30 additional days.

The Trophy-equipped M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams MBTs are meant for equipping the US Army units in Europe. The advancements of Russian miliary technology and the increased aggression related to the annexion of Crimea has given the US Army a reason to focus on ground vehicles and symmetric conflict capabilties again. Like the Trophy APS, the US Army choose to upgrade a number of Stryker ICV to the new Dragoon variant just to not be outmatched in Europe by the Russian military. Furthermore the basic Stryker ICV variant will be fitted with Javelin launchers, while a number of options are being considered for short-range air defence (SHORAD).

Stryker testbed fitted with the Iron Curtain APS

The US Army is still working on testing the Iron Fist APS from Israeli Military Industries and the Iron Curtain APS, the latter setup was designed by the US company Artis following a DARPA contract. Artis has fitted the Iron Curtain APS to a Stryker vehicle, testing is expected to last until the mid-December, when the US Army will decide wether to purchase this system or install another APS on the Styker - in general the Trophy active protection system is also available for the Stryker and it would be beneficial to reduce the number of new APS types to be purchased by the military, as this would easen up logisitics and lower costs; however Trophy's MEFP countermeasure is considered to be less than ideal for use on APCs and IFVs. The Trophy APS was installed on the M1 Abrams tank earlier due to funding being available already in 2016. 

The United States also planned to test the Active Defence System (ADS) from ADS - Gesellschaft für aktive Schutzsysteme mbH, a joint-venture of the German companies Rheinmetall and IBD Deisenroth Engineering, but didn't have the budget to fund testing of all system at the same time. It is currently not known when or if the ADS will be tested by the US Army - that all depends on the budget. As reported by Defense News, the US Army is still interested in at least another system - understood to be the ADS - but couldn't afford to test four different APS types simultaneously. If the US Army had the budget, it would be testing it now. Rheinmetall approached the US Army after negotiations with the other three contenders were already underway, but demonstrated the system's capabilities multiple times in Europe. In the latest known demonstration, which happened at the end of June in Sweden, the ADS managed to defeat six out of six ATGMs fired at a vehicle. In a previous test in May 2017, two RPGs fired from a very short range were stopped by ADS, while it was proven that the sensors ignore smaller threats such as 7.62 mm bullets.

Rheinmetall suggested to fit the the ADS to the Stryker, but the US choose to test the Iron Fist APS on the Bradley instead. Due to the Bradley's limitation regarding electrical power, available space and weight budget, testing the adoption of the Iron Fist APS - probably in the light configuration - was favored to this plattform.  First proper tests of the Iron Fist APS on the Bradely are still several months away, as the vehicle needs to be upgraded first.

Iron Fist LC launcher

The Netherlands have decided to evaluate the Iron Fist APS for adoption on the CV9035NL IFV. BAE Systems has been contracted to integrate this protective measure into a CV9035 to serve as a prototype, which is expected to be finished in early 2018. This prototype will then undergo testing by the Dutch military, which then might order more Iron Fist systems for at least a part of their active CV90 infantry fighting vehicle fleet, if the results of the testing are positive. At the IDET 2017 defence exposition in the Czech Republic, BAE Systems showcased a CV9030 fitted with the Iron Fist Light Configuration (IF-LC) system for the first time, although this might have been a non-working mock-up. When fitted to the CV9030, the IF-LC APS consisted of two double-barreled launchers for HE-blast grenades, which can defeat ATGMs and RPGs.  

Active Defence System fitted to a Leopard 2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator at DSEI 2017

Meanwhile Germany is evaluating the ADS active protection system for adoption on the Boxer APC as confirmed by a company spokesperson at DSEI 2017. While Germany is not known to be planning the adoption of an APS on the Leopard 2 MBT in the near future, a recent thesis paper published by the German Army's Kommando Heer calls for the adoption of an active protection system and new reactive armor, specifically with the capability to protect the roofs of tanks and other AFVs against top-attack ATGMs. ADS features special roof-mounted countermeasures and sensor units to protect against such threats.

One of the Boxer CRVs send to Australia is also equipped with the ADS active protection system in order to provide protection against ATGMs and RPGs. While in tests some of the ADS prototypes were capable to successfully defeat APFSDS projectiles - including some of the latest types according to our informations - the currently offered variants of this APS are not suited to deal with kinetic energy penetrators yet. Most likely the ADS will also be offered as (optional) part of the Challenger 2 lifetime extension project (Challenger 2 LEP), as Rheinmetall - one of the two companies shortlisted to provide an upgrade solution - is also owner of the majority of ADS - Gesellschaft für aktive Schutzsystem mbH. Between May 2005 to December 2006 the UK had a contract with Åkers Krutbruk Protection AB, a Swedish company completely belonging to IDB Deisenroth (the other owner of ADS) for a technology demonstration program of the ADS hardkill active protection system for the FRES. The program was canceled when funding for the FRES was reduced.

Launchers, radars and control panel of the GL5 APS

A few weeks ago, China unveiled the GL5 hardkill active protection system. This system is in general conception rather similar to the Soviet Drozd and the new Russian Afghanit APS types. It consists of four radar panels (one mounted at each corners of a vehicle or the turret of a tank) and four fixed "masts" mounted either at the turret roof or at the sides of the turret. Each mast holds three launcher barrels for the countermeasures, set at slightly different angles. This allows the APS to cover the tank's full 360° azimuth with countermeasures, but it must be noted that the GL-5 hardkill system does not provide the ability to shot down top-attack missiles - its countermeasures cover only 20° in elevation. A single control panel on the inside is used to control the system.

The GL5 APS intercepts an anti-tank missile

The system uses HE-fragmentation grenades capable of intercepting ATGMs, RPGs and HEAT rounds fired from tank guns. The interception point is located about 10 metres (±1.5 m) away from the protected vehicle. The radar has a range of about 100 metres - if a fast flying projectile such as an ATGM enters the area covered by the radar panels, it will be fine tracked by the radar and the computer will calculate its vector. If the projectile would hit the vehicle, the countermeasures are launched at a pre-determined interception point. In the 3D simulations from the Chinese manufacturer, a single countermeasure is launched to defeat an ATGM - in the slow-motion footage from a live-fire test, there are however two countermeasures launched to defeat a single incoming ATGM - this might be an error that still needs to be fixed or a weakness of the system, which might require two countermeasures in some cases.

Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016: Germany claims the Trophy

The platoon from the German Army has won the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016. The Danish platoon managed to win the second place, while the third place was claimed by the Polish platoon.

The winning platoon of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge

An interesting aspect of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016 is the fact that the top three platoons all used variants of the German Leopard 2 main battle tank (MBT). The Polish and Danish platoons operated versions of the Leopard 2A5, which originally entered service in 1995 (more than twenty years ago) with the German Army. The German platoon was equipped with the slightly newer Leopard 2A6, an upgraded version of the Leopard 2A5 with longer gun barrel. This configuration was first used by the German Army in 2001, about 15 years ago.
Suprisingly, the Italian platoon C1 Ariete did manage to get the fourth place, beating the two American platoons operating the M1A2 SEP v2, the newest tank in the competition. The Slovenian team with the M-84 performed worse.

Every nation used a platoon of four tanks to compete. Except for the US Army, all nation was represented only by a single platoon. Only the M-84, a local version of the T-72, was manned by a crew of three; all other tanks had a four men crew.

The Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016 consisted of a number of tasks which alltogether had a maximum score of 1,000 points.

• For offensive and defensive trials including firing and maneuvering up to 700 points were awarded (350 points for offensive actions, 350 points for defensive actions).
• For "mounted orienteering" (MO in the further text) up to 300 points evenly distributed in six sub-tasks (each 50 points) were awarded 
• MO included a "mystery physical challenge" were teamwork was important
• There was an obstacle course with thirteen minor challenges
• Soldiers from each platoon fired 10 rounds with their service weapons from three locations in the combat shooting lane
• A total of 25 firendly and threatening targets had to be identified while the tanks were on the course at the vehicle idenfication lane
• During a simulated NBC attack, crews had to recover and tow one of their tanks while wearing NBC protection gear
• Multinational teams reacted to an IED attack, assessed and evacuated the casualities
• One task was to walk as many laps as possible along a track located at a hillside while carrying a 20 kilogram (44 lbs) training round

Further detailed results have unfortunately no been published, only a very few informations and rumors have emerged. A short list of the informations and common rumors gathered is presented below:

• According to the German Army video, the German targets used for the tank shooting tests were smaller than the ones usually used by the other participating nations
• The German team was the best in terms of physical fitness, managing a record of 64 laps on the track while carrying ammunition
• They also performed best at recovering one of their tanks after the simulated NBC attack
• Contrary to the often posted claim that the German unit consisted of reservists, it actually consisted of normal soldiers: the GebPzBtl 8 is semi-active, the first two platoons (1st and 2nd platoon) are made of reservists. The other two platoons (3rd and 4th) are consisting of professional soldiers. The third platoon of GebPzBtl 8 (belonging to the PzBtl 104 during the time the GebPzBtl 8 is not fully active) participated. However German rumors say that the reserve platoons actually performed equal or better during their last official training
• According to Polish sources the Polish platoon destroyed more than 75% of of all their targets during the offensive shooting (distance to target up to 2 kilometres, two targets were destroyed at more than 1800 metres distance) and scored 285 out of 350 points. Only the German platoon performed better. In the defensive shooting the Poles managed to hit 17 out of 23 targets, scoring 277.5 out of 350 points - supposedly the highest score in this category.
• The Italian Ariete tanks were filmed performing extremely bad, missing most of their targets. But on the second day shooting at another lane they supposedly were among the best during shooting
• Supposedly the Italian Ariete performed worst overall in gunnery
• The US platoons did a poor job at camouflaging their tank, supposedly the crews couldn't figure out how to properly use a camouflage net. According to US sources Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said that of those skills tested, some — like using camouflage netting to mask a 60-ton hunk of metal — haven’t been part of regular tanker training in some time.
• Rumors from the unofficial US Master Gunner network say that the US platoons scored 4th overall in the shooting tests
•  During the medevac operation after an IED attack, the Slovenian team aswell as another one (according to the rumors probably the Polish team) run over the dummy simulating the wounded

Overall some blogs, forums and people are reacting in either a state of denial ("how could my country loose, their tanks should be better") or in a state of surprise. I don't think that a lot of the results is unexpected for the following reasons:

• The German tanks had the highest muzzle velocity in combination with a very accurate round (the training round is meant to simulate the current DM53 and DM63 ammunition, which according to the values used in the marketing brochures is probably the most accurate), so that the good shooting results are not that surprising
• The Polish and Danish platoons used slightly older/worse types of training, but still have a rather high muzzle velocity and rather flat trajectory.
• The current US ammunition is the heaviest and slowest of all participating countries, which will result in a higher trajectory and a greater impact of external factors; hence it will have a higher dispersion. The current US training round is meant to simulate this ammunition.
• The Slovenian M-84 is the oldest tank design with the worst ammunition, fire control system and gun stabilizer. 
• While the M1A2 SEP v2 is the newest tank in the competition with the newest optronics, overall the optics of the M1A2 SEP suffer from a number of drawbacks: the field of view of the CITV is blocked by the RWS, the commander's cupola and the loader's gun shield; the CITV also lacks a day channel, which can be advantageous for target identication at day

Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016

Currently the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016 is under way (from 10th to 12th May) It's the first competition under the name, but follows the tradition of the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT) competition of the Cold War or the Russian Tank Biathlon.

Tanks for the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016

The competition is held in Germany at Grafenwöhr. Participating are the Danish Army using the Leopard 2A5DK, the German Army with the Leopard 2A6, the Polish Army using ex-German Leopard 2A5 tanks, the US Army with the M1A2 SEP and the Slovenian Army using their current version of the M-84.

The Italian Army has been said to also take part in the challenge, but their Ariete tank wasn't presented at the photoshooting on 8th May nor in the video recap of the 7th Army Joint Multinational Training Command of the US Army. This might indicate that Italy has withdrawn from the competition or the Italian tanks simply were delayed or arrived at a later point of time.

The trophy shows a WW1 British tank...

The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is a competition between several tank units stationed in Europe. In the challenge, tanks have to fullfill a number of tasks such as shooting targets at different range stationary and on the move, while time and accuracy are taken into account.

Based on the results and some further rating pattern, the winner is chosen and given the trophy.

PS: The Italian Ariete arrived at a different time, it's, also taking part in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016.

M1A2 SEP v3 revealed

The M1A2 SEP v3 has been revealed on the AUSA 2015.

The tank looks rather similar to the earlier models of the M1A2 SEP, only the type and placement of the remote weapon station have been slightly altered.

The M1A2 SEP v3 adds a number of new features to improve the lethality, survivability and networking of the tank. An ammunition data link (ADL) has been added to the tank, which allows the use of programmable ammunition. The tank can utilize new and improved ammunition like the M829E4 and the XM1147 multipurpose round.
Furthermore the foward-looking infrared optics were replaced by a newer generation and the CROWS remote weapon station (RWS) was modified to the CROWS-LP (low profile) version, which allows folding down the RWS in order to decrease overall height of the tank.


The APU has been moved to a place under armor protection (probably into the rear hull section) and the digital screens inside the tank have now a 1080p resolution.


General Dynamics is also offering to upgrade the M1A2 SEP v3 with a German MTU 883 diesel engine, replacing the previous AGT-1500C gas turbine. This move would reduce fuel consumption - and thus reducing the total operating costs by 14%.