
New US Army Tech Instantly Destroys Enemy Fire - jonbaer
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/almost-science-fiction-new-us-army-tech-instantly-destroys-16121
======
elif
Things like this, along with the new suite of drone modules capable of
jamming/destroying radars, seem to be creating an atmosphere where our
military can operate with relative impunity. That is not, in itself, an
ethical problem.

If we can kill 1,000 people with 0 deaths, however, the ethical bar for how we
apply that force should be held to a stricter standard, as the slope to
fascism is being made steeper. Unfortunately, the recent trend of
extrajudicial, extralegal executive action 'war' declaration post-9/11 appears
to be lowering that bar.

Even if you think there is a moral imperative to every one of our military
deployments: having no skin in the game also makes it easier to demonize us,
to the benefit of anti-US propaganda.

~~~
InclinedPlane
> _If we can kill 1,000 people with 0 deaths, however, the ethical bar for how
> we apply that force should be held to a stricter standard..._

What do you mean "if"? We've already killed thousands of people with drone
strikes. And sadly the ethical bar on that is not held to a stricter standard,
indeed it's held to a lower standard. Some people are targeted based on social
networking algorithms that are hugely flawed. The ratio of "collateral damage"
deaths to "good kills" is perhaps as low as 50/50, maybe even worse, since
there's very little investigative followup.

------
tyingq
There's 3 vendors working on this.

A (older) video of one of them in action, blocking an incoming RPG headed
towards a Humvee:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_yz_ONZltA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_yz_ONZltA)

~~~
lisivka
Ukraine uses active protection on tanks in war against Russia. It works well:
[http://wartime.org.ua/uploads/posts/2015-04/1427962059_7.jpg](http://wartime.org.ua/uploads/posts/2015-04/1427962059_7.jpg)
.

~~~
Cyph0n
Are you being sarcastic, or is that actually a good end result for one of
these systems? Genuinely curious.

~~~
Mizza
That's a very good result.

This is what a bad result looks like:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJwkGy6EOj8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJwkGy6EOj8)
[NSFW]

When the ammo and fuel of the tank burns up, that's called cook-off. You can't
repair that, and unfortunately the crew will not survive.

~~~
Cyph0n
Thanks for the vid. Is there a specific reason why the protection system
doesn't detonate the projectile further out to avoid any damage whatsoever?

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
The picture above looks like it's reactive armor, which is slightly different.
There are multiple versions around, but the core idea is to sandwich
explosives between metal plates in such a way that a round striking the
assembly triggers the explosive, which drives the plates tangent to the round
in a way that can disable it.

~~~
lisivka
Ukrainian Nizh tries to fragment incoming missile or shell wit cumulative
charge. It allows to be effective against broader range of threats.

------
unwind
From an extremely cursory look, the Wikipedia page on the system in question
("Trophy") is way more informative:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_%28countermeasure%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_%28countermeasure%29).

------
Mizza
I'm very skeptical of this technology. The Russian equivalent is currently
deployed on T90s in Syria, but has been shown useless against rebel ATGMs. Ex
- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-
YaJw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw) [War footage, crew survives
but maybe NSFW depending on your sensitivity level.]

The tank was disabled but not fatally (it was later repaired and put back in
service), but that's just because the T-90 is a great tank and the shot was
unlucky. You can see the damaged reactive defense system on the right from
after this hit:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cd_gdCnWoAA5tyN.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cd_gdCnWoAA5tyN.jpg)

They said it was because the hatch was open, but I think it's actually because
this is pure snake oil. It's just too hard.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
The SHTORA on that tank was not turned on. You can tell by the two shtora
lights not glowing bright red.

As to why it wasn't on, we have only speculation.

~~~
trhway
SHTORA is a an old shrapnel system and it causes a lot of collateral damage to
infantry around as it was found in Afghanistan war and soldiers (not tankists
:) disliked it.

------
coredog64
I feel like reality is finally catching up with David Drake. Now we are just
waiting on 400kg fusion plants and hover tanks.

~~~
breischl
I had the same thought. I seem to recall that they could also link the entire
brigade together into one giant air defense network. I wonder if they'll do
something like that for the anti-missile systems, maybe at a platoon level. Or
maybe just have the next tank in line automatically kill the attacker.

~~~
hga
Indeed, all the "tribarrels" (equivalent to the M2 Browning used in Vietnam
(or, rather, back from 1933 to today, it's a keeper)) could be/were slaved to
the anti-artillery and air network, and could be automatically taken away from
their operators to stop an incoming barrage.

They had proximity fuzed Claymore style anti-"buzz bomb" defenses, but arming
those was problematical for a zillion reasons, the best defenses were as they
are today, sharp eyes and trigger fingers. Later killing a buzz bomb team that
killed a super expensive tank and its crew was not considered an acceptable
exchange.

------
11thEarlOfMar
' “Dozens of threats were launched at these platforms, many of which would
have been lethal to these vehicles. Trophy engaged those threats and defeated
them in all cases with no collateral injury and no danger to the dismounts and
no false engagement,” the DRS official said.'

The RPG-7 travels at a maximum velocity of 295 m/s. Fired from 200 meters and
assuming linear acceleration, that means you'd have roughly 1-2 seconds to
identify it, calculate trajectory and fire the interceptor.

Compare this to intercepting an ICBM, which travels at a maximum (re-entry)
velocity of 7,000 m/s. Fired from several thousand miles, you'd have about 30
minutes to identify it, calculate trajectory and fire the interceptor.

~~~
adewinter
The two systems are definitely not in the same league (agreed!), if that's
what you're pointing out.

That said, the time required to calculate an intercept point is not the hard
problem, so 1-2 seconds versus 30 minutes is not really super relevant.

Arguably more relevant factors are detection, precision, accuracy and ultimate
intercept effectiveness.

In the case of ICBM you're essentially trying to hit one bullet with another
bullet... hundreds of miles away. It doesn't matter that you have 30 minutes
to think about it. It's still ridiculously hard to actually know there's an
icbm, where it is, and then be able to hit it with another missile (and have
that make a difference).

RPGs around a armored vehicle are way more straightforward by comparison. The
projectile is easier to detect, it's a much smaller volume of space (easier to
scan continuously) and the projectiles are traveling slower!

Still I imagine it's quite a trick detecting incoming then swiveling, aiming
and firing (accurately) your defense auto-cannon all in 1-2 seconds. It would
be very impressive to see that in action.

~~~
hguant
The other issue with intercepting an ICBM is that the ballistics are much more
difficult. You have to factor in the curvature of the earth, atmospheric
conditions (is there a storm front between the interceptor pad and the
missile?), and the changing nature of the projectile (is it a MIRV? some
missiles can jink now, how do you handle that?).

~~~
Declanomous
One of my friends is a rocket scientist (aerospace engineer). I asked him
about kill vehicles once, and he said that intercepting Russian ICBMs is a
losing battle even if you can identify the ICBM and intercept it reliably.
Russian ICBMs have inflatable decoy payloads in them that are balloons for all
intents and purposes. Since ICBMs deploy their payload while in space, where
there is no atmosphere, the decoy balloons behave just like the actual nuclear
warheads, despite the huge difference in mass. Once they hit the atmosphere
the decoy payloads slow down quickly, however you should target the ICBM and
its payload much earlier than this if you want to reliably defeat it. The
decoys are much less expensive than the intercept vehicles, and the balloon
decoys are light, so Russia can afford to put a whole mess of them in each
ICBM.

*edited for clarity.

~~~
tropo
It's still a fight worth fighting.

Multi-layer defense works. Yes, yes, it sucks when a city gets nuked, but
things go way worse if you just give up on the problem and thus allow 1000
cities to get nuked. Think of it like computer network defense. You don't just
give up because there is a chance of failure.

You start with treaties, export control, diplomacy, and a threat to respond in
kind. Next it's sabotage, both physical and cyber. Next it's launch-phase
attack... and if they move their launch sites to a less-desirable location to
avoid your attack, it's still a partial win. Next it's an attack right before
engine cut-out, possibly from orbit. Next it's an attack on the warheads in
space; those balloons sure are vulnerable to lasers. Next it's an attack right
after reentry. Next is building codes, bomb shelters, and emergency services.

Every layer has value, even if imperfect. It's negligent to leave out even one
layer.

------
spatulan
The US Army's version might be new, but the general idea isn't. The Russian
Drozd is the earliest of this type of system I'm aware of, and that was
fielded in the late 70s.

~~~
mcguire
I assume the idea goes back to reactive armor:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour)

------
ChuckMcM
Mostly this seems to advocate the US adopting the Trophy system from Rafael
although it does mention there are other vendors in the picture.

The fundamental point, which is also made in Dunnigan's "How to Make War" is
that the cost of fortification goes up faster than the cost of attack
capability, so you can only match scale if you use two attack systems. Or to
put it in terms of this article, if you added 50 tons of armor to a tank it
might be impervious to RPG fire but also unable to move effectively.

The cost of building a guided munition has gone down with the miniaturization
of sensors and compute power, and a number of field deployed systems (like
Iron Dome and Trophy) have demonstrated that calculating intercept solutions
has given the designers of such systems the ability to defeat or at least
mitigate very near threats.

But given that I wonder just how many "army on army" sorts of wars will be
waged. Looking at the tactics of modern day insurgencies they hit civilians
rather than military forces.

Back in the day there was a front line of multiple opposing armies engaged in
control over a battlefield while their aircraft went behind the lines and
bombed the cities to degrade infrastructure. Today there is no "front line"
just bombs going off in cities degrading infrastructure. And no visible army
(well its fine when its attacking but between attacks it blends in).

As a result, the militaries of the world are developing strategies for moving
around killing people without themselves being at risk. This tank strategy is
already deployed in Israel. The ultimate answer to that seems to be remotely
operated robotics. No threat to the operator, and equipped with a variety of
offensive weapons to dealing with threats to others.

I am not looking forward to the day where you have a self driving tank which
is impossible to kill. But when I look at the road we're on, I see that we are
headed to that place.

~~~
zipwitch
Science fiction author Keith Laumer had a few ideas along these lines as far
back as the 1960s:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29)

------
rfreytag
Something inbound to a ship that doesn't support aircraft can be assumed
hostile meriting a violent response with reasonable safety.

The same assumption cannot be made of objects inbound to a tank passing
through a village with playful children.

~~~
jonnycowboy
The technology does not destroy the attacker but the projectile.

Also I assume objects travelling below a certain speed or heat threshold are
not "processed" so most children or children-thrown objects would not be
targeted.

~~~
adewinter
The radar signature of a small projectile coming in at, say >30m/s is indeed a
lot different from a running, tiny human. What about something like a soccer
ball, though? It's a small-ish projectile, coming in quite slowly. What about
a hand grenade?

Hopefully they test for this stuff and have a firm idea of where they want
their thresholds but, then again, sometimes bugs happen.
[https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-
ki/](https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/)

~~~
rtkwe
These systems don't try to deal with grenades which aren't really a threat to
anything with armor so the code can ignore anything that people could
throw/kick really. What the APSs are designed to catch are RPGs and other
anti-tank rockets which all travel >100 m/s which is well above what a playful
kid can make.

~~~
chongli
_rockets which all travel >100 m/s which is well above what a playful kid can
make_

Speak for yourself. I loved rockets[0] as a playful kid!

[0] [https://www.estesrockets.com/](https://www.estesrockets.com/)

~~~
astine
Even without this new system, a person setting a toy rocket off near a
deployed military force is really asking for trouble.

~~~
chongli
I disagree. It is the deployed military force that is asking for and finding
trouble. It is the innocent who bear the brunt of the danger for this. This is
the moral hazard[0] of war.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

------
partycoder
There is a saying: "you don't put a $100 lock on a $50 bike". I think the same
applies here.

If to block a $300 RPG (hypothetical cost, i don't know what the cost is),
costs $10000, then they still win.

~~~
schwap
Not if blocking a $300 RPG for $10000 prevents $100000 of damage to the
intended target of said RPG.

~~~
partycoder
Yes, from the perspective of the defender it's better. I am only saying, that
for the attacker, it only means winning less, as opposed to not winning.

~~~
white-flame
In cases where the attacker is strapped for cash, and the defender is not,
$300 could be far more relative value to the attacker than $10k is to the
defender.

~~~
informatimago
The more so when the "defender" is printing its USD at will.

~~~
partycoder
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA)

------
mcguire
" _The Defense Review report also says that Iron Curtain’s sensors can target
destroy approaching RPG fire to within one-meter of accuracy._ "

Can anyone translate that into English?

~~~
vonmoltke
I think "destroy" was left in by mistake, and the sentence is supposed to say
that the system's targeting has a maximum of 1m position error.

~~~
dragonwriter
Probably a 1m CEP [0] or similar rather than maximum error.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable)

------
Aelinsaar
Not the most accurate headline, but it's about time that we started
implementing this at the level of individual tanks and APC's, not just
warships.

------
bhouston
It isn't US Army tech, it is mostly Israeli army tech that was developed to
manage the Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank.

~~~
partiallypro
The article actually mentions this (and an Israeli defense contractor is a one
of the few that's lobbying for it.) I think the key difference, from my
understanding, is that it has never been deployed onto a convoy. Also the
"Iron Curtain" relies on the projectiles being lobbed instead of shot
directly, since the people shooting those projectiles into Israel don't care
who they hit military or civilian. It has been interesting watching defense
move along, from the Patriot missile program, to the Iron Curtain, and now
something that is mobile and can take on smaller projectiles.

~~~
thinkcontext
I think you are confusing Iron Curtain with Iron Dome. Iron Dome is the area
anti rocket / mortar (lobbed) system. Iron Curtain is a system that protects
individual vehicles from "shot directly" projectiles like RPGs.

------
hackuser
I read elsewhere that a principle challenge of this tech is not to kill your
own people who are near the protected vehicle.

~~~
Kristine1975
I don't see the problem. Self-LART's have a long and colorful history.

------
cptskippy
Off topic but I found it disturbing the way they kept saying "Allahu Akbar".
It reminded me of Frisky Dingo
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmnaeU0k80I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmnaeU0k80I).

~~~
gamegoblin
It is very commonly used to express astonishment or surprise, the same way we
say "Oh my god!" in English.

~~~
Cyph0n
Yep, this is commonly misunderstood by non-Muslims.

