How effective are all the APS systems we currently see introduced around the globe?

It would be very painful

Shooting an AESA radar will not disable it, the t/r nodes operate independently of each other.

Airburst a HE-frag that should kill the APS dead

Attached: 3NbBYE0.jpg (1338x768, 105K)

...

You're a big tank

...

It's a Russian design obviously it sucks as like everything Russian. If America started it then it would've been good.

China has an APS defeating RPG that uses 3 consecutive projectiles. Unlike the defunct RPG-32 of Russia that only uses 2 projectiles, the Chinese version, that has no analog anywhere in the world, uses 3 projectiles. The first defeats the APS, the second defeats the ERA and the third punctures the armor to deliver an HE round right inside the crew compartment.

>implying it's a good idea to use something that explodes around a group of people

HAHAHA no
you will always have either people or soft skin armors around the tanks as support, it will always comes down to am I going to eat that rocket and have someone kill in the tank or use that retarded shit and kill 10 people just to save ourselves

the Israeli one has been used in combat against modern AT weapons like Kornet several times now and has worked well

Attached: iron fist APS.webm (640x360, 1M)

>Implying tanks only ever operate inside a swarm of supporting infantry.
>Implying this same issue wouldn't be true of ERA
>Implying an ATGM exploding against the side of a tank isn't going to injure and/or kill anyone within several feet of the point of impact anyway.

Attached: 1549426638696.jpg (960x952, 37K)

I mean artillery is still good at raping tanks anyway, so yeah.

Attached: T-64BV.jpg (1200x736, 333K)

>tandem-warhead-APCR-APHE
implessive

Yes hitting the tank with an HE will likely disable the APS, meanwhile you eat an APFSDS.

Why does that sabot round have an exhaust?

Yeah, but you notice what happened, right? Even assuming this thing works perfectly, you've just simultaneously increased the weight/decreased the range/decreased the loadout of tank-killing missiles, while making them overkill against the 90+% of targets that aren't APS-equipped MBTs.

Probably, or at least maybe. But having to neutralize the APS with one munition and THEN actually kill the tank with another is more than twice as hard (since it requires coordination) than just shooting something at the tank to blow it up.

It's the tracer

Attached: methode_times_prod_web_bin_a9434fca-9b32-11e8-9b62-17ec317258a6.png (685x385, 306K)

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策
The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights
民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣
Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa
新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo
民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子
強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報
九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品
賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 劉曉波动态网自由门

Attached: spray-service-1024x719.jpg (1024x719, 133K)

Stop spamming this shit everywhere

bump

They can't stop kinetic penetrators. So people will either stick to guns or start using kinetic ATGMs.

Kinetic ATGM doesn't sound very cheap.

We already had one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-166_LOSAT

But APS can be fitted onto literally anything with wheels

It can be fitter anywhere and it's most likely applications is not stopping AT weapons but mortars and artillery to improve casualty rates in counter insurgency scenarios.

Just research on the materials just like what China did. Chinese missiles cost less and yet more deadly because they are using indigenous materials found in China and does not have to go through Bureaucratic red tape like America, a Chinese anti tank super missile may cost 2 iphones worth compared to an American anti tank missile worth 5 iphones and both will have almost the same effectiveness with the Chinese model a bit better.

>China
>Lacking Red Tape
>It's better than american technology thats why we have to pay Russia to unfuck our shit
Shouldn't you be making 1000 facebooks posts per hour to earn your 10 cents gook boi?

China has impressive APS themselves.

Attached: GL-5 APS.webm (540x306, 972K)

If a projectile-based APS (e.g. Trophy) can stop an artillery shell (not sure if Trophy can though), how can it not stop a (much more delicate/fragile) ATGM?

I think the effective countermeasure to APS will be outfitting infantry and armour with EW equipment, maybe even putting jamming pods into the missiles being fired

I didn't say it can't you tit but that it would be more useful. Get some reading comprehension.

Yeah you just tried to weasel the subject away from AT weapons, don't do that

Please tell how many mortars are used in combat versus how many ATGMs?
Pointing out a valid and effective use is not deflecting the conversation you absolute sped.

For you

Attached: asdfasd.jpg (359x391, 77K)

Why hello there

Attached: jetprotect.jpg (770x433, 38K)

Well retard, was discussing whether AT weapons specifically are 'obsolete' in the context of APS, and you sperged "ww-well what about mortars?" after I explained that since APS can be used not just on tanks, it can potentially nullify those "other thungs" you tried to pivot to.

>It can be fitted anywhere
>It can also do X
>That means it can't do Y even though I said it could do Y
Nigger just admit you are retarded.

You said it's application is "not stopping X", even though the nature of being able to stop Y and Z means it certainly can stop X. Stop lying you fucking weasel

>IT'S MOST LIKELY APLITCATION
Learn to read

Just because you're wrong (APS are primarily/initially designed/developed for the application of defending tanks) doesn't mean that my reading comprehension isn't better than yours (it is, btw).

But yeah, thank you for repeating what I said earlier - that it can be fitted anywhere. What's weird is that you start by saying "AT" can be used for anything, then just regurgitate my counter that "APS" can be fitted onto anything, then sperg out.

Nigger do you realize you are talking to multiple people?

So there's , whom I addressed with , then there's (you) - the salty weasel - who literally just regurgitated with
who is questioning MY reading comprehension/calling me a nigger/being a bitch/etc. in spite of literally regurgitating what I just said

*addressed with

KEK

Nigger did you just claim your post as mine, twice?

No saltlet, please get that reading comprehension you value so much and apply it to

There is a diference between a vehicle and anywhere and again what the fucking is wrong with my point you absolute mong besides using glue sniffing logic by claiming somehow by me pointing other uses I am somehow diverting the conversation.

'any vehicle' and 'anywhere' can both be inferred within this context by a reader >70IQ (which you are not, weasels are dumb creatures) to have the same property of universal application of the system. You didn't really add anything new or valuable, and you also didn't seem to understand that 'stopping APFSDS with kinetic force' is effectively the same as 'stopping ATGM with kinetic force'. I can also contend that your prediction of application is just wrong - APS has the potential to be just as if not more important in a conventional conflict as a COIN op.

But hey keep calling me nigger, a version of you that isn't retarded just might spawn next to a Boltzmann brain as a result

I'm already Tracer

The question is wether they actually do that in reality or wether their effectiveness has been overstated. It literally says it in the OP.

*kills all your infantry support in the environment*

Mission accomplished

>I can also contend that your prediction of application is just wrong
We have wheeled CIWS to bases in Afghanistan to counter mortar strikes. To this day artillery keeps the lion share of combat kills, only in certain cases outdone by aircraft.
Countering artillery is more useful than countering AT, for the simple fact that from squad level combat to division level combat artillery is present 90% of the time and is also one of the most effective means of suppression. Now artillery could always switch to purely cluster munitions to overwhelm APS, but you can say the same about AT, but not everyone has clusters in their arsenal and COIN is what every nation is doing nowadays and the likelihood of an open war that will not nuke everyone is slim and getting slimmer each day as nuclear rearmament for the USA and Russia will go into full swing again.

Could be something like base bleed ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_bleed
I mean, it's more of an artillery thing, but theoretically there's nothing stopping it from being effective in kinetic rounds. Or it's just a tracer, as the other user said, who knows.

AT weapons will need to be improved. Shooting multiple projectiles to exhaust the APS ammo could be an effective counter-measure.

>Chinese missiles cost less and yet more deadly because they are using indigenous materials found in China
>more deadly because they are using indigenous materials found in China
Implessive, did you know THE MIGHTY CHINESE RED DRAGON'S missiles arr more effective because they use grrorious chinese steer and arr forrded over ten tharrzand times ?

is it to much to ask that my vehicle protection system arranges the shrapnel of the exploded incoming rounds into rough renditions of impressionist paintings?

US military is actively seeking and adopting soft and hard kill APS systems:

breakingdefense.com/2019/02/army-adapts-aircraft-ew-to-protect-tanks-bae-raven/

There's no system that can stop EVERYTHING but I suppose stopping 50-80% of missiles is better than stopping none. We're also in a situation where these things haven't been around for a long time, there's going to be lots of improvements around the corner.

Attached: LMCO-mfc-maps-infographic-REV.jpg (2100x2700, 1.24M)

>ZSU-23-4 Shilka
>M247 Sergeant York

What you say is not always true.

China is more deadly because they use resources they already have without the bureaucratic red tape of America, where if you need to drill oil in your backyard you need to give 40% of the money made to the federal government and you need to have a Nigger and a Woman on your Bulldozers.

I don't think clusters are a silver bullet to the APS problem either, if it can defeat the munition before it clusters or if it's just that fast/accurate that it can defeat the clusters themselves. You'll almost definitely need to saturate though, any real counter to APS and other 'smart' systems will involve ECM against its sensor suite (which is already used to defeat CIWS and SAMs), as well as ECCM to keep the munitions on course against their ECM, obviously.

Does APS use ladar or radar, or both?
Because you could maybe counter the the radar by "jamming" it but the only other hard counter are lasers or microwaves, both of which have issues with geneva.

You just use n+1 AT shots where n is the amount of aps layers the target has.

Are they effective against something slow moving, like one of the bomblets from a CBU-97?

Sometimes you don't have n+1, you just have n. Or you are aiming n+1 while the tank spotted the launch area of n and is aiming its barrel right at the n-launcher.

That's where trouble begins!

Slow moving --> even easier target.

What level of damage do you think an ATGM would cause when stopped ERA to the surrounding forces? You do know what a shaped charge is right?

Assuming engagement under 2km, you have at most 3s from the LWR tripping before impact. In that very short period of time you have to train your gun to the target, lase, then lead and then fire. Doable, but its extremely close, and not something you can consistently expect in combat. And that's assuming he lased your tank directly, instead of doing the smart thing and lasing nearby objects.

>bends the muzzle and pokes several holes along implessive Chinese gun ballel
Yikes

Maybe I'm a brainlet when it comes to hard kill systems but did that APS ac and actually trigger the ATGM's explosive charge?

My point being that the weapon itself isn't rendered ineffective as APS doesn't make a vehicle impervious to AT weaponry. It's an extremely useful addition giving a vehicle a grace period to either get the fuck out or destroy the attacking enemy.

What a PoS
>rocket backblast all over the turret, making it impossible to conduct a quick return fire
>retardedly huge warhead that is seemingly He-frag, great for puncturing holes in your own tank
>big warhead means slow missile which means closer interceptions and no chance at follow ups

Attached: 0E9B73DD-FC8F-4985-8907-24361B63FE62.jpg (750x693, 528K)

Friendly reminder that the US already has directed energy APS.

breakingdefense.com/2019/02/army-adapts-aircraft-ew-to-protect-tanks-bae-raven/

Also, this is just 50% of the system, they want the hard kill system in addition to a good quality jammer.

That's two APS to get through, won't be easy 100% of the time!

Its like Shtora then?

Shtora is a dazzler, not a jammer.

The single-use RPG-30 adopted by the Russian armed forces (In what quantities, idk) attempts to address the APS problem by first firing a tertiary decoy projectile ahead of the main warhead, thus triggering the APS system with the first projectile and hitting the tank with tandem HEAT immediately after the APS fires

There's a difference?
>All that said, RAVEN doesn’t need to track an incoming missile precisely to defeat it. Though BAE can’t confirm details, that’s probably because it broadcasts a wide beam of electromagnetic interference to scramble the missile’s targeting system and make it miss, what’s known as a “soft kill.”
Sounds like the same concept to me, though of course RAVEN's a lot more sophisticated in operation.

This is useless against APS with the ability to identify the incoming projectile.

Do you not know how shtora works?

This is getting ridiculous now.

>increase APS range or fire two grenades
>goodbye Ivan's shitty missile
>welcome tank round in Ivan's face

It's BETTER than Shtora - not just a generic transmitter but a system that takes any update(s) they come up with. From cheap stuff in APCs to top-of-the-line stuff in MBTs, America gets it right again.

>The Army’s ultimate goal: a plug-and-play open architecture – hence the “Modular” in MAPS – that they can easily upgrade with the latest sensors, hard-kill countermeasures, and soft-kill systems, from whatever vendor offers the best tech at the best price.

MAPS is a seperate system from RAVEN.

The decoy rocket is engineered to give off a similar radar signature to the main missile. Launch order is randomized as well. Its problematic to rely only on radar which is why Afghanit had integral UV sensors to detect rocket plumes and APFSDS tracers.

They bought 1000 units in 2013.

>he based everything off what ha seen from movies
I got bad news for you
also, learn what "spear head thrust maneuver" is before brain fart shit talk

Attached: 1248099.jpg (597x459, 52K)

>try to defend the RPG30 decoy
>undermine yourself in the process

In Lebanon the Lebs figured rocket spam was the most effective way to win.

They just dumped rounds from massive amounts of cheap RPGs from multiple sources at once. Overloaded any protection they had.

It's all a matter of volume at the end of the day.

You forgot to mention how both the backblast and the primary detonation would mince anyone sticking their head out of a hatch, so the crew basically have to stay buttoned down any time the system is turned on.