United Defense CICM defeats RPG's in tests

[Midav]

United Defense Defeats RPGs with Close-In Counter Measure Active Protection System

SANTA CLARA, CA - September 8, 2004 - United Defense Industries, Inc. (NYSE:UDI) has announced that its Close-In Counter Measure (CICM) active protection system successfully intercepted and destroyed incoming Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) during end-to-end testing at the U.S. Army’s Redstone Technical Test Center at Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

In successful end-to-end tests, the United Defense CICM system detected launched RPGs, tracked incoming rockets, launched its countermeasures and defeated RPGs before they reached the protected system.

"This successful counter-RPG mission was accomplished in less than nine months through targeted research and development efforts and rapid prototyping capabilities by United Defense and its teammates to quickly develop a successful, affordable near-term counter to RPGs," said Carl Sullinger, United Defense CICM Program Manager. "We expect to offer the CICM system to the U.S. military as a force protection measure for our fighting forces in combat while providing a fully compatible path with active defense suites for future systems."

CICM is an outgrowth of the many years supporting U.S. Army's Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in survivability integration.
United Defense engineers and scientists teamed with a number of innovative suppliers to rapidly develop CICM, including: BAE Systems in Nashua, N.H. (which provided the passive cueing sensors); Applimotion Corporation in Loomis, Calif.; Electro-Energy in Danbury, Conn.; Vista Controls in Littleton, Mass.; Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Corp. of Hollister; Calif., and CTC in Santa Clara, Calif. a United Defense-owned engineering and analysis organization. The first component tests against live RPGs were conducted at the Redstone Technical Test Center in the fourth quarter of 2003.

The United Defense CICM system uses a variety of innovative technologies, including passive cueing sensors, low-cost tracking radar, a compact high-speed launcher, lightweight and precise non-bursting countermeasure, and new Nickel-Metal-Hydride batteries to supply pulse power.

United Defense has decades of experience developing combat vehicle survivability systems, including the U.S. Army's current Active Defense Systems (ADS) program, formerly known as the Integrated Army Active Protection System (IAAPS).

United Defense (http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20040908.htm)

[Fee Fi Fo Fum]

wasnt the MOD creating something just like this? that sent a shockwave around the tank destroying RPG's in contact with the defence system...?

any hoo really good news! i hope the UK gets a bit of this...

[bison3255]

*waits for some smarty to make some RPG with a bit of kevlar ;)*

[Midav]

wasnt the MOD creating something just like this? that sent a shockwave around the tank destroying RPG's in contact with the defence system...?

any hoo really good news! i hope the UK gets a bit of this...

Yup and wish the system would be brought out, but believe MOD said it would be another few years until that happenes :|

In any case, if this can be brought out sooner, need to start hooking this up to all Coalition vehicles in Iraq.

[Pooga]

That would be such a neato job. I wonder what one would have to do to get it?

[hood]

So what's the counter measure? A metal slug or something? I presume the RPG needs a substantial impact to detonate...

[Hydro]

wasnt the MOD creating something just like this? that sent a shockwave around the tank destroying RPG's in contact with the defence system...?

any hoo really good news! i hope the UK gets a bit of this...

The MOD tested armour that practically electrocuted the incoming round, thereby detonating it. Cool bit of kit.

This tech sounds like a scaled down version of the Anti ATGM kit the Russians deploy on their tanks.

[von_Moo142]

lightweight and precise non-bursting countermeasure

Doesn't give much away does it...

They don't seem to have any detail on thier site.

I guess they could be waiting for patents before releasing anything of substance.

The lightweight part is interesting though.

[Midav]

So what's the counter measure? A metal slug or something? I presume the RPG needs a substantial impact to detonate...

My guess would be it was a hard kill ie an interceptor os sorts. UD has been working on various systems for a few years now.

US Army Active Defense Program

Manufacturer: United Defense


The next step in the US Army Defensive Aid Technology (DAS) is the Army Active Protection System (IAAPS). In February 2003, the U.S. Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) demonstrated the defeat of three new categories of anti-tank threats by such a new Integrated defensive system developed by United Defense Industries. Unlike existing countermeasures, threats were defeated by "soft kill" electronic countermeasures and "hard kill" active protection counter-munitions. The System classifies the inbound threat and assigns the right countermeasure to defeat it. The suite includes two types of passive sensors, electronic warfare countermeasures and an active protection system composed of launcher, radar and a deployed countermeasure.[b] The system demonstrated both "point protection" of the attacked vehicle as well as "area protection" of a limited surrounding area. The suite incorporates an EW system delivered by BAE Systems and an active protection system developed by Northrop Grumman Space Technology, linking to United Defense's platform survivability processor.

IAAPS can handle multiple, simultaneous threats and has already defeated six categories of threats over the past year, puts the system right on track for FCS Block 1. In September 2003, TACOM began a new series of tests that included IAAPS testing on a combat vehicle defeating live threats while traveling at 20 mph. These tests are expected to continue through 2005. Future growth of the IAAPS system includes incorporation of the objective active protection counter-munitions for hardened threats and specifically large caliber long rod penetrators.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/i/iaaps.htm

SANTA CLARA, CA, August 8, 2003 - United Defense Industries, Inc. (NYSE: UDI), under the Integrated Army Active Protection Science and Technology Objective (STO) at TACOM, announced the successful test of a combat vehicle defeating live threats while traveling at 20 mph. The test vehicle was equipped with an active protection system developed by the company under the multiyear survivability program at the U.S. Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM).

[b]The Integrated Army Active Protection System (IAAPS) successfully defended the moving vehicle against live anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) using the “hard kill” active protection system and “soft kill” electronic jammer. This achievement follows the successful completion of 12 months of stationary IAAPS testing where the system equipment and computer programs, which are fully integrated on a U.S. combat vehicle under a TACOM contract, repeatedly defeated a wide range of threats.

According to the company, the continued success of the IAAPS hardware and software is demonstrating that a Future Combat Systems requirement for an integrated suite of sensors, processors and countermeasures is technologically achievable. “The survivability of 20-ton FCS vehicle platforms will be highly reliant on active protection, combined with advanced lightweight armor, to defeat the most lethal anti-armor threats,” said Mark Middione, IAAPS program manager at United Defense. “Our successful stationary and on-the-move IAAPS test results continue to place the system on track for FCS increment 1.”

United Defense has integrated a suite of survivability equipment and computer programs from teammates BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman Space Technology that includes United Defense’s field-proven platform survivability processor as the foundation. The System Design & Development-ready platform survivability processor, developed and refined over the past six years, controls the system and includes a user-optimized soldier machine interface (SMI) with networked revenge kill capability built in. The IAAPS suite designed to greatly increase vehicle survivability while allowing for a decrease in armor and, therefore, vehicle weight includes two types of passive sensors, electronic warfare countermeasures and an active protection system composed of launcher, radar and a deployed countermeasure.

In a series of ongoing tests, the IAAPS team has consistently demonstrated the defeat of a variety of threats fired against a ground combat vehicle equipped with IAAPS. This specially equipped vehicle successfully stopped the threats, sustained no damage, and demonstrated “point protection” of the attacked vehicle as well as “area protection” of a limited surrounding area. The IAAPS active protection system, built by Northrop Grumman, has demonstrated exceptional tracking and fire control accuracy, while the electronic countermeasure system, built by BAE Systems, has demonstrated the ability to handle more than one threat concurrently. Future growth of the IAAPS system includes incorporation of the objective active protection countermunition for hardened threats and specifically large caliber long rod penetrators.

The IAAPS program is an Army STO. The current phase of the IAAPS contract will continue through FY05 and involves defeating incoming threats while the vehicle is moving cross-country at tactical speeds.

United Defense (http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20030908.htm)

[hood]

Unfortunately with all that, they're still not being specific as to what it's launching at the projectile and with what delivery system. I'm sure the troops wouldn't mind a CIWS mounted on top.

[seruriermarshal]

And I think another question is IED .

[Midav]

Sure, as long as they didn't get in the way :P

But seriously, I think weight would be an issue. The hardkill interceptor system being tested right now is much smaller and lighter. It may even be fitted to the Hummer.

[Midav]

And I think another question is IED .

True. The Israelis have a newer system that incoroprates UAV's and other gadgets to counter IED's. Seems to be working for them and we should adopt the idea.

However, IED's are another problem. Let's try and first try to minimize the effects of RPG's :)

[Midav]

This is borrowed from another chat board:

UD also has a whole other approach to the problem, they've developed and tested a hit to kill system composed of 4 missiles to intercept larger warheads like TOWs, and 120mm HEAT (I don't know if APFSDS were tried in tests). Both the countermeasures would compose the defesive suite on the FCS vehicles.
http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large/FCS2CV.jpg
U can clearly see the 4 tube launcher for the Hardkill system on the C&C variant of the FCS. I don't know what's happened since then, but before June 2003 the Hardkill system tests had intercepted over 15 TOW missiles, 4 RPG's, and 2 120mm HEAT shells. Other systems working in conjunction to Hardkill included a laser jammer called DIRCM which was capable of defeating 30 wire-guided missiles during the same tests. Another laser jammer called LATADS was capable of turning 3 semi-active laser guided missiles off-course.

====

I can't verify if the info is 100% factual, but a number of successful tests have been made.

[Pooga]

Man!

[Michael RVR]

It never ceases to amaze me how much the FCS vehicles look like something out of Dune. p-)

[Ghostwolf]

UD also has a whole other approach to the problem, they've developed and tested a hit to kill system composed of 4 missiles to intercept larger warheads like TOWs, and 120mm HEAT (I don't know if APFSDS were tried in tests). Both the countermeasures would compose the defesive suite on the FCS vehicles.


How fast is the system reaction time from detection to launching countermeasures?

I don't know how well armored the FCS is. If it's not as heavily armored as the M1A2, and even if the countermeasure successfully intercepted the AP round in mid air, the fragments of the AP round may still damage the vehicle or even puncture the armor.

[seruriermarshal]

UD also has a whole other approach to the problem, they've developed and tested a hit to kill system composed of 4 missiles to intercept larger warheads like TOWs, and 120mm HEAT (I don't know if APFSDS were tried in tests). Both the countermeasures would compose the defesive suite on the FCS vehicles.


How fast is the system reaction time from detection to launching countermeasures?

I don't know how well armored the FCS is. If it's not as heavily armored as the M1A2, and even if the countermeasure successfully intercepted the AP round in mid air, the fragments of the AP round may still damage the vehicle or even puncture the armor.

Hi Ghostwolf , I'm glad see you again . and I hear FCS will use Electric armor .

[Operation Ivy]

just put them on our tanks and stuff we'll be unstoppable p-)

[Midav]

How fast is the system reaction time from detection to launching countermeasures?

I don't know how well armored the FCS is. If it's not as heavily armored as the M1A2, and even if the countermeasure successfully intercepted the AP round in mid air, the fragments of the AP round may still damage the vehicle or even puncture the armor.

AFAIK, it's classified. Some guess as little as a mere couple of milliseconds, to a whole 2-3 seconds. That's for unguided weapons (RPG's).

With lasers, millimeter wave radars and the like, they say it's instontaneous, because the vehicle has many sensors on it detecting that it's being lazed or probed.

Also, if the main projectile is destroyed and only have some small pieces hitting the vehicle, I don't see much of achance that much damage, if any, would be done.

That's just me talking :)

And, as Seruriermarshal said, it's going to have electric armor.

[seruriermarshal]

How fast is the system reaction time from detection to launching countermeasures?

I don't know how well armored the FCS is. If it's not as heavily armored as the M1A2, and even if the countermeasure successfully intercepted the AP round in mid air, the fragments of the AP round may still damage the vehicle or even puncture the armor.

AFAIK, it's classified. Some guess as little as a mere couple of milliseconds, to a whole 2-3 seconds. That's for unguided weapons (RPG's).

With lasers, millimeter wave radars and the like, they say it's instontaneous, because the vehicle has many sensors on it detecting that it's being lazed or probed.

Also, if the main projectile is destroyed and only have some small pieces hitting the vehicle, I don't see much of achance that much damage, if any, would be done.

That's just me talking :)

And, as Seruriermarshal said, it's going to have electric armor.

May you give me more information about electric armor ? Thanks .

[Ghostwolf]

Hi Ghostwolf , I'm glad see you again . and I hear FCS will use Electric armor .

Hello again, I've been around.



Also, if the main projectile is destroyed and only have some small pieces hitting the vehicle, I don't see much of achance that much damage, if any, would be done.

That's just me talking :)

And, as Seruriermarshal said, it's going to have electric armor.

I heard that some British defense company has been experimenting with some sort of "electrified" armor plating. The idea was to detonate the incoming missile HEAT warheads before they can reach the armor, but that is all I know.

[oldsoak]

Think of it as a giant capacitor - the hull of the vehicle being one "plate" , the standoff armour the other "plate". The heat projectile strikes the outer plate and the heat jet passes through and touches the inner armour - the two plates now form a complete circuit and the current flow between the two disrupts the heat jet .

[Ballistic]

Interesting stuff. Anything that makes Armour safer is always good. This FCS thing is interesting too. I found this page on Global Security, if you've already seen it pay no mind...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm

[Durandal]

It never ceases to amaze me how much the FCS vehicles look like something out of Dune. p-)

Actually, this is the FCS (W)...
http://www.armada.ch/03-1/bilder/006fcsw.jpg

The have a FCS (T) too, but I think that might have be canned.
http://www.armada.ch/03-1/bilder/006fcst2.jpg

The images displayed a couple posts above is an artist's rendering.

[Midav]

May you give me more information about electric armor ? Thanks .

Most has been explained here, but hope this helps some :)

One of the most dangerous and pervasive threats facing American and British troops in combat zones is a primitive grenade launcher that only sets your typical terrorist back about $10.

The Anglo-American defense against this no-tech threat: an electrical force field that's costing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.

Fitted on light armored vehicles such as personnel carriers, the force field uses a series of charged metal plates to dissipate the effects of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), a weapon found by the thousands from Mogadishu to Kabul to Baghdad.

RPGs and other "shape charge" munitions derive their destructive power from cones of copper embedded in their noses. When the warhead explodes, it crushes the cone, shooting out a jet of hot copper at 5,000 mph -- instantly destroying anything short of a tank.

The electrical armor system, powered by the vehicle's regular supply of electricity, stops the jets by zapping them with tens of thousands of amps of current. This vaporizes some of the deadly copper jets and reduces the rest to a relatively harmless mixture of melted and pulverized debris that disperses around the vehicle.

In recent proof-of-concept tests by the British military, RPG attacks on an electric-armor-equipped personnel carrier left only dents and scratches.

"We knew that just a few amps blows a household fuse. So we scaled it all up to fry these copper jets," said John Brown, the physicist at the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory who heads up British electric armor research.

Brown has been working on developing the system for six years. He expects it will be ready for widespread deployment in "certainly 10 years, and maybe quite a lot less than that."

But the menace facing soldiers in personnel carriers is here now.

In use since the early 1960s, and weighing a little more than 15 pounds each, RPGs can total a carrier from nearly 1,000 meters away. They are cheap and extremely easy to get.

"RPGs can be easily picked up from street stalls for as little as $10 in most of the world's trouble spots," Brown said.

"RPGs are extraordinarily widespread," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "And if you have any doubt of that, watch Black Hawk Down."

Tanks are largely protected from the threat of RPGs, Pike said, because they use "reactive armor": bricks of explosives that detonate the grenade before it hits the tank's skin.

But such armor weighs 10 to 20 tons, too much for trucks and personnel carriers to bear. These vehicles must be light to function in the mobile, often urban, combat that military planners predict will become common.

Electric armor only weighs a ton or two, and offers much of the same protection as the reactive defense. That's why the U.S. military plans to spend more than $74 million on electromagnetic armor and gun research and development in the next fiscal year. It spent more than $110 million on the endeavor over the last two years.

When Americans get to the west side of Baghdad and find they've got to fight street to street to get to the east side, this (electric armor) is the kind of thing they'd like to have," Pike said.
Against enemy tanks, however, electric defenses won't do much good. And "any armored warfare guy would tell you that the biggest threat to light armored vehicles are heavy armored vehicles" like tanks, said Clark Murdock, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in an e-mail interview.

Shells from tanks rely on solid pointed chunks of tungsten or depleted uranium to break through armor, instead of the copper jets RPGs use.

Also, the electric armor can't protect carriers from mines and bombs dropped from the sky.

"This is a very specific solution to a very specific problem. It's definitely not like the force screens you'd see in the movies," Pike said.

======

The cheap and readily available Soviet made RPG-7 has always been a threat to forces in trouble areas such as Afghanistan, where it can be picked up for as little as $10 US. When striking a target, the grenade's shaped charge delivers a jet of molten copper, that penetrates up to 12" of conventional armor. This usually results in a disabled vehicle, and dead soldiers. With this system, two external plates are used, the outside plate is grounded and the internal plate is wired to the capacitor. Once the copper shaped charge hits the vehicle, it closes the circuit, effectively vaporizing it.

Repeated tests by the MoD from varying distances, including point blank range, caused only cosmetic damage to the vehicle! The test vehicle survived enough damage to destroy a regularly armored unit several times over, and drove away from the tests under it's own power. The Register has this story , which repeats much of what was said here at news.telegraph.co.uk. While both of these stories refer to the system as a 'force field', it has been noted that it technically is not, as the reaction is not force-based, but electrical. A much more correct press release can be found here, from the Ministry of Defense's DSTL, the clever folks who came up with it.

[aartamen]

Anyone who can hit anything at all at a 1000 yards with and RPG is a truly formidable fighter indeed.

[seruriermarshal]

Thank you , Midav . Thank you help me .

woot

[bison3255]

copper is only in the older models

[Midav]

Thank you , Midav . Thank you help me .

woot

You're welcome :)


copper is only in the older models

That's type the majority of poor nations still use. Also, with the hardkill system, it won't matter what type of RPG is used.

[2RHPZ]

Well, I bring this topic back ´cause there is nother development in CICM:


Fast-Firing Turret Aims to Counter RPGs

Sea Power
Feb 2005
by Burgess, Richard R

Armament makers in the United States are developing ways to counter a ubiquitous force-protection threat to U.S ground forces: rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

RPGs - inexpensive, cone-shaped, armor-piercing grenades fired from shoulder-mounted launch tubes - are one of the principle threats faced by U.S. Marines and Army soldiers in Iraq. Next to car bombs and improvised explosive devices (roadside bombs), RPGs are the most dangerous and effective munition used in great numbers by Iraqi insurgents.

The simple RPG-7, a development of the German Panzerfaust RPG of World War II, first was fielded by the Soviet Army in 1961 and exported to more than 40 countries. It was license-built in Iraq. The RPG-7 is considered effective against moving targets at 300 meters and against stationary targets at 500 meters, according to Lester W. Grau of the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The RPG-7 also is effective against low-flying helicopters, as has been lethally demonstrated in Somalia and Iraq.

The armored vehicles used by U.S. forces in Iraq - including the M1 Abrarns tank - provide substantial protection against small arms but are not invulnerable to RPGs.

Most of the effort to mitigate the effect of RPGs involves increasing the thickness and coverage of armor on vehicles, or installing steel fences that detonate a grenade before it can penetrate the hull of a vehicle. At least one company, however, is leading an effort to provide active countermeasures to defeat RPGs.

United Defense Industries is developing a gun system to intercept and destroy incoming RPGs. The Close-In Countermeasures (CICM) system features an infrared sensor, radar and guns mounted on a swiveling turret designed to be installed on an armored vehicle such as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

...more... (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200502/ai_n10298324)