After learning the lessons of combat use, equipment, whether wheeled or tracked, equipped with modern-level protection, is in great demand.
In particular, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that critical situations could often be resolved only with the use of heavy combat vehicles. Since a terrorist threat can come from any direction, vehicles must have strong all-round defenses.
During the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the euphoric ideas that the global threat had been overcome and world peace had come quickly spread throughout Europe. Senior military officials believed that the military could be reduced to a militia with light infantry weapons. Tanks and armored personnel carriers, which until then formed the backbone of any army, as a whole became dinosaurs of the political ice age and, therefore, a thing of the past. Many would gladly refuse them.
The Balkan conflict, operations in Africa, wars in Iraq, military operations in the Middle East and, more recently, the war in Afghanistan have shown that political superiority in this globalized world can only be achieved through active and sustainable armed forces within the Alliance of States. These conflicts also made it clear that the army must be equipped with enough heavy weapons systems to provide a high level of support for its troops in open or covert combat, and have high reconnaissance capabilities, firepower, mobility and protection.
Passive armor, which is mainly used today as integrated or mounted elements, often results in significant weight gains while reducing mobility and payload. At the same time, the level of protection provided by passive armor has its limits.
The direction, type, effectiveness, and tactics of using means of attack from a covert terrorist ambush have radically changed. Thus, STANAG 4569 is not sufficient guidance to provide protection against realistic threats. Today, ballistic and mine hazards are the most versatile and most powerful. Standardized threats to urban combat operations, such as portable weapon systems of the RPG-7 family, including the RPG-30, anti-tank and anti-personnel missiles, RKG-3 anti-tank hand grenades, improvised explosive devices and charges with a shock core, cannot currently be systematically classified. Due to inappropriate privacy policies, it is often only the end machine manufacturer and not the security developers who are involved in evaluating the attacks, and this has a negative effect. In addition, the fact that various threats such as, for example, infantry ammunition, shaped-charge projectiles, improvised explosive devices and projectile charges often affect the surface of the vehicle must be taken into account when developing a protection concept. To counter such threats, it is necessary to use a variety of materials. For example, steel armor is well suited for defending against infantry weapons, but less useful against shaped-charge missile and RPG heads, and even against charges with a shock core.
Based on the assessment of their own experience in conducting operations, many states have created their own additional criteria and guidelines for the formation of requirements, testing, certification, which should provide sufficient protection.
Protection classification criteria
Protection systems must be classified according to their effectiveness so that they can be compared with each other. According to the current state of technology, it is realistic to classify into three classes, depending on the type of effect. The ability to counteract reusable systems and the prevention of collateral damage are becoming increasingly important in the assessment of protection.
Passive protection provides significant resistance to repeated exposure and, moreover, does not cause much damage around it. In many cases, armor is used from one specific type of material, such as, for example, metal, glass, fibers, ceramics, and others. At the same time, the lining is rarely used to reduce the reserve effect.
Today, a combined solution that provides a high level of protection is more effective. It involves the use of different materials, their distribution and specific location, and the use of synergy effects. This solution provides weight savings. But the shape of the armor, in particular in the case of mine protection, can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this protection.
The great threat to armored fighting vehicles from RPGs with shaped-charge warheads has led to the development of reactive armor. It consists of sets of armor containing explosives, laid out around the turret, as well as the front of the chassis. Countermeasures have prompted a quest to overcome these types of defenses. A shaped charge, falling into dynamic armor and causing it to operate, leaves the affected area and its immediate surroundings defenseless against repeated damage. Thus, protection against tandem ammunition is not provided. That is, this type of armor does not provide protection against repeated exposure. By increasing the number of layers included in one armor set, the level of protection can be increased. However, this will not protect against the RPG-30. In addition, an explosion when explosive reactive armor is triggered poses a serious threat to people or vehicles that are located close to the attacked vehicle.
Due to the heavy weight of the reactive armor set, it increases protection by less than 75% at best, and the side effects that occur when using reactive armor create problems for both the crew and the accompanying forces. All this affected, in particular, the conflicts in the Middle East. Especially in urban battles, where the use of reactive armor has significant drawbacks, and in some cases has led to an impressive complete destruction of the vehicle.
Since the late 1970s, the Armed Forces of the USSR have developed active protection systems that detect, identify and hit approaching threats even before they impact the vehicle. This idea was quickly adopted by the Western military. Active protection systems can be classified into soft-kill and hard-kill countermeasures. In this case, the systems of hard reaction can, in turn, be subdivided in accordance with their reaction time.
Soft-kill systems (optoelectronic countermeasures), such as EADS 'MUSS, can only counter guided and homing missiles fired from a long distance. By setting an aerosol curtain or other countermeasures, the system hides the vehicle and takes the projectile away from the target. In this case, collateral damage from the uncontrolled self-destruction of the threat cannot be ruled out. Soft-kill systems are not suitable for defense against infantry fire, anti-tank grenade launchers, or unguided rockets. Such systems have a relatively long reaction time, therefore they are effective against missiles fired from long distances, so such systems are ineffective in urban operations.
Hard-kill systems are generally classified by the distance at which the target is intercepted, which corresponds to the speed of the system. On this basis, they are divided into systems with high (microseconds), medium and low (milliseconds) performance.
The short-range active protection system, manufactured by IBD Deisenroth Engineering, differs from all others not only in the small distance (10 m), at which the incoming projectile is struck. It also lacks a central sensor system that can be centrally disabled. The system is reusable due to overlapping effective areas. It can be installed on both relatively light armored combat vehicles and heavy tanks, providing all-round protection in the entire upper hemisphere. The weight of the system for light combat vehicles is within 140 kg, and up to 500 kg for heavy equipment.
The most common medium-range systems are the Russian Drozd and Arena-E, which are first generation systems and destroy the threat with small projectiles. IRON FIST, TROPHY and LEDS 150, which counteract with an explosion, as well as AWiSS manufactured by Diehl, which provides destruction with both an explosion and fragmentation grenades, are the most advanced second generation protection systems. All of these systems, which are triggered within a millisecond, are only suitable for medium and heavy combat vehicles due to their heavy weight and architectural features. Configurations for light combat vehicles weighing 350-500 kg are currently being developed. Such systems are effective at distances exceeding 60 m. So they can be used with limited use in urban environments. However, in reality, attacks in the city are conceived from shorter distances, and in such cases they will not have time to work, which means they cannot be applied.
