Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rafael has showcased its Armor Shield KE, or ASPRO-KE.
An Israeli defense website published an interview with a Rafael official, so I'll post the main points:

1. The only system said to fully deal with KEPs is Iron Fist, an active system. But Rafael takes a different approach, saying even a deflected penetrator would inflict damage. They prefer using the APS for anything other than KE, and absorb the KEP with reactive armor.

2. Rafael's main competitor is the US Army which develops for itself, but considers itself a global leader in this field.

3. The weight is still prohibitive and suitable for MBTs, at up to 750kg/m2 for turret front, 400kg/m2 for turret side, and 375kg/m2 for hull front.

 
fg_3891221-idr-10414.jpg?sfvrsn=de67c71d_2



4. The effect versus APFSDS is tremendous - up to 54% in simulations, and roughly 50% reduction in penetration power in live tests.

5. Defeats existing 125mm APFSDS and said to work against KEPs of any caliber.

6. The ERA shatters the KEP into fragments and prevents penetration of the outer layer of the armor.

7. The KEP activates the ERA with its heat and friction, triggering it when a real threat is identified, preventing false activation.

8. Hundreds of tests were made, and the blast does not endanger nearby troops.

9. The ERA module will work on multiple threats so long as two different shells are not hitting the exact same point, as in "shoot through a hole", which is true for any type of armor ever. This is indeed a very significant development.

10. The IDF has yet to purchase this armor, and Rafael is marketing it abroad for now.
 

 
MODEL.jpeg


 

 
MODEL2.jpeg



I cannot exaggerate the importance of this. In the past, an entire module that was shot through, was gone. Here, you have an ERA module with the weight of conventional ERA and its single hit effectiveness, with the multi-shot survivability of completely passive armor.
This is the best of both worlds, so to speak, and a lightweight, survivable ERA against KE will give western tanks a protection capability against the most advanced Russian and Chinese APFSDS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are exaggerating this quite a bit. Obviously Rafael will pretend that its new ERA is some sort of breakthrough in design and technology, but in reality it seems to be nothing really special. It is just not casette-based and uses insensitve exposives. In reality multi-hit capability will still be far lower than that of a fully inert reactive armor and the fact that it is not casette based  (or rather it has an exterior cover plate, the figure in the slide clearly shows an ERA casette) means that repairing/replacing the ERA modules will be more cumbersome. This is a choice made to reduce fragmentation.

A reduction of 50% in penetration power might sound massive, but in reality that is a 250-300 mm reduction in penetration power for a weight of 700 to 750 kg (equvialent to a 95 mm steel plate). That's a mass efificiency of 3.15 at best - good, but certainly not unheard of, specifically for ERA.

17 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

9. The ERA module will work on multiple threats so long as two differ ent shells are not hitting the exact same point, as in "shoot through a hole", which is true for any type of armor ever. This is indeed a very significant development.

Not according to Rafael's presentation at IAV 2021.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, methos said:

means that repairing/replacing the ERA modules will be more cumbersome. This is a choice made to reduce fragmentation.

The entire module is meant to be replaced, not a single casette. 

Damaged modules can be repaired in a depot so the actual difference to maintenance and logistics isn't great.

1 hour ago, methos said:

A reduction of 50% in penetration power might sound massive, but in reality that is a 250-300 mm reduction in penetration power for a weight of 700 to 750 kg (equvialent to a 95 mm steel plate). That's a mass efificiency of 3.15 at best - good, but certainly not unheard of, specifically for ERA.

Those are not representative numbers. One can skew them in a way that gives the module a mass efficiency of 10. 

How? A module for the hull front weighs 350kg, including mounting and all. Why the difference in weight? Because the turret front module weighs twice as much as a hull front module.

A nearly meter long 125mm penetrator might pierce anything up to 900mm. Half that would be 450mm. 

450mm reduction for the equivalent of a 45mm plate is 10:1 weight efficiency. 

So if you are trying to make a case here, improve it.

1 hour ago, methos said:

Not according to Rafael's presentation at IAV 2021.

I haven't seen the presentation. But I have an interview a Rafael official gave about it.

Seeing that you have not actually specified anything about the presentation at IAV, you haven't seen it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Damaged modules can be repaired in a depot so the actual difference to maintenance and logistics isn't great.

The differnce "isn't great"? You just need a crane to lift the armor modules rather than letting the soldiers install the ERA casettes by hand!

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Those are not representative numbers. One can skew them in a way that gives the module a mass efficiency of 10. 

No, these are pretty representative numbers, because the ERA's performance is not independent from the type of the round and the thickness of the ERA. The figures I provided are based on the IAV 2021 talk done by Rafael, i.e. Dr. David Gershon's presentation "Vehicle Survivability & Defeating Long Rod Penetrators" where the new Armouur Shield KE ERA was first showcased.

The simulation showing a 56% decrease in penetration was done with a computer-simulated turret ERA module. The actual test firings showcased by Dr. Geshron (as slow-motion video footage) were a reduction in penetration performance of 48-50% was achieved were also conducted against a simulated turret front with the heavy ERA solution. The lighter hull ERA won't reach the same level of performance.

Btw. this is how the turret armor module looked after two hits with APFSDS rounds:

HYjyZ9R.png

Unfortunately the enconding of the IAV livestream is not of perfect, so please apologize for the blurry image. This ERA module contains four casettes (internally mounted) with Rafael paying attention to shoot different ones.

J4gxAty.png

The exact weight of this test configuration was 725 kg/m² according to the slides.

I also didn't choose the penetration figures randomly; while Dr. Gershon was no willing to disclose the exact type of APFSDS used, the stated muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/s suggests it was the DM43/KEW-A1/OFL F1 APFSDS round, which will only penetrate ca. 550-600 mm of unsloped steel armor (as used for measuring residual penetration during the test). This also matches the penetrators visible in the slow-motion videos:

IGYOXcZ.png

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A nearly meter long 125mm penetrator might pierce anything up to 900mm. Half that would be 450mm. 

They didn't use a nearly one meter long penetrator for tests. The penetration reduction would be lower for a longer penetrator; based on the simulation shown during the IAV 2021 livestream, the Armor Shield KE module bends the frontal section of the longrod penetrator and applies yaw (ca. 2.7° in the simulation) to the whole rod. Weighing as much as 95 mm of steel armor, it also will provide a decent amount of "passive protection".

The impact of the first mechanism (bending) and of the "passive protection" will be lower the longer/the more powerful a penetrator gets, as more of it will remain unaffected by it.

feVl0T7.png

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Seeing that you have not actually specified anything about the presentation at IAV, you haven't seen it either.

I have watched it and I have a recording of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...