Talk:Trophy active protection system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Middle Eastern military history task force

Contents 1 Resistance to adoption by the United States 2 No mention of disadvantages? 3 Line 4 Disadvantages? 5 Capitalization 6 Copy-edit

[edit] Resistance to adoption by the United States

This section is speculative. Not only we MSNBC doesn't know the reason behind US military reluctance in buying this system, many are not a fan of dependence on technology provided by foreign sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magician 60 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of disadvantages?

Firstly I would wonder why there is no mention of the Arena system? It seems to me that TROPHY is obviously based on Arena (at-least the concept). So shouldn't that be mentioned?

Secondly there is no mention of the obvious disadvantages of such a system, mainly the fact that it is totally incapable of stopping Tank rounds like HEAT and Kinetic Energy projectiles. So the claim that this system will be able to remove the need for Armour on vehicles is frankly, far fetched. If they really think that they can make tanks immune to attacks because they can shoot down a few missiles, they will get a rude awakening when they get a 120 mm round in the backside.

Also the claim that the system is safe for near-by people is also an exaggeration. If the system destroys an incoming missile, the missile's Warhead and fuel will Explode, and surely case casualties to near-by soldiers. The only difference is that the missile will explode a few meters from the vehicle instead of exploding on the vehicle's hull, there will still be an explosion very close to the vehicle. --Hibernian 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's even worse than that. From what I gather, this is intended to be used against irregulars and guerrillas, but in that role, it's completely useless. Existing armor works just fine against RPGs. When you replace it with this system, you open yourself up to all sorts of problems. An enemy sniper could destroy it as soon as the vehicle pauses somewhere. You'd have to take the Trophy system off of the vehicle at night just to be sure that it won't get shot or damaged in a mortar strike, which leaves you unprepared for night raids. A marksman could probably hit the system while the vehicle is in motion, and then follow up with an RPG. Like all electronic equipment, it's going to fail. Either dust and grime will accumulate on the motors and joints, or the bouncing of the vehicle will damage the equipment, or the program will reveal some new bug. Every added bit of complexity increases the chances of failure. If you get rid of the armor, you end up with vehicles that are periodically defenseless. Replacing the armor with this is just going to increase costs and casualties. Not to mention that it does nothing to stop the most serious threat so far: IEDs and landmines. Those are the most likely means by which guerrillas would bring down a tank anyway.

Now, let's say they try to apply this against modern armies. As you noted, an enemy tank is just going to make mincemeat out of this. It's a terrible idea, the radar will be giving away your position at all times. Commandoes can go around your vehicles, and armies can home in on them. It's also wrong to think of this as a shield. Even when the system is working perfectly, it won't completely defend the vehicle. Worst comes to worst, 5 missiles are sent instead of one. After there is need of specialized equipment, it's simply a matter of adding some armor to the front of a missile, or making it stealthy when viewed from the front. That much is extremely easy. Putting a slanted metal plate on the front and then some aerodynamic shaping around it would probably be good enough to make the missile stealthy from the front. Furthermore, this is an electronic active defense system, so a little EMP might render the unarmored vehicles completely defenseless.

In both roles, this system makes the vehicle less safe, and more expensive. Used supplementally, it might be beneficial in the first role, but again, tanks typically aren't brought down by RPGs anyway. When fighting guerrillas, IEDs and landmines are the tank killers. So, rather than affording any considerable increase in safety, it just increases the cost, and possibly enables the guerrillas to track the tank via its radar system, increasing the risk of landmines being placed ahead of its path, and decreasing its chances of engaging the enemy. Time will tell if all the gadgetry is actually worth its cost. -NorsemanII 06:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is innacurate to say that mines and IEDs are more common threats. While the Unided States of America have more trouble with IEDs, Israel is dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups which tend to use RPGs.

Well having this system installed is better than not having it. You say that a tank will make mincemeat out of it, but in the first place, if it's mounted on a tank itself, and of course the Israelis themselves want to or perhaps already are mounting it on their Merkavas, then there goes your 'tank-will-make-mincemeat-theory' since the Merkava would hypothetically make mincemeant out of the enemy tank first. Also if they enemy has to fire 5 missiles to defeat this system instead of one, well jolly good, now there's 4 less missiles going for other targets. Also with regards to the kinetic energy weapons and danger to surrounding infantry, the maker of TROPHY already claims that the system can neutralize modern kinetic penetrators as well as the already mentioned threats of RPGs and ATGMs whilst doing minimal damage to any surrounding infantry. Check out their brochure at

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/635.pdf as well as their ad video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJLHX7gxxg Killer3000ad 09:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Line

"They would have a system like TROPHY reduce or eliminate the need for heavy armor for combat vehicles."

What is that supposed to mean? --Far Beyond 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the opportunity, they (I'm assuming the TROPHY designers) would sell their TROPHY system to people who make combat vehicles, so that the vehicles could be made without heavy armor. The vehicles would use the TROPHY system for defense instead of the heavy armor. -NorsemanII 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

TROPHY is not a replacement for heavy armor, its a supplement. TROPHY cannot defend against mines, anti-vehicle cannons like those mounted on tanks, or artillery, and once its ammunition is exhausted the vehicle is much more vulnerable to missile strikes. I'm modifying the article to reflect this. Peptuck 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it may mean that it make medium armour more widely aplicable, enhancing mobility.

[edit] Disadvantages?

I fail to see how the fact that TROPHY can't totally replace armor is a "disadvantage". By that logic, the fact that anti-tank missiles are ineffective against high-altitude bombers is a "disadvantage". — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Why is "TROPHY" in all-caps? Is it an acronym? The Jane's article writes "Trophy Active Protection System (APS)", but they normally refer to it as just "Trophy".[1] The capitalization seems to be an inconsistently-followed Rafael house style—sometimes they capitalize frickin' everything,[2] and sometimes they don't.[3] When they're not being fancy, they write "Trophy—Active protection system".

It seems clear that the proper name is just "Trophy", and "active protection system" is a descriptive, not part of the name. I'm moving this to Trophy active protection system, per the naming conventions. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 03:19 Z

[edit] Copy-edit

Some copy needs some work:

מעיל רוח should be transliterated.

When a weapon is fired at the vehicle, the internal computer uses the signal from the incoming weapon and calculates an approach vector.

Signal? Does this operate against active radio-homing missiles only, or is this very badly misstated?

Once the incoming weapon is fully classified, the computers calculate the optimal time and angle to fire the neutralizers.

Classification doesn't sound like a synonym for calculating an approach vector. Computer, or computers? These two sentences are inconsistent in number.

The response comes from two rotating launchers installed on the sides of the vehicle. The launchers fire the neutralizing agents, which are usually small metal pellets like shotgun shot.

"Neutralizers"? "Neutralizing agents"? Is that really the terminology used? Does usually mean that sometimes the computer chooses a different neutralizing agent, or what? —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 03:43 Z