Alternative to the Stryker cage

In my peaking through patent applications I happened upon something quite novel.

Now I'm sure well all know about the Styker's Anti-RPG cage:



But researchers at DARPA have again come to the plate with their anti-grenade netting. The patent info can be found here - and there are images but I refuse to install the required Quicktime plugin to view them (the text is interesting enough for me).

www.tinyurl.com/3bchor

I for one think that the researchers were playing badmington and 'poof' there's a new defence idea...

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Zeeko] - sorry about not hyperlinking it properly - doesnt seem to like it. Just cut and paste link.

Just using Tiny URL link instead now...

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Zeeko]

reply to post by Zeeko


in a urben warefare enviroment
wouldnt you be more prone to attacks from people shootings rpgs from high buildings onto the top of the apcs and tanks

or IEDS (mines) under the APCS/tanks?

how usefull will this be against them?

But researchers at DARPA have again come to the plate with their anti-grenade netting.

Why re-invent the wheel? Battle proven solutions already exist, and they are sure not the chicken coup looking Strikers and Bradleys.

I for one think that the researchers were playing badmington and 'poof' there's a new defence idea...

Playing badminton is not quite the same as having RPGs and ATGMs shot at you.

For how it is in the armed personnel carrier business it’s best to look to the folks that invented the concept in the first place.

Soviets came up with the concept of armored mechanized infantry and created BMP-1 for massive wave attacks.

Urban warfare was not in the equation back then, so the fuel tanks in the doors was not a problem since BMP-1s were designed to break through and keep going forward with out looking back.

The fact that BMP-1 and 2s are easily burned by RPGs was especially apparent in Chechen wars, and Russians set out to create a BMP which can operate in difficult conditions of urban warfare, and they did.

So while Bradley and Strikers are MODIFIED to increase survivability in urban environment, BMP-3M was engendered with all such variables in mind, and instead of fooling around with nets DARPA should take notice of systems which already proven to work.

BMP-3M uses active Arena Defensive Aids suite to defeat incoming low velocity projectiles. All types of rocket propelled AND mortar shells are intercepted before they strike the armor of BMP-3M.

For passive protection, 35 front glacis and additional side armor provides protection from AP .50 cal rounds from 50 meters, thus creating the best protection available on ANY APC today.

Further more specifically engineered ERA is also available as an option.

All that combined with MASSIVE firepower which destroys everything from manpower, buildings, armor, AND low speed airborne targets, provides unprecedented levels of PRO-active protection available.

Especially effective are 100mm main gun laser guided rounds, and air burst capable HE-FRAG rounds which can engage air targets up to 6K meters, or wipe out man power hiding behind cover and in buildings.

BMP-3M already covers all of the angles, so instead of coming up with ridiculous air bags and badminton inspired nets, we should simply look at what already works.

Until I see a video showing an airbag and a net stopping an 82mm mortar shell, I can only laugh at such ridiculous ideas.

RPG's are not a big problem in Iraq for a number of reasons, and the Stryker can take RPG's, so can the Abrams but the up armored Humvees cannot. Still the main method of attack is via IED's, from VBIED's to EFP's. The BMP-3M would also have difficulty with this type of threat and active protection is not a Soviet trademark. The Israelis have a similar system in service which the US tested in Iraq but has been slow to implement for a number of reasons. Raytheon and several other US companies are also working on such systems for the US Army's FCS program…

Oh, I for one don't believe that this system is very useful. Which is what my remark about the badmington is about - doing something stupid also gives stupid ideas.

They'll have better luck trying to figure out their mystical one way energy shield.

RPG's are not a big problem in Iraq for a number of reasons, and the Stryker can take RPG's, so can the Abrams but the up armored Humvees cannot.

Got statistics?

With out hiding in the chicken coup, Bradley and Striker are dead ducks. Cages are rated “RPG resistant”, and have been since WWII!

While chain and changes are effective again shaped charges, they are NOT effective against copper lined shaped charges.

Molten copper jet still penetrates into the armor, wile tandem warheads simply blasts through.

Still the main method of attack is via IED's, from VBIED's to EFP's.

Sure is, because it eliminates the possibility of the guy detonating the IED being shot, while RPG grenadier will have a blast of rocket exhaust behind him every time he fires, thus giving exposing him self to all kinds of counter fire.

The BMP-3M would also have difficulty with this type of threat and active protection is not a Soviet trademark.

IED blasts in Iraq have literally flipped Abrams over, so yes, ANY vehicle can be destroyed with a blast big enough, but what is it about active protection trademark?

By the way, BMP-3M is made in Russia, not Soviet Union, for the fact that it doesn’t exist any more…

The Israelis have a similar system in service which the US tested in Iraq but has been slow to implement for a number of reasons.

That’ll be because the Israelis system is based entirely on obsolete Drozd system (Kompleks 1030M-01) they got from Ukrainians, while Arena was developed in Russia.

Drozd project was abandoned by the Soviet Army since Kontakt-5 reactive armor provided better protection at much cheaper price. Only 250 obsolete T-55s were upgraded with Drozd. The upgrades were done in Ukraine tank remanufacturing plant.

Raytheon and several other US companies are also working on such systems for the US Army's FCS program…

Yep, that’ll be the development of the Israelis Drozd version but at the expensive of American tax dollars.

Israelis simply got tired of spending money on making it work, so now we’ll be stuck with the bill…

To Westpoint23: What the heck is your point about active protection not being a trademark? Everything you were just listed about the BMP-3s defense measures spells protection. And on top of that - maybe it wasn't a trademark befor the BMP-3, but maybe this was the start? The Russians have great engineers, just because they haven't focused on designing much protection means for vehicle crews doesn't mean they can't.

To Iskander: As much as I hate to I'm going to have to disagree with you in a part of your post. The BMP-3 was designed during the days of the USSR, and entered production in the late 1980s. It was first displayed during a parade in Moscow in 1990. This does make Westpoint23s comment relevant I'm afraid.

"The fact that BMP-1 and 2s are easily burned by RPGs was especially apparent in Chechen wars, and Russians set out to create a BMP which can operate in difficult conditions of urban warfare, and they did."

The BMP-3 was not a result of horrific BMP losses from the chechen war since it was developed befor they started. Neither have they seen service there since Yeltsin and his generals were *censored*. Actually no new Russian tech ever saw combat there even if it was developed befor the chechen war. The oligarchs in the Russian goverment have lifetime supplies of cash because of the weapons they sold to the chechens, and disposed of alot of old unmaintained soviet tech (aswell as 17-19 year old boys) in the process. Great ain't it.

Nonetheless the BMP-3 is the ultimate APC hands down. Lol I would go into detail but i'm afraid Iskander did that already.

Regards,
Maestro

To Iskander: As much as I hate to I'm going to have to disagree with you in a part of your post. The BMP-3 was designed during the days of the USSR, and entered production in the late 1980s. It was first displayed during a parade in Moscow in 1990. This does make Westpoint23s comment relevant I'm afraid.

BMP-3 yes, but I was specifically talking about BMP-3M. Digital FCS, ARENA and a whole bunch of other upgrades creating a BMP-3M were done in 1997.

The BMP-3 was not a result of horrific BMP losses from the chechen war since it was developed befor they started.

Again, BMP-3M. Weapon configuration, FCS, top swing doors, 48 hour effective endurance, a latrine etc, all were a result of needs realized in Chechen conflict.

Like the BMP-2M, the BMP-3M is a BMP-3 modified after Russian experiences in Chechnya. In this vehicle, the armor is increased and modified, and in addition, the BMP-3M has lugs for reactive armor (TF, TS, HF, HS). The fire control system is improved, and the armament can be elevated to 75 degrees. Air conditioning is provided, and in some of the vehicles (perhaps 1 in 5), the BMP-3M is equipped with the Arena active defense system. In this system, there are 10 small projectiles on the TF, HF, TS, and HS. When the onboard sensors detect an incoming round of any type, one of these projectiles gets launched in the direction of the incoming round, and intercepts it on a roll of 12 in 20. If the round is intercepted, it does no harm to the BMP-3M. When all projectiles on a face are used up, the Arena system is useless against attacks launched from that direction.

www.pmulcahy.com...

After 1999 Chechen war, a BMP-4 modification was introduced do to a clear need for higher firepower and better armor.

Unlike traditional BMP line, BMP-4 is a pure gun platform based on a T-55 chassis and armed to the teeth to clear out enemy grenadiers.

Fair enough, I rest my case

Regards,
Maestro

All i can say is that Russia's done this for 30 years, we've now been doing it for 6, and our government likes to play retarded games while the vehicles get blown in half.

Or use a Warrior. Much better.