Active Protection Systems: The Future of Defence Against Anti-Tank Missiles In Industry

Active Protection Systems

The first generation of active protection systems emerged in the 1980s to defend against anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Early systems like Drozd and Arena relied on radar detection and hard-kill methods like shotgun shells or directed charges to destroy incoming projectiles before impact. While effective against primitive guided weapons of that era, the systems were bulky, power-hungry and had limited coverage arcs. Advancements in threat technologies outpaced improvements in active protection.

By the late 1990s and 2000s, a new generation of active shields began development. Led by Israeli firms Rafael and IMI, soft-kill systems gained prominence. Instead of direct destruction, they utilised optical sensors, powerful computers and soft-kill strategies like smoke screens or electric fields to decoy, dazzle or misdirect threats away from the protected asset. Recent examples include the Trophy system on Merkava tanks and Iron Fist for armoured vehicles. These significantly slimmed down the profile and expanded protection angles compared to hard-kill forebears.

Emerging Threat Countermeasures

While Active Protection Systems made tanks more resilient than passive reactive armour alone, threats did not remain static. Modern man-portable anti-tank guided weapons have greater range, accuracy and lethality than 1980s vintage designs. The latest Russian and Chinese missiles even employ tandem-charge high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads capable of defeating all but the most advanced active protection today.

New threat capabilities like loitering munitions and hypervelocity kinetic energy rockets pose additional challenges. Their small size, low radar signatures and ability to autonomously attack from multiple angles severely test current APS algorithms. Adapting sensors, processors and payloads to this threat spectrum will be critical for next-gen systems. Stealthier attack tactics like ambushes or saturation salvos may also attempt to overwhelm existing hard and soft kill strategies.

Cutting-edge Efforts

In response, active protection is advancing rapidly on multiple fronts. Israeli firms are developing soft and hard-kill hybrid solutions combining active decoys and interceptors on platforms such as Eitan and Carmel. The U.S. Army's Modular Active Protection System (Maps) aims to provide an open, scalable and tailorable solution for tomorrow's armored vehicles. This modular framework will facilitate rapid integration of updated sensors, kill mechanisms and defence strategies from multiple vendors.

On the hard-kill side, directed energy weapons are gaining interest. Laser-based active protection offers promises like unlimited magazine depth, immunity to electronic countermeasures and engagement speeds surpassing any kinetic interceptor. Challenges remain in sufficient power output from rugged packages. Meanwhile, new interceptor varieties pursue enhanced lethality through explosive reactive armour tiles or programmable ammunition capable of discriminating decoys from real threats.

International Competition

The active protection race exhibits intense international competition. Besides long-standing rivals Israel and Russia, new players are emerging. China's military modernisation is investing heavily in both importing foreign APS and indigenous development. Domestic programs cover evolving threat types through multi-sensor integration and adaptable defence strategies.

Turkey is also competing with its domestic efforts like Akkor and Eyyubi. State-backed campaigns aim to achieve self-sufficiency and become an APS supplier. Even smaller defense industries are entering the fray. South Africa successfully tested the Vektor Hard Kill System against anti-tank missiles. India too is developing an all-aspect APS through its Defence Research and Development Organisation.

Increasing proliferation of man-portable and vehicle-mounted anti-armour weapons, the demand for active defence solutions will only intensify globally. The competitive pressure is driving next-gen APS toward faster processing, expanded detection coverage, and improved countermeasure lethality, sustainability and scalability against evolving threats.

Get more insights on Active Protection Systems

About Author:

Ravina Pandya, Content Writer, has a strong foothold in the market research industry. She specializes in writing well-researched articles from different industries, including food and beverages, information and technology, healthcare, chemical and materials, etc. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ravina-pandya-1a3984191)