terratogen wrote:
Force Field...

Unlikely. Its targeting and shooting the inbound projectiles. I suspect its a laser.

terratogen wrote:

Force Field...

Decius wrote:

Unlikely. It's targeting and shooting the inbound projectiles.

That is true.

I suspect it's a laser.

Nope.

Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance.

Specific details about the composition and mechanism of this explosive interceptor device are vague. From the briefing provided by US sources, Defense Update understands that Trophy is designed to form a "beam" of fragments, which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 10 – 30 meters from the protected platform.

The system has an automatic reload mechanism to handle multiple attacks.

The Trophy system is a miniaturized version of the anti-ballistic missile system that automatically detects an incoming threat and launches an interceptor rocket that homes in on the missile and destroys it at a safe distance. Designed to mounted on a fighting vehicle and provide a virtual bubble of protection, it includes rockets that are launched vertically and knock down the RPG round as it streaks toward the vehicle, the Web site said.

According to Defense Weekly, the Trophy is designed to form a 'beam' of fragments, which will intercept any incoming heat threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 32 feet to 100 feet from the protected platform. Trophy was designed to effectively operate in a dense urban environment, where armored vehicles operate closely with integrated infantry forces. Therefore, direction, formation and energy of the fragments are designed to ensure effective target kill with low collateral damage, and low risk to nearby troops.

"The Army is passing up [on Trophy] ..."

At the appropriate distance, a launcher fires oversized buckshot that shreds the incoming shell.

The launchers fire the neutralizing agents which are usually small metal pellets like shotgun shot.

While the 'hard kill' mechanism is classified, sources outside the programme told JDW that it works on an explosive formatted penetrator principle.

There is a related... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

noteworthy wrote:
At the appropriate distance, a launcher fires oversized buckshot that shreds the incoming shell.

Very interesting, both about the weapon and your demonstration of open source intelligence. Clearly, its not a laser. However, I maitain that it is also not a "force field." I think "like a miniature patriot missle system" would convey the appropriate technical concept to the viewing public without being misleading.

Whats really interesting about these systems is that if you can rely on them you don't need as much armor, which makes you more flexible and lighter.

Decius wrote:

What's really interesting about these systems is that if you can rely on them you don't need as much armor, which makes you more flexible and lighter.

This is true insofar as the systems are actually effective against the threats of interest. Trophy is not effective against IEDs. And in order for the interceptor to destroy the target, the radars have to be able to detect and track it. Once you actively deploy a system against an opponent with development capability, you very quickly get into a CM/CCM race. So as long as your vehicles need to be effective against comparable conventional forces in a symmetric engagement, then you can't put too much stock in this kind of thing.

noteworthy wrote:
Decius wrote:

What's really interesting about these systems is that if you can rely on them you don't need as much armor, which makes you more flexible and lighter.

This is true insofar as the systems are actually effective against the threats of interest. Trophy is not effective against IEDs. And in order for the interceptor to destroy the target, the radars have to be able to detect and track it. Once you actively deploy a system against an opponent with development capability, you very quickly get into a CM/CCM race. So as long as your vehicles need to be effective against comparable conventional forces in a symmetric engagement, then you can't put too much stock in this kind of thing.

Well, the question becomes "Does that matter." Seems like this is meant to provide defense against one particular type of attack in the context of our present engagements and it seems likely to do so.

I do wonder how good it's radar is and how responsive. What if there are two inbounds? Or 9? What if 8 of them are fake? I'm sure it's smart enough to tell a big rock from an RPG, but it'd be interesting to know how much differentiation it has. I guess there'll probly be some insurgents trying to find that out by trial and error.

All that being said, I'm generally in favor of good defensive tech. Here's hoping it's functional enough and cheap enough to put into active use quickly. As decius, I take issue with calling a "force field". That's a straght up play for attention. Silly commercial media shenanigans.