Talk:Trophy (countermeasure)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Development Status[edit]

the system is now entering service in the idf, so far there were about 100 tests of the system, and all were successful.

Resistance to adoption by the United States[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of disadvantages?[edit]

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)

Line[edit]

"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.

Disadvantages?[edit]

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)

This is absolutely absurd. The disadvantages section, I mean. Saying TROPHY has disadvantages because it isn't the equivilent an antimatter shield is like saying personal body armor has disadvantages because it doesn't protect against biological attacks. TROPHY does its job nearly flawlessly, and there are no SOURCED disadvantages. Therefore, I am removing that section until someone provides both sources for REAL disadvantages in comparison to alternatives AND realistic disadvantages. None of this "TROPHY is flawed because it's not an antimatter shield" crap. It doesn't even suggest replacing armor! It's a COMPLEMENTING SYSTEM! (71.215.201.20 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
Not necessarily true, Trophy may be the best active protection system curently fielded but is not quite flawless. I don't know where anybody would get that idea. Since Trophy just has two launcher/loaders it does not have 360 degree protection. They are mounted on the Merkava tank in a way that there is a huge blind spot in the back (where the tank's armor is most vulverable). Also Trophy cannot protect against top attacks. For instance, if a FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile was launched at a tank with Trophy on it, the tank would be destroyed because the Javelin missile attacks from the top where Trophy's launcher/loader cannot aim at. There are a lot of other top attack missiles, aircraft launched missiles, and anti-tank artillery out there Trophy is vulnerable too as well. Secondly, the shotgun-like kill vehicle could conceivably cause a lot of civilian collateral damage. Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, a top U.S. Army acquisition official, said “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.” Trophy engineers have done computer simulations that show this should only happen 1 in 100 times, but the risk is still there. Also, the regular Trophy system is too heavy and draws too much power to put on anything but a tank. This is why Trophy Light is in development, but Trophy Light will either have only one launcher/loader or smaller kill vehicles, either way it will be less effective. All of these deficiencies are to be addressed in Israel's next active protection system, Iron Fist. IraqVet225 (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and you want sources? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18356061/page/5/, http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm IraqVet225 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
GOOD! Add those to the article! What the hell are you giving them to me for? If you check the history, my complaints were about the retarded "disadvantages" listed that basically complained that it wasn't an antimatter shield. I have no complaints about actual "problems" being listed. (71.215.201.20 (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Capitalization[edit]

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

Copy-edit[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