Talk:Trophy (countermeasure)

Article Reads Like an Ad

I was playing a war game, saw this tech mentioned, did a web search search, and arrived at this article. I thought it was the manufacturers website at first. Lines like:

"To provide thousands of systems to its customers, Rafael established the first Trophy production line in Israel in 2007"

Sounds more like a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia.

And:

“I tried to kill the Abrams tank with ATGM 48 times and failed, despite the fact that some of them were supersonic,” said US Army Col. Glenn Dean. 

Feels like a testimonial.

Don't get me wrong, the technology is very impressive and I don't dispute any of of the claims made. It's just my impression of the tone after a casual read by someone with little knowledge in this area, and thus no pre-formed bias. It doesn't leave the impression of an NPOV. Opie8 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a very hard article to read - BeingObjective (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Development Status

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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

It is TROPHY® -- not sure if I really care, but all of the materials I reviewed - including other manufacturers - state all caps.

BeingObjective (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Trophy on Namers

http://www.janes.com/article/57558/israel-rolls-out-trophy-protection-on-new-namers

Phd8511 (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Possible countermeasures"? the RPG 30 is nothing but a desperate attempt to bypass active protection

for a system that can neutralize multiple RPG launches at the same time from the same direction(it is noted in rafael's site and a PDF file on the system) a "decoy" is nothing but another RPG that can be shot down before the next and "real" one that should follow. and there is no need for another system like "Trench Coat" which i doubt if its even real, cause what it does is exactly what the Trophy system is doing and infact what the article on israelnationalnews.com site(in the reference for the "Trench Coat") said about that trench coat is an almost exact quote of what the israeldefense.co.il site said about the Trophy system on the context of the RPG 30: the article about Trophy system and RGP 30 the article is in hebrew but you can translate those few lines on google translate or notice simply notice the numbers 360 and 17 that exist in both versions in the same order and places and was clear that the Trophy system is the one which is "one step further" and not that "trench coat". and according to almost every article that talk about the RPG30 and the Trophy system like the one i showed before and this one(also in hebrew) it is noted that the main rocket of the RPG30 is working by being very close to the "decoy" rocket and that the buckshot blast can hit both rockets at the same time. infact it is possible that the Trophy designers chosed buckshot-like ammunation for the launchers to deal with the possibility of a "decoy" from the first place.

the RPG 30 was mybe theoreticaly being able to bypass some experimental and non-operational active protection systems that barely could face with one RPG(decoy or not) and used single bullet/metal piece that the "decoy" could take the hit instead of the real RPG but when it is a large cloud of 17 metal pieces(which probably only few of them actualy hit the target when it is a "regular" RPG without a decoy) everything that is close to the decoy is get hit by at least one of the metal pieces so the RPG30 isn't different from other RPGs against the Trophy system.

so can i remove the "Possible countermeasures" section? or only someone with special permission can do it?.

--79.177.105.149 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Trophy use Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators - MEFP

apparently the articles i showed in former section and this wiki article are out-dated or even wrong. according to this PDF file from rafael's site: http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf Trophy use MEFP. and if we comeback to the RPG30 issue, from what can be seen from the MEFP in action in one of the pictures in this article it is clear that the MEFP form large and long stream of projectiles that can easily hit another rocket that follows a decoy one close enough.

i think the wiki article should also mention that(according to this PDF at least) trophy can engage multiple RPG's from one direction and not just from multiple directions. --79.177.105.149 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of EL/M-2133 into Trophy (countermeasure)

Unclear notability of EL/M-2133. If it is only used with Trtophy, it seems reasonable to address it here rather than in an individual stub. Ost (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Redirected, given that there was no unique content to merge. Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

General Style and Very Poor Use of English

With total respect, this is a very hard document to understand.

It really rambles along and seems not to follow any conventional style of English.

Was this written by a native English speaker? If it was not - I do apologize further -

A lot of the material is clearly copied directly from promotional documentation (Raphael and Leonardo) and then what seems to be - poor attempts to obfuscate the plagiarism have been made.

Hence, it makes little sense for the most part. There are few real citations, there is essentially no paragraph structure.

Attempts have been made to offer far better section titles, NPOV content and the like. These have been overtly rejected and reverted - with almost amazing alacrity. With no discussion or constructive dialog.

I am not of a mind to be uncivil, impolite nor to enter into editing wars - but I do think with just a little effort, civility and openness - the readability of this article could be seriously improved.

This is Wikipedia and if there is no willingness to collaborate with others, it is just not worth the effort to even offer to assist.

I am happy to help - but CERTAINLY not willing to enter into rampant conflict. It is just a Wikipedia article after all!

BeingObjective (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Several Issues - in the title areas.

Most of the section titles are curiosities.

TROPHY can and is used to locate an incoming projectile - but the title of the section mumbles on about ma·neu·ver·a·bil·i·ty

/məˌno͞ov(ə)rəˈbilədē/ -- no citation, and it makes little sense. BeingObjective (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Added a para - tried to standardize the English usage - the citation might be a bad one - apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeingObjective (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In the service of Norway

As far as I know the new Leopard 2A8 tanks that Norway is purchasing also have their active defense system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6680:2104:98E8:D0AC:BEFF:FE5D:F31F (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Section Changed - standard English and a Citation

I changed the language usage - in a key section about the target acquisition and information sharing - please chat on this before reverting - it was not written in standard English and I do not want an edit war over something so obvious - BeingObjective (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets chat - I am sure it can be better written - but it was not good.

'The radar system of the Trophy technology searches, detects, and classifies incoming projectile risk, It feeds all data to the vehicle's onboard computer and also to an external network for data sharing among other supporting units. This ability is able to alert both a specific vehicles crew and the larger combat formation regarding such incoming threats, the use of ‘shooter locations’.

This data sharing and shooter location assist in the units combat effectiveness – allowing other assets to acquire the hostile target and not just a single armored vehicle. Trophy can identify if a threat will miss the targeted platform, in this case – it will not activate the countermeasure but provides shared location data, enabling rapid engagement by the full combat team.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeingObjective (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Numerous language changes

I made a number of largely wordsmithing mods. All are comprehensively documented - might needs tweaks. BeingObjective (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Title Change Proposal

I do think the title could be changed:

TROPHY - Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles

Or some such - thoughts?

Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed citation warning tag.

I think this is a far better article than in 2022 when the 'lacks cit' tag was added - I took the liberty of removal - not sure if I need some massive consensus - many editors improved this article - and it reads fairly well IMHO.

Respectfully - Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Cost

Not sure if this section is very credible - it is a decade old and the source is not really top notch. BeingObjective (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Unclear Wording, Bad English

There is specific phrasing at play that is EXTREMELY confusing and beyond-poor english.

> "A number of explosively formed projectiles countermeasure destroy incoming threats before they hit the vehicle."

If this were proper english, I'd say this should say:

> "A number of defensive projectiles deploy explosively, and destroy incoming threats before they hit the vehicle."

... or similar.

-- 98.111.249.58 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)