BAE’s LROD Cage Armor
Related Stories: Americas - USA, BAE, Contracts - Awards, New Systems Tech, Other Equipment - Land
(click to view full)
Russian-designed RPG shoulder-fired rockets are a widespread threat in many parts of the world, including the conflict in Iraq. Though they are unguided, can be a bit tricky to aim, and have short range, their disadvantages are masked in the close-quarters reality of urban combat and other common modern battle zones. There are 3 standard approaches for protecting vehicles against incoming RPGs: (1) Heavy or layered armor the warhead can’t penetrate; (2) Reactive armor tiles that explode outward when hit, redirecting the warhead and/or dissipating the blast; and (3) “Cage armor” that either prevents the rocket’s piezo-electric “crush fuze” from detonating – or forces the warhead to detonate away from the armor underneath, ‘unfocusing’ its killer blast.*
(click to view full)
The bad news is that providing enough steel cage armor can add a couple of tons to vehicle weight, and dual-warhead designs like the RPG-27 will defeat cage armor. At the moment, however, the most common threats involve RPG-7 single warhead variants, which are also produced in quantity by China (to Iran for use abroad) and by Iran (direct shipment to Iraq and Afghanistan).
Enter BAE Systems’ LROD, developed in response to a fast-response Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program to provide RPG protection for Hummers and MRAP mine-resistant vehicles. This led BAE to ask if steel was really necessary – and the answer coming back from the US Army seems to be: no…
(click to view full)
BAE Systems’ LROD aluminum cage armor alternative provides similar protection, at less than half the weight of traditional steel. This makes it possible to attach LROD to small vehicles using bolt-on methods instead of requiring welding or full-scale cutting and chassis modification. Bolt on systems have an additional advantage: they’re easier to remove and repair in the field.
US Army officials conducted more than 50 live-fire tests, and LROD has become standard equipment on the US Army’s MRAP Class III Buffalo explosive ordnance disposal vehicles; over 100 kits have been delivered, and more are on the way for the USMC’s Buffalos.
BAE is working on LROD variants for the tracked BAE Hagglunds Bv206, BAE’s amphibious AAV7 Amtracs vehicles, BAE’s new RG-33s, and other MRAP-type vehicles as requested.
Updates and Contracts:
May 6/08: BAE Systems announces that it has received a $23.7 million contract from the Army’s Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command Life Cycle Management Command to equip 371 RG-31 vehicles and 174 MRAP-II vehicles (545 total) with its lightweight L-ROD bar-armor kits. The kits are designed to provide partial protection against anti-tank rockets, and are used widely on the US Army’s MRAP Class III Buffalo ordnance disposal vehicles.
Oct 8/07: BAE Systems announces an order for 215 LROD armor kits, under a not-to-exceed $14.5 million contract from the Army’s Tank-automotive Armaments Command (TACOM). BAE Systems will equip RG-31 and Cougar vehicles with the aluminum cage armor, which is widely used on Army Buffalo explosive ordnance disposal vehicles. See release: “BAE Systems to Provide Bar Armor Kits for 215 U.S. Army Route Clearance Vehicles.”
July 17/07: BAE announces an initial contract that will see 14 LROD kits installed on installed on U.S. Army RG-31 and RG-31A1 mine-protected vehicles from BAE OMC & General Dynamics. The first 2 kits have been installed, and the US Army will procure 12 additional LROD kits for 2007 delivery to operational units in response to an Army Operational Need Statement. The Army has also expressed interest in procuring additional kits for the entire RG31 and RG31A1 fleet, which consists of about 425 vehicles delivered or on order. See release: “BAE Systems Delivers First Lightweight RPG Protection Kits for RG-31.”
End Notes: How RPG-7s Work (*)
We know that many of our readers are engineers – hence a thank-you to DID reader Andres Kranjc. He points us to several sources that explain the detonation failure concept in more detail, from US Army TRADOC (SEC UNCLAS) documents covering the RPG-7 [PDF format], to the Netherlands-based TNO Defense, Security and Safety research lab whose “Constrictor” flexible net aims to provide precisely this kind of protection – see this DTI Ares entry for more on “constrictor.”
Those of you thinking that screens are not 100% certain to prevent warhead detonation, depending on the angle at which the piezo-electric crush fuze hits it, are correct. In general, one can expect cage armor of any sort to turn only about 50-60% of rounds into duds. Which means anyone in an RG-31 (or worse, a Hummer) could still be in for a very bad day. Andres also points us to Russian equipment manufacturers who tout cage protection against PG-9S grenades, which use much the same concept – claimed protection probability is “0.5 probability [DID: 50%] in the areas covered by grill screens.”
