APS and ERA developments

Emerging threats observed in the ongoing Russo–Ukrainian conflict and a series of conflicts in the Middle East from 2022 to 2024 have sparked renewed interest in armoured vehicles and their protection.

Contemporary solutions include various layers of protection designed to increase the survivability of armoured vehicles against multiple threats on the battlefield. Among other measures, these include newer models of explosive reactive armour (ERA) and active protection systems (APSs). Over the last two decades, the development of defensive solutions for armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) has been influenced by several factors.

After the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in 2001, many theorists envisioned future warfare as a series of high-speed operations enabled by the Network-Centric Warfare (NCW) doctrine and precision weaponry, while extended large-scale conventional conflicts with peer or near-peer adversaries were considered unlikely.[1]

This point of view led to a substantial reconsideration of the size and role of ground forces, specifically armoured fighting vehicles. As a result, large armoured formations were widely considered obsolete or excessive, while smaller, professional armies – compared to their Cold War-era counterparts – capable of rapid global deployments were now seen as effective tools for fighting low-intensity conflicts, typical of the 2000s to early 2010s.

In addition, the most common threats to armoured vehicles in low-intensity conflicts, were man-portable anti-tank weapons and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), with advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) being less prevalent.

In most cases, the protection of existing armoured vehicles was deemed sufficient to withstand the majority of threats, while additional protection was provided through the extensive use of ERA – as seen with Russian and Chinese AFV fleets – or specialised kits combining ERA with appliqué passive armour. Examples include urban warfare kits such as the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) and the Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK), both used by the US Army.

These factors, combined with tight post-Cold War budgets, have made armies worldwide less interested in APSs. With few exceptions, countries with large AFV fleets focused on cost-effective solutions, such as passive protection, leaving more advanced systems for limited adoption and experimentation. The only hard-kill APS to enter active service between 2000 and 2020 was Rafael’s Trophy APS, which was accepted into service by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 2011.[2]

During the same period, a few other countries adopted and procured soft-kill APSs systems. For example, Germany procured the Multifunction Self-Protection System (MUSS) for the Puma IFV, while Russia integrated the Shtora-1 soft-kill APS into the T-90 family of main battle tanks (MBTs).

Gradual changes began in the late 2010s, with new threats emerging and lessons drawn from combat experiences in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. The new threat environment was shaped by the proliferation of tandem-charge missiles, advanced ATGMs, and the widespread use of reconnaissance and weaponised UAVs, including models designed for top-attack missions.[3] In addition, the possibility of future large-scale conflicts with peer adversaries returned to the agenda.

The experiences drawn from ongoing conflicts have shown a controversial situation: on the one hand, armoured vehicles have proven their indispensability in combat, being the only tool capable of operating under fire and in close contact with the enemy. On the other hand, armour has demonstrated its vulnerabilities against new threats and in certain combat scenarios.

This controversy was described by Valery Mikhailovich Kashin, the chief designer of the Russian State enterprise, Machine-Building Design Bureau (KBM), in January 2017: “The conflicts in the Middle East have shown, first of all, that tanks are indispensable, and second, that it is no longer possible to provide them with adequate protection using traditional methods, including ERA – tanks are being hit, and they are burning.”[4]

The evolving threat environment prompted an increasing number of nations to revisit the issue of improving the survivability of armoured combat vehicles. The period between 2016 and 2022 was characterised by growing efforts in this field.

For example, in 2016, the US military was already experimenting with several APSs for the Army and United States Marine Corps (USMC), including the expedited non-developmental item (NDI) APS programme and the Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) programme. During this period, the US military considered various APSs of both domestic and foreign origin, including Israel’s Trophy and Iron Fist systems, Raytheon’s Quick Kill system, ARTIS’s Iron Curtain system, and Rheinmetall’s Active Defence System (ADS), now marketed as ‘Strikeshield’.[5]

Earlier, in 2015, Russia publicly unveiled its new armoured platforms: the Armata, Kurganets-25, and Bumerang 8×8. Some of these platforms were equipped with Afganit, a new-generation APS.[6] A year later, on 19 January 2017, KBM’s chief designer Kashin announced that the Arena-M APS would be integrated into the T-72 and T-90 families of MBTs, although testing was still ongoing.[7]

In August 2017, China unveiled its domestically designed GL5 APS during the Armor and Anti-Armor Day event.[8] In January 2018, the US military selected the Trophy APS for further tests and integration with the M1 Abrams platform[9], and within a year Germany announced its intention to join the ‘Trophy club’ and integrate the Trophy APS into the Leopard 2 MBT.[10]

It is worth noting that, while by the late 2010s many countries had recognised the growing need to improve AFV survivability, the pace of procurement and implementation has remained relatively slow.

Since then, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and various conflicts in the Middle East in 2023 have provided a substantial amount of new experience gained in diverse combat environments and scenarios, once again reshaping the threat environment. Yet what exactly has changed?

An evolving battlefield

Over the course of the 2020s, there have been significant changes to the threat landscape.

• AFVs are now threatened from all directions, including from above through top-attack munitions. The modern battlefield for armoured vehicles is increasingly three-dimensional rather than ‘flat’. Older concepts of focusing protection on the 60°, or 180° frontal arc, or even 360° all-around protection now seem less relevant.
• The battlefield has become more transparent with the proliferation of reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Previously, the ‘Survivability Onion’ concept emphasised that the physical protection of an AFV was one of the last layers of defence, prioritising measures to avoid detection and targeting in order to prevent being hit.[11] Now, with the proliferation of low-cost sensors such as UAVs, the role of physical protection has increased – since an active AFV is likely to be detected, prompting the enemy to concentrate all available fire assets against it.
• The threat spectrum for AFVs has expanded, with a wider variety of weapons now targeting them from multiple directions, including top-attack capabilities. This shift, driven by advances in precision-guided weapons, drones, and loitering munitions, necessitates a re-evaluation of protective measures across all classes of vehicles.

During the Cold War, the different militaries, and specifically engineers, had a clear understanding of which threats were most probable for specific classes of armoured vehicles at certain distances. For example, they recognised that MBTs were likely to face RPGs, ATGMs, or armour-piercing rounds in close combat scenarios involving direct fire over relatively short distances (roughly 1-5 km). As a result, MBTs were primarily designed with to prioritize protection over vehicle’s the frontal arc. Similarly, the engineers understood that self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) required lighter protection, sufficient to withstand shell fragments or small arms fire. It is important to emphasise that this understanding had a significant impact on AFVs design between the 1970s and 1990s.

Today, tanks can still face armour-piercing tank rounds and RPGs over the frontal arc. However, they now also require protection against precision-guided munitions, high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) and tandem-charge HEAT munitions, various drones, and loitering munitions, which can attack from all directions, including from above. SPHs, in turn, have also become increasingly exposed to long-range loitering munitions.

There have been several key factors driving changes to AFV protection requirements:

• AFVs can be attacked using combinations of various means, increasing the need for multi-layered protection, ranging from passive armour to jammers and APSs.
• The combat zone has now expanded and sometimes extends tens of kilometres beyond the line of contact. What was previously considered a close rear and relatively safer area is now within reach of enemy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and fire support assets, making it unsafe. In scenarios such as urban warfare in Gaza, the so-called ‘safe zone’ may be surrounded by hostile territory or positioned outside the main operational area.
• The expansion of combat zones has increased the need for protection for light and medium armoured vehicles, as well as for soft-skinned vehicles. This includes classes such as SPHs, logistics and resupply vehicles, or specialised ISR and C2 vehicles.

In summary, every vehicle on the modern battlefield now requires some form of protection against multiple threats. This requirement has largely shaped the evolution of AFV protection, including components such as ERA and APSs.

ERA developments

How have changes in the threat environment prompted developments in ERA, and what trends can be highlighted?

1) Where previously ERA had been largely restricted to MBTs, now combinations of passive protection and ERA are now being introduced to new classes of armoured and soft-skinned vehicles.

This trend emerged as a response to the growing threat to high-value but lightly-armoured vehicles, such as self-propelled artillery, air defence systems, recovery and engineering vehicles, to name a few. In some cases, vehicles fitted with additional ERA kits have already entered service, while in others, they have only been unveiled recently or are undergoing trials.

For example, on 13 August 2024, Russia’s Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) plant delivered a batch of upgraded BREM-1M ARVs equipped with Relikt ERA elements.[12] On 5 November 2024, UVZ reported the delivery of another batch of TOS-1A heavy thermobaric multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), also equipped with Relikt ERA modules.[13] Earlier, on 31 October 2023, a Russian BREM-1M ARV with Relikt ERA modules was spotted somewhere in the operational area of the Russo–Ukrainian war.[14] Further armoured vehicles equipped with ERA, were showcased at the Russian Army’s annual exhibition ‘Armiya’ between 2022 and 2024, including the BREM-1M and BREM-80U armoured recovery vehicles, as well as the BMP-2M and BMP-3 IFVs, though the latter two were only presented to the public as scale models. In April 2024, footage of a BMP-3 IFV equipped with an NKDZ protection kit featuring 2S24 ERA modules was published on social media.[15] Allegedly, the vehicle was filmed in Ukraine; however, it is unclear whether NKDZ kits for IFVs are being procured by the Russian MoD or undergoing further trials.

Meanwhile, the Pangolin ERA package was presented on a prototype of the RAK M120G tracked, turreted self-propelled mortar (SPM) at the MSPO 2024 exhibition in Poland.[16] Pangolin ERA had previously been unveiled by Wojskowy Instytut Techniczny Uzbrojenia (WITU) at MSPO 2022, where it was presented as a successor to the Erawa-1 and Erawa-2 series ERA. According to the manufacturer, the new ERA can be adapted to meet the user’s expected level of protection, incorporating various levels of explosives, including low-sensitivity, as well as different types of non-explosive materials. At MSPO 2024, the Pangolin ERA was showcased in two variants: a heavier ERA for use with the PT-91 Twardy MBT and a non-explosive reactive armour (NERA) variant suitable for medium and light armoured vehicles.[17]

It can be also expected that more modular ERA/NERA kits for more classes of combat and auxiliary vehicles would emerge in the near future as demand will likely increase.

2) ERA is becoming increasingly customisable and is offered as part of modular protection solutions.

As recent combat experiences suggest, protection capable of defeating or withstanding a broad range of threats is preferable. This understanding drives manufacturers to develop and offer multilayered, modular solutions that can be adapted based on the operator’s requirements.

An example of one such system is the ASPIS (Advanced Shielding Platform Integrated System) Modular NG, unveiled on 10 May 2023 at the DEFEA exhibition in Greece.[18] According to manufacturer EODH, the system was designed to enhance the protection of Greek Leopard 2A4 MBTs. The ASPIS system includes two types of protection modules. The first consists of passive elements and modular ERA tiles, designed to protect the front arc and sides of the tank against kinetic energy projectiles and shaped charges. Modules of the second type are designed to protect the roof of a tank against top-attack munitions and drones; these consist of a radar sensor and static high-explosive fragmentation effectors, which function similarly to proximity-fuzed mines.[19]

In a broader view, EODH’s ‘holistic’ approach to protection combines mine protection with various passive armour solutions, ERA, and both soft-kill and hard-kill countermeasures. Notably, solutions based on ASPIS can be adapted for light and medium combat vehicles.[20]

This approach, under different names, is shared across the industry. For example, Dynamit Nobel Defence (DND) offers adaptable ERA solutions against a broad variety of threats, ranging from kinetic energy penetrators and ATGMs to IEDs and roof protection against bomblets and submunitions. As with the previous case, the ERA solutions can be customised for different types and classes of AFVs.[21] Other manufacturers, such as Rafael, Elbit Systems, Rheinmetall, and others, largely follow this trend by offering integrated and adaptable solutions.

3) New survivability enhancement packages are expected to emerge for both modern and older AFV designs.

As the War in Ukraine illustrates, almost every AFV fielded by the belligerents, regardless of its age or country of origin, has eventually been equipped with additional protection. Furthermore, ERA configuration patterns designed prior to the conflict have been upgraded, and their evolution continues.

For example, Russia entered the war with several models of MBT, with the T-72 forming the backbone of its fleet, supported by smaller numbers of T-80 and T-90 tanks. These tanks were most commonly equipped with second-generation Kontakt-5, along with smaller quantities using first-generation Kontakt-1, third-generation Relikt ERA, or configurations combining modules from various packages. Combat experience from the initial phase of the war has revealed a number of vulnerabilities, including unprotected sights and observation devices and weak spots in ERA arrangement. The latter issue proved especially critical during urban combat scenarios.[22] From 2022 through 2024, manufacturers such as Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) and Omsktransmash have addressed these issues through incremental upgrades to both serially-produced and refurbished MBTs. Among other improvements, the upgraded versions of the T-72, T-80, and T-90 families of tanks received rearranged ERA kits, now designed for 360° protection, covering weak spots on the turret roof, gun mantlet, sides, and rear hull and turret.

Importantly, recent research on AFV employment in combat acknowledges that tanks not equipped with ERA or those with weak zones are extremely vulnerable to enemy fire. Additionally, certain lightly armoured AFVs, such as the BTR-70 APC, have been deemed unsuitable for modern combat altogether.[23] Notably, survivability upgrades for older AFVs remain a critical issue for many armies operating mixed fleets of modern and aging armoured vehicles, including designs first adopted in the 1970s or even earlier. It is therefore likely that the demand for survivability enhancement packages will increase in the near future.

Numerous manufacturers already offer such upgrades. For example, EODH provides upgrade packages that combine ERA and passive protection for vehicles such as the Leopard 1HEL, Leonidas 300 AAPC, and M113HEL.[24] Similar solutions, combining ERA and passive armour, are offered by Turkish manufacturer Roketsan, covering a broad range of armoured vehicles, from the Leopard 2A4 and T-72 to the M113.[25]

4) Next-generation ERA packages are currently in development or undergoing trials.

Russia has continued to develop its fourth-generation Monolit ERA designed for the Armata platform family, however, its current development status is unknown.[26] On 19 July 2023, Russian media reported the deployment and testing of a batch of T-14 Armata MBTs in Ukraine.[27] Later, on 23 August 2023, the TASS news agency, citing an undisclosed source within the Russian military-industrial complex, stated that the T-14 Armata would undergo further modifications based on the results of its trials in the field.[28] This suggests that the testing of the T-14 in a real combat environment has revealed areas for improvement; however, it is unclear whether these include the Monolit ERA.

Meanwhile, India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has intensified efforts in domestic ERA development. On 10 April 2023, the DRDO announced the completion of work on the ERA Mk II, suitable for use on Russian T-series tanks and the Arjun MBT.[29] On 23 November 2024, the DRDO reported finalising the development of their new ERA package, simply called: ‘Next Generation Explosive Reactive Armour’ (NGERA).[30]

Despite many countries intensifying efforts on new-generation ERA packages in recent years, many research and development projects are expected to conclude only by 2030 or later, aligning with the trials of next-generation platforms. However, it is also possible that new ERA systems could be deployed earlier due to high demand or emerging threats.

APS developments

Although many countries recognised the growing need to develop and adopt APSs decades ago, the pace of implementation remained slow. High costs, the low probability of large-scale conventional war, and, in some cases, immature technology were among the main reasons for such an approach. APSs have seen broader deployment in recent years, with several prominent trends becoming apparent.

1) APSs for medium-weight platforms are becoming an essential component of such vehicles’ protection suite.

The concept of equipping medium-weight platforms with hard-kill active protection systems was already under consideration by many militaries in the 2010s. In 2016, the US military launched the expedited non-developmental item (NDI) APS programme, aimed at integrating hard-kill APSs onto the Army’s M1 Abrams tanks, M2/M3 Bradley IFVs, and M1126 Stryker combat vehicles.[31] Since the mid-2010s, APSs have been tested on many major modern medium platforms, including the AS21 Redback, M2 Bradley, CV90, LAV III, M1126 Stryker, and others.

By 2024, some APSs have been successfully integrated into medium platforms and fielded, while others are slated for deployment in the near future. The Iron Fist APS, for instance, has been integrated into the M2/M3 Bradley, CV90, AS21, and Eitan 8×8, with potential integrations into other platforms in the future.[32] On 3 December 2019, for example, Rheinmetall reported that the US Army had awarded a contract for extensive testing of the Strikeshield APS to gather data for selecting an APS for new vehicles such as the armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), and the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV).[33] Rheinmetall’s Strikeshield APS is another option on the global market. Currently, only the KF41 IFV produced in Hungary is equipped with the Strikeshield, but various armed forces have expressed interest in both the platform and the APS.

Interest in integrating APSs into medium-weight platforms has revived in China and Russia. On 19 July 2024, Rostec announced that APSs designed for IFVs were currently under development, and a representative of Russia’s Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering (SKBM) outlined three main areas that the manufacturer is currently focusing on: “Our work is concentrated in three main areas: suppression using electronic warfare, protective structures, and physical destruction of drones at a certain distance. Efforts are underway in all three areas. We cannot provide more specific details, but the scope of work is broad, ranging from anti-drone shields to active protection systems,” the representative said.[34]

In November 2024, China unveiled a previously unknown air-droppable IFV equipped with the GL-6 APS.[35] Notably, GL-6 uses a design similar to Iron Fist, using a traversable effector launcher with two launch tubes for grenade-type effectors, albeit the tubes are in a side-by-side configuration, rather than over-and-under as seen on Iron Fist.

Over time, it is likely that more militaries will seek integrated solutions combining both hard-kill and soft-kill APSs for a wide range of armoured and soft-skinned vehicles. Similar to passive protection, the demand for modular and customisable systems that can be adapted for various platforms – ranging from MBTs and IFVs to trucks and LMVs – could increase. A relevant recent indicator of things trending in this direction is Rheinmetall’s modular Strikeshield APS, which is able to be fitted to a wide variety of vehicle types.[36]

2) As a response to the proliferation of top-attack threats, manufacturers are adapting APSs to counter drones, loitering munitions, and other top-attack weapons.

This development is likely the most significant in the field of APSs, with Israel in particular standing out in terms of developments aimed at countering top-attack threats. On 9 February 2023, Israeli defence company Rafael upgraded the Trophy APS with ‘silent mode’ designed to reduce the vehicle’s electronic signature.[37] On 8 October 2024, Rafael unveiled a further upgrade to Trophy, providing it the capability to counter some forms of top-attack munitions, including drones.[38] While the first upgrade aims to reduce the chances of the AFV being detected by enemy sensors, including those deployed on reconnaissance UAVs, the second increases the chances of avoiding hits from loitering munitions. The manufacturer offers these upgrades for both newly produced and already deployed APSs, which is significant considering the large number of active systems in service.

Elbit’s Iron Fist APS largely follows a similar trajectory. The threat posed by loitering munitions was previously identified, prompting the system’s adaptation to counter drone attacks through a variety of countermeasures, including the platform’s remote weapon station, soft-kill disruptors, and hard-kill effectors.[39]

Despite the fact that the Afganit and Arena-M systems were unveiled in 2013 and 2015, respectively, neither system has entered mass production to date. However, since 2022, Russia has intensified its efforts to improve and adopt hard-kill APSs. During 2022 and 2023, industrial patents were registered for T-90M and T-72B3M tanks equipped with APSs.[40] On 5 April 2023, Russian media, citing sources in industry, reported that an Arena-M APS installed on a T-72 MBT had successfully completed live-fire trials against ‘Russian ATGMs and captured munitions of foreign origin’.[41] It is unclear whether Arena-M has received anti-drone and anti-top-attack capabilities; however, some observers believe that delays in adopting Arena-M and Afganit may be due to the need to upgrade both systems with these features. Importantly, in September and October 2024, T-90M and T-72B3M MBTs fitted with elements of Arena-M were filmed at UVZ’s production line.[42] This development could indicate that the system has been sufficiently improved to enter at least low-rate initial production and limited service.

Finally, more countries are considering the adoption of APSs, or have already started research and development programmes. In March 2023, South Korea’s Hanwha began a project aimed at building an APS capable of ‘responding to multiple threats’ by developing ‘composite active protection technology’ and ‘ground-based directional interference technology’ by 2026.[43]

Protected Everything

The threat environment for AFVs has significantly evolved, requiring advanced protective measures to counter an increasingly complex array of threats. Additionally, the proliferation of long-range precision weapons and tactical ISR assets has expanded the combat area, demanding protection for new classes of vehicles, including IFVs, self-propelled artillery, and even logistics vehicles.

This concept aligns with the experiences of the Russo–Ukrainian conflict, which has demonstrated that nearly every armoured vehicle deployed in Ukraine, regardless of its origin, age, or class, has eventually received additional protection in one form or another.

AFVs now require multilayered protection systems capable of countering various threats and their combinations. Combat experiences from the war in Ukraine indicate that, for instance, an MBT may encounter mines, artillery fire, loitering munitions, and ATGMs within a single engagement. Conflicts in the Middle East illustrate the same pattern, where MBTs face IED threats and multiple RPG attacks from close range, or combined attacks by ATGMs and loitering munitions.

The protection suites deployed in Ukraine, for example, represent attempts to implement rapid, multilayered protective solutions. These typically include camouflage or thermal camouflage systems, advanced ERA kits providing 360° protection, passive armour screens for the hull and turret roof, soft-kill active protection systems, and electronic warfare (EW) jammers. It is likely that these measures will soon be supplemented by hard-kill APSs.

Both existing and future protection systems are likely to move towards greater operational flexibility through modular design. This would allow for the rapid installation of various combinations of passive elements and active countermeasures based on a range of operational variables, including enemy capabilities, terrain, and specific mission objectives. This approach not only enhances the survivability of AFVs but also ensures operational flexibility across diverse combat scenarios. Greater attention will be paid to situational awareness systems and sensor packages, allowing them to detect incoming threats and react with necessary countermeasures. Additionally, R&D programmes focused on directed energy weapons for anti-UAV defence and collective AFV protection solutions are expected to continue. Finally, more protective systems will likely be tailored to specific vehicle types and mission profiles, as each vehicle faces unique threats.

The requirements for enhanced protection of armoured and soft-skinned vehicles present several challenges – engineering, budgetary, and logistical, among others. For example, deploying advanced protection systems across a large fleet of armoured vehicles may lead to a substantial increase in expenses. The same issue applies to fleet management.

Logistics is a particularly pressing challenge; armoured units require more maintenance, more storage space, and greater volume for transport during redeployments. This could lead to changes in the organisational structure and, eventually, an increase in costs. Wider adoption of complex protection systems will likely require more training or retraining of personnel, further increasing demands on resources such as time and funding. The wider adoption and serial production of new protection systems, however, could help lower production costs, making them more affordable over time. Finally, implementing new protection systems may require substantial redesigns of the AFV. In particular, this relates to rebalancing the inevitable increase in weight and power requirements.

In sum, to enhance survivability and remain mission-capable on the modern battlefield, armoured vehicles will require some form of additional protection. This need applies equally to existing designs and future systems slated for deployment in the 2030s and beyond.

Alexey Tarasov

[1] Information as a Key Resource: The Influence of RMA and Network-Centric Operations on the Transformation of the German Armed Forces. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/occasional-papers/information-key-resource-influence-rma-and-network-centric-operations-transformation-german-armed

[2] https://www.rafael.co.il/system/trophy-aps/

[3] Video reportedly shows ISIS drone dropping bomb on Iraqi tank, 3 November 2017 – https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/video-reportedly-shows-isis-drone-dropping-bomb-on-iraqi-tank/video/807ba3094fc14299b94636ce0a440fcd

[4] Kashin’s interview, https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/17487993

[5] Army and Marine Corps Active Protection System (APS) Efforts. Congressional Research Service. Andrew Feickert. August 30, 2016

[6] Russia unveils new Armata tank for WW2 victory parade https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32478937

[7] Kashin’s interview, 19 Jan 2017 https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3953089

[8] GL5 introduced – The Paper, https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1765865

[9] M1 Tanks Getting Trophy Anti-Missile System As Army Reorients To Major Wars  https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/261-m1-tanks-getting-trophy-anti-missile-system-as-army-reorients-to-major-wars/

[10] Deutsche Leoparden erhalten Trophy – https://esut.de/2019/01/meldungen/ruestung2/10349/leoparden-trophy-rafael/

[11] Integrated Survivability Assessment. Gary L. Guzie. Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL. April, 2004

[12] BREM-1M with ERA, 13 Aug 2024 – https://t.me/uvznews/2724

[13] Upgraded TOS-1A with ERA, 5 nov 2024  – https://t.me/uvznews/2758

[14] BREM-1M with ERA, somewhere in the zone of Ru-UA conflict. Exact location unknown. 31 October 2023. – https://t.me/Ugolok_Sitha/16821?single

[15] Footage with BMP-3 with ERA, 26 April 2023 – https://x.com/JanR210/status/1783805654970384742

[16] Pangolin ERA on RAK-120 https://zbiam.pl/mspo-2024-witu-prezentuje-nowe-wersje-pancerza-pangolin/

[17] Pangolin at MSPO-2022 – https://zbiam.pl/mspo-2024-witu-prezentuje-nowe-wersje-pancerza-pangolin/

[18] ASPIS unveiled – https://www.edrmagazine.eu/aspis-modular-ng-heavyweight-protection-from-eodh

[19] EODH, ASPIS – https://www.eodh-protection.com/activities/upgrade-packages/leopard-2a4-c-51.html

https://www.eodh-protection.com/images/uploads/files/LEOPARD%202%20ASPIS.pdf

[20] EODH holistic approach – https://www.eodh-protection.com/activities/protection-solutions/aspis-modular-c-27.html

[21] DND – ERA and 360 protection solutions – https://dn-defence.com/produkte/vehicle-protection/

[22] Бронетанковая техника на СВО, МТО ВС РФ № 10 2024Г, Сергей Александрович ТИШИН – 11 Oct 2024 https://mto.ric.mil.ru/Stati/item/605620/

[23] Бронетанковая техника на СВО, МТО ВС РФ № 10 2024Г, Сергей Александрович ТИШИН – 11 Oct 2024 https://mto.ric.mil.ru/Stati/item/605620/

[24] EODH upgrade packages – https://www.eodh-protection.com/activities/upgrade-packages/leopard-1hel-c-17.html

[25] Rocketsan catalogue – https://www.roketsan.com.tr/uploads/docs/kataloglar/ENG/1674211734_bkm-eng.pdf

[26] Monolit ERA cited by the CEO of NII Stali to CAST, 2017 – https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2975999.html ;

Monolit ERA on NII stali website https://www.niistali.ru/about-company/stati-nashikh-avtorov/budushchee-v-zashchite/?utm_referrer=https%3a%2f%2fwww.google.com%2f

[27] 19 июля 2023, 03:18 – Военная операция на Украине. Источник сообщил о применении группировкой “Юг” танков “Армата” в боевых действиях – https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/18307479

[28] 22 августа 2023 – “Танк “Армата” несколько раз применялся к зоне боевых действий на Украине. По результатам применения в спецоперации машину сейчас дорабатывают” – https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/18555527

[29] ERA Mk II https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/era-mk-ii-ngera

[30] NGERA – https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/era-mk-ii-ngera

[31] Army and Marine Corps Active Protection System (APS) Efforts. Congressional Research Service. Andrew Feickert. August 30, 2016

[32] Eitan, Iron Fist integration – https://defense-update.com/20221212_ironfist-integration.html

[33] RM Strike Shield testing, 2019 – https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/news-watch/news/2019/2019-12-03_rheinmetall-strikeshield-active-close-in-protection-system-selected-for-substantial-testing-by-u.s.-army

[34] SKBM’s three main areas – https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/21399341

[35] GL-6 – https://x.com/Defense_GDA/status/1853820231409672342

[36] Rheinmetall’s ADS – https://www.ads-protection.org/products/functional_principle/

[37] Trophy, silent mode – https://euro-trophy.de/news/eurotrophy-introduces-trophy-aps-silent-mode/

[38] Trophy upgraded with anti top-attack capability – https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2024/10/08/trophy-vehicle-defense-system-gets-top-attack-upgrade/

[39] Iron Fist – https://elbitsystems.com/blog/like-a-fist-full-of-iron/

[40] T-72B3M patent https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=2797958&TypeFile=html ;
T-90M patent – https://fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUDE&DocNumber=136227&TypeFile=html

[41] Arena-M on T-72 trials – https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/17451003

[42] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IhswZTIuBU

[43] Hanwha to develop APS, 2023.03.03 –https://www.hanwha.co.kr/newsroom/media_center/news/news_view.do?seq=8219